Crim Law All Cases

1.
PEOPLE VS SICAT
G.R. No. 89278, Sept 4, 1992
FACTS:
Pat. Nestor Allado was informed by a certain Alvin Yusi that accused Fernandito Sicat slashed
his throat. He and Pat. Rolly Cortez proceeded to the place of the accused and asked the accused
to surrender peacefully. The accused finally decided to give up by throwing a blood-stained
improvised knife
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused in entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense?
RULING:
No. Self-defense is further negated by the manner of infliction and the number of physical
injuries sustained by the appellant’s wife. The appellant’s wife suffered six (6) stab wounds, two
(2) of which were fatal wounds. The stabbing of the wife was not even necessary.
2. PEOPLE VS BINONDO
G.R. No. 97227, OCTOBER 20, 1992
FACTS:
Domiciano Dinopol went to the accused house and forced open the kitchen door. When he was
about to enter, Cecilio aimed his rifle at the head of Domiciano and fired at him. Knowing of
Domiciano having an amulet which could revive him if his body is doused with water, he finally
decided to cut off his head completely.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to self-defense?
RULING:
No. There were no findings that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression or unjust
provocation. The oral threat made by Domiciano to kill him unaccompanied by any other
unequivocal act clearly showing his intent to carry out his threat does not constitute unlawful
aggression.
3. PEOPLE VS BALINAS
G.R. No. 181631, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
FACTS:
Appellant confronted Sayson about the latter’s intervention earlier inside the gambling place.
Sayson replied that he wanted to settle things for the sake of peace. Thereafter, Sayson and
Gomez left the store but appellant overtook the duo and stabbed Sayson twice on the chest.
Appellant immediately ran away while Sayson shouted for help. Appellant in his defense insisted
that it was Sayson, the victim, who initiated the attack.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled can invoked self defense?
RULING:
No, there is no clear and convincing proof that appellant’s acted in defense of his life, especially
since his life was never in danger in the first place.
4. PEOPLE VS FLORA
G.R. No. 181594, AUGUST 28, 2008
FACTS:
Appellants Rolly, Maurito, Ramon and Ereberto barged into the victim’s house and threatened
his family and demanded for money. Without any warning, Rolly lunged at the victim and
stabbed him left portion of his abdomen causing his death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is entitled to self-defense?
RULING:
No.There existed no unlawful aggression is evident from the facts of the case – the victim, after
arriving at his residence, was caught unaware of the crime being committed inside his house and,
after sustaining a stab wound on his abdomen, ran away from appellants. Luisito Esperida was
never an aggressor, he was a victim.
5. PEOPLE VS PAYCANA
G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008
FACTS:
Appellant, came home from the slaughter house carrying his tools of trade, a knife, a bolo, and a
sharpener. His wife was preparing their children for school and was waiting for him to come
home from his work. For reasons known to him alone, appellant stabbed his wife 14 times.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant is entitled to justifying circumstance of self defense?
RULING:
No. Self-defense on the part of appellant is negated by the physical evidence in the case.
Specifically, the number of wounds, fourteen (14) in all, indicates that appellant's act was no
longer an act of self-defense but a determined effort to kill his victim. The victim died of
multiple organ failure secondary to multiple stab wounds.
6. FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN VS PEOPLE 213
G.R. No. 176609, December 18, 2008
FACTS:
Paradero was tending her store when petitioner arrived and asked her for a bottle of beer. She
told petitioner that there was no more beer. Petitioner sneaked inside the store, pulled out a gun
and shot her on the left chest. She tried to defend herselfby a knife but petitioner shot her again,
snatcher the kitchen knife from her hand and fled the store.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the accused-petitioner is entitled to a justifying circumstance of self-defense?
RULING:
No, because the petitioner failed to prove with plausible evidence all the elements of self-
defense.
In stark contrast, Paradero sustained a gunshot wound on the left chest which caused her to
undergo two surgical operations. Based on the foregoing, it is difficult to believe that Paradero
was the unlawful aggressor.
7. ALMEDA VS CA 214
G.R. No. 120853, MARCH 13, 1997
FACTS:
While, Herrera and Acosta had a heated argument. Almeda grabbed the barrel of the armalite
rifle which Cbl. Salabao carried with him and pushed it down. Almeda simultaneously pulled out
his .45 caliber pistol pointed it at Cbl. Salabao's head and shot the latter in the left temple.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim?
RULING:
No. The mere cocking of the M-14 rifle by the victim (Cbl. Salabao) without aiming the firearm
at any particular target, is not sufficient to conclude that the life of the Vice-Governor, Herrera or
even of Amora was in imminent danger. A threatening or intimidating attitude per se does not
constitute unlawful aggression.
8. PEOPLE VS TAMPON 215
G.R. No. 105583, JULY 5, 1996
FACTS:
Herman Tambacan saw Entellano Gonesto, the victim, passed by his house and later, he also saw
Eleuterio Tampon who came out from the cotton tree and stabbed Entellano Gonesto which
caused the latter’s death. The appellant contended that he inflicted the fatal wound on Entellano
Gonesto while acting in defense of himself.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. What is immediately apparent from the testimony of Herman Tambacan is the fact that the
unlawful aggression was initiated not by the victim, Entellano but by the appellant himself. As
the absence of the first element suffices to override appellant's claim of self-defense, further
discussion of the other two elements is no longer necessary.
9. BAXINELA VS PEOPLE 216
G.R. No. 149652, MARCH 24, 2006
FACTS:
Baxinela was charged with homicide for killing Lajo. In his defense, he contented that he was
merely acting out of self-defense because Lajo faced him while drawing his gun.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is justified in killing Lajo for self-defense?
RULING:
No. As the evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that
moment. Just before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was safely behind the victim and holding his
arm. It was Lajo who was at a disadvantage. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor when
he grabbed Lajo's shoulder and started questioning him. None of these acts could conceivably be
deemed as unlawful aggression on the part of Lajo.
10. PEOPLE VS CUASAY 217
G.R. No. 180512, Oct 17, 2008
FACTS:
Reyes testified that while Ansuli was picking a mahjong tile, he saw accused-appellant about to
stab Ansuli so Reyes shouted "huwag." Accused-appellant, however, suddenly stabbed Ansuli
with a Swiss-type knife, hitting the latter on the right breast which caused his untimely death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is justified in killing Ansuli for self defense?
RULING:
NO. The prosecution witness, Reyes, stated that accused-appellant suddenly attacked the victim.
Reyes was able to present a convincing and straightforward account of the incident, particularly
the identity of accused-appellant and the suddenness of the attack on the victim. Accused-
appellant failed to impeach Reyes’ testimony and there was no ill motive imputed against the
latter.
11 PEOPLE VS ALETA (218)
G.R. No. 179708, APRIL 16, 2009
FACTS:
Based on testimonies of witnesses and report on investigation, the victims suffered deep and
large amount of clubbing which could not be performed by a single person. Also the victims fell
on the ground due to the impact of the wood but the accused continuously clubbed them with
wood until they died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is justified with his act?
RULING:
No. Assuming arguendo that Acob was indeed the aggressor, the aggression ceased the moment
he was disarmed and already lying on the ground after being struck by Marlo. When Marlo then
continued to club Acob while in a prone position, and struck Duldulao after he had fallen, self-
defense and defense of relative no longer avail.
12 PEOPLE VS MARA 219
G.R. No. 184050, MAY 8, 2009
FACTS:
Marcelino testified that the victim and accused-appellant were among the visitors in his house.
He said they were seated at the table, when suddenly accused-appellant hacked the victim on the
right side of his neck with a bolo. Accused-appellant contended that he acted in self-defense.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. The victim was not in the process of attacking accused-appellant from behind, but rather had
been seated at a table during a birthday celebration. Accused-appellant was the instigator, not the
victim, Gaudencio. As the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is absent,
accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense must fail.
13 PEOPLE VS REGALARIO 220
G.R. No. 174483, MARCH 31, 2009
FACTS:
Accused appellants were charged with murder for killing Rolando Sevilla. In Ramon
Regalario’s defense, he contended that he was merely acting out of self-defense because Sevilla
thrust and fired his gun at him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ramon Regalario can validly use self-defense to exempt him from criminal
liability?
RULING:
No. The inceptive unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased to exist and the
continuation of the offensive stance of Ramon put him in the place of an aggressor. There was
clearly no longer any danger, but still Ramon went beyond the call of self-preservation. Ramon’s
claim of self-defense is further belied by the presence of stab wounds as well as multiple
abrasions and contusions on different parts of the victim’s body.
14 PEOPLE VS ALETA (221)
G.R. No. 179708, APRIL 16, 2009
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. The aggression ceased the moment he was disarmed and already lying on the ground after
being struck by Marlo. Even if Marlo's account that Duldulao approached with a piece of wood
above his head, the same, albeit intimidating, cannot be said to reek of imminent and actual
danger.
15 PEOPLE VS RAZON 222
G.R. No. 158053, JUNE 21, 2007
FACTS:
Razon told PO1Chopchopen that he was held up by three men at Dreamland Subdivision. When
they went to the place of incident, Chopchopen noticed a person lying on the ground soaked in
blood. He was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo, a polio victim and one of the hold-
uppers. Razon admitted he killed the victim but insisted that he did so in self-defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner acted in self-defense in killing Gonzalo?
Aggression
RULING:
No. Even assuming that some danger did in fact exist, the imminence of that danger had already
ceased the moment petitioner was able to disarm the victim by wresting the knife from the latter.
16 HERRERA VS SANDIGANBAYAN (223)
G.R. No. 119600-61, FEBRUARY 13, 2009
FACTS:
The accused who were then public officers, armed with guns shoot SHI SHU YANG on the
different parts of his body, causing his immediate death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused acted in self-defense?
RULING:
No. Considering that both deceased where handcuffed and unarmed and had restricted
movements, it could only mean that the perceived threat to petitioners’ lives were not sufficiently
serious, in which case they were not justified in shooting the hapless victims who were unarmed.
Petitioners could have simply subdued the two victims in a manner as to engage them in a fight
without necessarily killing them.
17 PEOPLE VS ALETA 224
G.R. No. 179708, APRIL 16, 2009
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused employed reasonable necessity to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression?
RULING:
NO. Marlo's repeated clubbing of the already unarmed and helpless victims inside their own
compound is clearly unreasonable. Marlo did not thus intend to merely repel the alleged attack.
He wanted to be sure that the two victims would not survive.
18 FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN VS PEOPLE 225
G.R. No. 176609, December 18, 2008
FACTS:
ISSUES:
aggression?
RULING:
No, the second element of self-defense is absent. In the case at bar, there was no reason or
necessity for petitioner to shoot Paradero with a gun. Paradero was merely tending her store and
did not attack or place in danger the life of petitioner during the incident.
19 PEOPLE VS RAZON 226
G.R. No. 158053, JUNE 21, 2007
FACTS:
Razon told PO1Chopchopen that he was held up by three men at Dreamland Subdivision. When
they went to the place of incident, Chopchopen noticed a person lying on the ground soaked in
blood. He was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo, a polio victim and one of the hold-
uppers. Razon admitted he killed the victim but insisted that he did so in self-defense.
ISSUE:
aggression?
RULING:
No. The defense employed by petitioner also cannot be said to be reasonable. The deceased was
a polio victim, which explains the presence of the wooden cane at the scene of the crime.
Petitioner also admitted that when he went after Gonzalo, he had in his possession two knives.
20 FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN VS PEOPLE 227
G.R. No. 176609, December 18, 2008
FACTS:
ISSUES:
Whether or not the third element of self-defense is attendant in the case at bar?
RULING:
No, the third element of self-defense is not attendant in the present case. Petitioner shot Paradero
when she told him there was no more stock of cigaretters. Paradero then was forced tp grab a
knife to defend herself. Clearly, the petitioner provoked Paradero and not the other way around.
21. URBANO vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 182750, January 20, 2009
FACTS:
Tomelden and Urbano, both drunk, had a heated altercation which led to Urbano hitting
Tomelden. Tomelden was brought to the hospital and was diagnosed with brain injury. He was
released from the hospital even without improvement due to financial constraints. Thereafter, he
died.
ISSUE: WON THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PRAETER INTENTIONEM

SHOULD BE APPRECIATED IN THIS CASE?
HELD: Yes. Tomelden’s insulting remarks directed at petitioner and uttered immediately before
the fist fight constituted sufficient provocation. Petitioner was the one provoked and challenged
to fist fight. In fact, petitioner, being very much smaller in height and heft, had the good sense of
trying to avoid a fight.
22. HERRERA VS SANDIGANBAYAN (229)
G.R. No. 119600-61, FEBRUARY 13, 2009
FACTS:
Accused who were public officers, armed with guns shoot SHI SHU YANG on the different
parts of his body, inflicting serious and mortal wounds upon said victim, which caused his death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused acted only in the fulfilment of their duty?
RULING:
There was no showing that petitioners should resort to inflicting injuries and even to the extent of
killing the victims as there was no resistance at all from them when they were apprehended.
Clearly, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of the
petitioners and the other police officers does not apply.
23. ANGCACO VS PEOPLE 230
G.R. No. 146664, Feb 28, 2002
FACTS:
Petitioners were ordered to serve a warrant of arrest to Berganete. They fired a warning shot to a
man whom they thought was Bergante. When they saw that the man had a bolo, they shot him
and later learned that it was Ganancial whom they killed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused acted in fulfilment of a lawful duty?
RULING:
No, the petitioner cannot claim that the killing was done in fulfillment of a lawful duty. No
evidence was presented by the defense to prove that Ganancial attempted to prevent petitioner
and his fellow officers from arresting Bergante. There can be no question that the killing of
Ganancial was not a necessary consequence of the arrest to be made on Bergante.
24. PEOPLE VS CABALLERO 231
G.R. No. L-23249, Nov 25, 1974
FACTS:
Cunigunda killed her husband Caballero when she was being beaten and choked by the latter due
to jealousy. Cunigunda was charged with parricide.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to self-defense in this case?
RULING:
All the elements of self-defense are indeed present in the instant case. Undoubtedly appellant
herein did not give sufficient provocation to warrant the aggression or attack on her person by
her husband, Francisco. While it was understandable for Francisco to be angry at his wife for
finding her on the road in the middle of the night, however, he was not justified in inflicting
bodily punishment with an intent to kill by choking his wife's throat.
25. PEOPLE VS NARVAEZ 232
G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 2003
FACTS:
Juan, et.al, together with the two deceased were fencing the land of Fleischer. At the place of the
fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant Narvaez. Appellant asked the group to stop the
fencing to which an altercation ensued which caused Narvaez to shot Fleischer and Rubia.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is justified in killing the two victims?
RULING:
No. Appellant’s act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements for
justification are present. He should therefore be held responsible for the death of his victims, but
he could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to
paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
26. PEOPLE VS MATEO 233
G.R. NO. 179036, JULY 28, 2008
FACTS:
A buy-bust operation was conducted by Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council against alias Ato who was allegedly
selling drugs. However, accused claimed that he was brought by two men to a room and took his picture when he
was not able to point out a certain “Eboy”. He saw plastic sachets of shabu inside the room.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the buy-bust operation conducted is legitimate?
RULING:
Yes. It is worth noting that the defense failed to point out any single mistake or inconsistency in the testimonies of
the policemen. Consequently, the respective rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals upholding the
regularity and legitimacy of the conduct of the buy-bust operation must be affirmed.
28. US vs Cueto 234
G.R. No. 147764, January 16, 2003
FACTS:
Zapanta filed a complaint against accused for alleged gun-toting. Eduardo Andal was tasked to
serve the summons on accused, which the latter resented. Later, accused shot Andal which
caused his death. Accused-appellant interposed self-defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is entitled to self-defense?
RULING:
No. In the case at bar, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses belied any act of aggression
on the part of the victim. It was established that at the time of the incident, the victim was
unarmed and clearly had no idea of the impending attack on his person.
28. PEOPLE VS JAURIGUE 235
C.A. No. 384.
FACTS:
The deceased was courting the accused in vain. One day, the deceased entered a chapel, went to
sit by the side of the accused, and placed his hand on the upper part of her thigh. Accused pulled
out her fan knife and stabbed the deceased on the neck inflicting a mortal wound.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is justified in killing Amado?
RULING:
No. The means employed by the accused in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive.
The chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were already several people, including her
father and the barrio lieutenant, inside the chapel. Under the circumstances, there was and there
could be no possibility of her being raped.
29. PEOPLE VS RODRIGUEZ
G.R. NO. 223528, JANUARY 11, 2017
FACTS:
Hirang, was charged before the court with the crime of qualified trafficking in persons. Upon arraignment, Hirang
entered a plea of not guilty. He argued that he was merely instigated to commit the offense, but even such defense
deserves scant consideration
ISSUE:
Whether or not HIRANG'S RIGHTS UNDER R.A. NO. 7438 WERE VIOLATED?
RULING:
NO. Even as the Court considers the alleged failure of the apprehending police officers to inform Hirang of the
Miranda rights upon his arrest, there is no sufficient ground for the Court to acquit him. The CA correctly explained
that any defect in the arrest of the accused was cured by his voluntary act of entering a plea and participating in the
trial without raising the issue.
30. PEOPLE VS OANIS 237
G.R. No. L-47722, JULY 27, 1943
FACTS:
Oanis and Gallanta were instructed to arrest Balagtas, and to get him dead or alive. They went to
the suspected house and there they saw a man whose back is against the door who resembles
Balagtas. They then fired at him, not knowing that the person was Tecson, an innocent man.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused acted only in the fulfilment of their duty?
RULING:
The instant case found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate
action. The person in the room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and opportunity to
ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if
any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was unarmed.
31. People vs Genosa 238
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
FACTS:
Appellant killed his husband Ben Genosa when the latter allegedly flew into a rage seeing her
packed clothes, and dragged her outside of the bedroom towards a drawer holding her by the
neck.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to self-defense arising from the "battered woman
syndrome?
RULING:
No. The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the
battered woman syndrome. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all of the
elements of the “battered woman syndrome” were duly established.
32. DOLINA VS VALLECERA 239
G.R. No. 182367, DECEMBER 15, 2010
FACTS:
Dolina filed a petition for the issuance of a temporary protection order against respondent
Vallecera for alleged woman and child abuse under Republic Act (R.A.) 9262. She added a
prayer for support for their supposed child. Vallecera opposed the petition and claimed that
Dolina’s petition was one for financial support rather than for protection against woman and
child abuses;
ISSUE:
Whether or not Dolina’s action for temporary protection order is bereft of merit?
RULING:
Yes. Although the issuance of a protection order against the respondent in the case can include
the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a
protection order and to legal support.
33. GARCIA VS DRILON 240
G.R. No. 179267, JUNE 25, 2013
FACTS:
Jaype-Garcia filed a verified petition for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
against her husband, Garcia, pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical
abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result of marital infidelity on the
part of petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the injured party is entitled to the relief and protection under VAWC?
RULING:
Yes. Indubitably, accused-petitioner may be removed and excluded from private respondent's
residence, regardless of ownership, only temporarily for the purpose of protecting the latter. Such
removal and exclusion may be permanent only where no property rights are violated.
34. Overgaard vs Valdez 241
G.R. No. 7902, September 30, 2008
FACTS:
Complaint seeks the disbarment of Atty. Valdez from the practice of law for gross malpractice,
immoral character, dishonesty and deceitful conduct. The complaint alleges that the respondent
refused to perform any of his obligations under their contract for legal services, ignored the
complaint’s requests for a report of the status of the case, and rejected demands for return of the
money paid to him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent’s acts are in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Yes, the acts of the respondent constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as an
attorney. Hence, the courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging the trust
reposed in him as a member of the bar.
35. ANG VS CA 242
G.R. No. 182835. Apr 20. 2010
FACTS:
Rustan and Irish had a relationship. When Irish learned that Rustan had gotten a girl pregnant,
she broke up with him. Later, Rustan sent Irish a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and
with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure. Rustan threatened to spread the picture through the
internet.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sending of the nude picture in this case, constitutes a violation of Section 5(h)
of R.A. 9262?
RULING:
Yes. R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that "violence against women x x x refers to any act or a
series of acts committed by any person against a woman x x x with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship."
36. PEOPLE VS DUNGO 243
G.R. No. 89420, JULY 31, 1991
FACTS:
A male person, identified as the accused, stabbed Mrs. Sigua several times. Accomplishing the
morbid act, he went down the staircase and out of the DAR's office with blood stained clothes,
carrying along a bloodied bladed weapon.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to exempting circumstance of insanity?
RULING:
No. The Court is convinced that the accused at the time that he perpetrated the act was sane. The
evidence shows that the accused, at the time he perpetrated the act was carrying an envelope
where the fatal weapon was hidden. This is an evidence that the accused consciously adopted a
pattern to kill the victim. The suddenness of the attack classified the killing as treacherous and
therefore murder.
37. PEOPLE VS RAFANAN
G.R. No. L-54135, November 21, 1991
FACTS:
The 14-year-old victim was forced by the appellant to have sexual intercourse using a bolo on her neck
as a threat. He also threatened to kill her if she reports what happened to anyone. The accused was
later convicted with rape.
ISSUE: WON the appellant should be exempted from liability on the ground of insanity?
HELD: For the defense of insanity to be sustained, it is critical that there is a complete loss of intelligence
at the time of the commission of the crime. The fact that the appellant threatened the victim with death
should she reveal she had been sexually assaulted by him, indicates that the appellant was aware of the
reprehensible moral quality of his assault.
38. PEOPLE VS DOMINGO 245
G.R. No. 184343, Mar 2, 2009
FACTS:
Accused, repeatedly stabbed Raquel Indon and her children. Two of her children died while the 2
other sustained physical injuries.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. Raquel Indon’s narration of the events presents evidence that is more revealing of
appellant’s mental state at the time the crime was committed. Appellant’s reply to her pleas that
her daughters’ lives be spared, "Ngayon pa, nagawa ko na," was a positive sign that he was
aware of what he was doing, and that his reasoning faculties were unimpaired.
37. PEOPLE VS RAFANAN
G.R. No. L-54135, November 21, 1991
FACTS:
The 14-year-old victim was forced by the appellant to have sexual intercourse using a bolo on her neck
as a threat. He also threatened to kill her if she reports what happened to anyone. The accused was
later convicted with rape.
ISSUE: WON the appellant should be exempted from liability on the ground of insanity?
HELD: For the defense of insanity to be sustained, it is critical that there is a complete loss of intelligence
at the time of the commission of the crime. The fact that the appellant threatened the victim with death
should she reveal she had been sexually assaulted by him, indicates that the appellant was aware of the
reprehensible moral quality of his assault.
40. PEOPLE VS GALIGAO 247
G.R. NOs. 140961-63, JANUARY 14, 2003
FACTS:
Accused raped his three daughters Dorivie, aged 10, Deborrah, 8 and Daisy, 13. He admitted that he raped his three
daughters because he suspected that his wife was carrying an illicit affair with another man:
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. There must be complete deprivation of reason in the commission of the act, or that the accused acted without
discernment, which must be proven by clear and positive evidence. The mere abnormality of his mental faculties
does not preclude imputability. Indeed, a man may act crazy but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that
he is legally so.
41. People vs Del pilar 248

G.R. No. 86360, Jul 28, 1990
FACTS:
The police officers successfully conducted an entrapment to catch the spouses Del Pilar, who
were selling marijuana. At the trial, the accused denied the allegations contending that they were
victims of frame up.
ISSUE:
Whether or not what transpired was a frame-up instead of an entrapment?
RULING:
No. What actually transpired was an entrapment and not a frame-up. The records show that the
law enforcement team never planted evidence to incriminate appellant nor did they induce him to
perform any prohibited act which he would never have done but for such inducement. On the
contrary, the sale of the marijuana leaves was made by him of his own volition and the team
merely devised a means to obtain evidence thereof.
42. People vs. Esteban,
G.R. No. 148519, May 29, 2003
FACTS:
Accused was convicted by the trial court for killing Fernando. The former denied the allegations
contending that he only acted in self defense because the victim cursed and struck him with a
stone.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused may invoke self defense?
RULING:
No. The aggression ceased at the time appellant struck him with a stone. The appellant testified
that when he struck Fernando at the back, the latter was no longer in possession of the
stone. Moreover, the claim that Fernando struck him first with a stone cannot be given credence
over the testimony of eyewitness Pontino that he saw the appellant strike Fernando from the back
without any aggression on the part of the latter.
43. People vs Rivera 250
G.R. No. 182347, Oct 17, 2008
FACTS:
Through an informer’s tip, the police conducted a buy-bust operation against Rivera. Someone
acted as poseur buyer and signalled to his companions to effect the arrest. Accused was then
charged for violation of RA 9165. He alleged that he was framed up.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant was framed-up?
RULING:
No. He did not adduce any evidence showing that the police officers were maliciously
motivated. His admission that he had not met nor encountered any of the police officers involved
in the buy-bust operation prior to his arrest further bolsters the absence of such motive.
Moreover, he testified that he could not think of any reason why the police officers would falsely
impute such a serious crime against him.
44. Ching vs People 251
G.R. No. 177237, Oct 17, 2008
FACTS:
SPO1 Cadoy acted as a poseur buyer to entrap Ching who was allegedly selling shabu. The buy-
bust team was able to arrest the accused but the latter denied the accusation stating that he was
framed up.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the buy bust operation against the petitioner was a sham?
RULING:
NO. In the instant case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established by the
prosecution. The witnesses for the prosecution were able to prove that the buy-bust operation
indeed took place and the shabu subject of the sale was brought and duly identified in court. The
poseur-buyer (SPO1 Cadoy) positively identified Ching as the one who sold to him the three
plastic bags of shabu.
45. People vs Tan 252
G.R. No. 133001, Dec 14, 2000
FACTS:
NBI Agents allegedly conducted a buy-bust operatioin to capture an Tan, an illegal pusher of
shabu. Tan on the other hand interposed denial and frame up. He was allegedly abducted by the
NBI agents and was asked for a ransom money.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused were framed-up?
RULING:
Yes, the appellants have clearly and convincingly overcome the presumption that agents Soriano
and Palencia performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. Soriano and Palencia are
hiding behind the mantle of regularity of official functions in pursuit of their own dubious ends.
Besides, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself
overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
46. PEOPLE VS GARCIA 253
G.R. No. 173480, FEB 25, 2009
FACTS:
The prosecution presented a single witness, PO1 Samuel Garcia, who, as poseur-buyer, testified
that Ruiz' arrest was made pursuant to a legitimate buy-bust operation where Ruiz sold him
marijuana. The parties dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist, Jesse Abadilla Dela
Rosa, after they entered into stipulations concerning the manner and nature of his testimony.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant act is in violation of RA No. 9165?
RULING:
Given the procedural lapses pointed out above, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification
of the seized marijuana that the prosecution introduced into evidence. In effect, the prosecution
failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the
criminal liability of the accused.
47 QUINICOT VS PEOPLE 254
G.R. No. 179700, JUNE 22, 2009
FACTS:
On September 21, 2000, the said accused unlawfully sell and deliver to a poseur buyer (1) small
transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu weighing more or less 0.2 grams.7
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty as charged?
RULING:
Yes. In the case at bar, after the informant called petitioner informing the latter that there was a
buyer of shabu, a plan of entrapment was made by the policemen. The buy-bust operation was
organized specifically to test the veracity of the informant’s tip and to arrest the malefactor if the
report proved to be true. The prosecution evidence positively showed that the petitioner agreed to
sell ₱300.00 worth of shabu to the poseur-buyer and was caught in flagrante delicto.
48. PEOPLE VS AGOJO 255
G.R. No. 181318, APRIL 16, 2009
FACTS:
On August 27, 1999, the above-named accused unlawfully sell, and deliver a regulated
dangerous drug to police officers who pretended to be legitimate buyers. However, the appellants
contended that he was framed-up.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. From the spot where the buy-bust team was, they definitely witnessed the sale of shabu took
place. So, too, there was a large measure of immediacy between the time of commission of the
offense and the time of the arrest.
The appellate court acquitted appellant of a previous charge of possession of shabu, because he
was charged with illegal sale rather than mere possession of shabu. Hence, there was no attempt
to frame him up.
49. People vs Teodoro 256
G.R. No. 185164, Jun 22, 2009
FACTS:
The Mandaluyong Police conducted a surveillance and buy-bust operation for the arrest of
accused, who was allegedly selling illegal drugs. Denial, frame up and extortion were accused-
appellant’s main exculpating line.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the buy-bust operation against the appellant was a sham?
RULING:
No. The police operatives regularly performed their duties and we note that as prosecution
witnesses, gave consistent and straightforward narrations of what transpired on May 28, 2004.
As things stand, the police officers uniformly testified to having apprehended the appellant in a
buy-bust operation, and that upon being frisked, appellant was also found to be in possession of
another sachet containing a white crystalline substance later on found to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
50. People vs Lopez 257
G.R. No. 172369, Mar 7, 2007
FACTS:
"Iking" was engaged in the sale of shabu, marijuana and hashish. Thereafter, a surveillance team
was formed and later on conducted an entrapment to arrest the accused.
The defense denied the allegations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant were framed-up?
RULING:
No. The oft-repeated principle is that where the credibility of a witness is an issue, great respect
is accorded to the trial court’s evaluation thereof. Moreover, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-
motive on their part or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.
51. PEOPLE VS NAQUITA 258
G.R. No. 180511, JULY 28, 2008
FACTS:
The accused without authority sell and deliver to PO1 JOEL C. COSME, who posed as poseur
buyer, one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a dangerous drug. Appellant
argued that the policemen’s allegations are sham and false. She adds that they could not even
name the informant who allegedly revealed to them that she was a drug peddler.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the entrapment operation was valid?
RULING:
Yes. Having been caught in flagrante, appellant’s identity as seller and possessor of the shabu
can no longer be disputed. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
appellant’s plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing
evidence, must simply fail.
52. PEOPLE VS SY 259
G.R. No. 185284, JUNE 22, 2009
FACTS:
JASON SY, unlawfully sell one (1) carton box shabu weighing 987.32265) grams, a regulated
drug, to a poseur-buyer.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. The testimony of the buy-bust team established than an entrapment operation against
accused was legitimately and successfully carried out on 3 December 2000, where accused was
caught selling 987.32265 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PO2 Trambulo
negotiated, thru cellphone, with accused-appellant on the purchase price and the amount of shabu
to be delivered, actual delivery of the shabu, the giving to the accused the marked and boodle
money and the subsequent arrest of the accused show that these were testified to in a clear,
straightforward manner.
53. PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ 260
G.R. No. 184804, JUNE 18, 2009
FACTS:
On January 14, 2004, the said accused not being authorized by law sell one (1) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing (0.047) gram of "SHABU.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Appellants’ assertion that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were fabricated
because the alleged buybust operation and buy-bust money were not recorded in the police
blotter is unmeritorious. The buy-bust operation conducted on appellants was duly recorded in
the police blotter, as shown in the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet made and signed by
Inspector Tiu. With regard to the non-recording of the buy-bust money in the police blotter, this
is not essential, since they are not elements in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
54. People vs Diokno 261
G.R. No. L-45100, Oct 26, 1936
FACTS:
Salome and Yu Hiong were lovers who eloped. Upon knowledge of the elopement, Salome’s
father searched and found them. He then stabbed and killed Yu Hiong.
The accused left before the policeman arrived and was not located until after 3 days.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation?
RULING:
Yes. The fact that the accused saw the deceased run upstairs when he became aware of their
presence, as if he refused to deal with them after having gravely offended them, was certainly a
stimulus strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion which blinded them and led
them to commit the crime with which they are charged.
55. PEOPLE VS MINDAC 262
G.R. No. 83030, DECEMBER 14, 1992
FACTS:
Cirilo Bolisig was walking on his way to gather tuba and to feed his chickens. While at the
junction, he was accosted by the accused Mindac and his companions who blocked his way..
Julito Mindac stabbed Glenn Bolisig causing the latter to die.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a mitigating circumstance is present?
RULING:
No, the appellant did not actually surrender to the police but merely informed the police
headquarters about the incident, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was not
considered in favor of the accused because it was not shown that there was a spontaneous
acknowledgment by him of his guilt, or that he wished to save the authorities from the trouble
and expenses incurred in his capture.
56. De Luna vs People 263
G.R. No. 111484, June 2, 1995
FACTS:
De Luna accused Rodelas of taking his chickens. The former stabbed the victim causing the
latter’s death. The accused, however, contended self-defense. He claimed that Demetrio tried to
stab him but he was able to parry the blow. They then grappled for possession of the weapon.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete
self-defense?
RULING:
No. Whether complete or incomplete, self-defense, by its very nature and essence, always would
require the attendance of unlawful aggression initiated by the victim which must clearly be
shown.
The appellant failed to prove that the deceased was the unlawful aggressor.
57. PEOPLE VS MANGUSAN 264
G.R. No. 77832, Sept 14, 1990
FACTS:
The accused DANIEL MANGUSAN along with 2 companions were apprehended as a result of a
buy-bust operation.Tokwaban, one of the accused, pleaded the additional circumstance of
minority, stressing that he was less than eighteen years old at the time of the alleged offense and
so could claim the benefits of Articles 68 and 80 of the Revised Penal Code as a youthful
offender.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in
this case?
RULING:
No. The suggestion is not well-taken. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority is not
available in prosecutions under the Dangerous Drugs Act, which is a special law.
58. PEOPLE VS BERALDE 265
G.R. No. L-68482, Oct 23, 1985
FACTS:
Egay was convicted for peddling marijuana. He was 17 years old at the time he committed the
offense thus he invoked the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in
this case?
RULING:
No. He cannot be given an indeterminate sentence because section 2 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law provides that said law "shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished
with death penalty or life imprisonment." Presidential Decree No. 1675 imposes "life
imprisonment to death" on sale of prohibited drugs.
59. GUEVARRA VS ALMODOVAR 266
G.R. No. 75256, JANUARY 26, 1989
FACTS:
Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, then 11 years old, was playing with his best friend Teodoro
Almine, Jr. and three other children in their backyard. They were target-shooting a bottle cap
placed around 15 to 20 meters away with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. In the course of
their game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone causing his death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is criminally liable?
RULING:
No.The terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. While both are products
of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the desired of one's act while the
latter relates to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act.
60. PEOPLE VS SIMON 267
G.R. No. 93028, July 24, 1994
FACTS:
Martin Simon y Sunga sold 4 tea bags of marijuana to a NARCOM poseur-buyer, and when
subjected to laboratory examination, were found positive for marijuana.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of minority?
RULING:
No. The rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the RPC cannot and should not
be applied. A review of such doctrines reveals that the reason therefor was because the special
laws involved provided their own specific penalties for the offenses punished thereunder, and
which penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in the RPC. Since the penalties
did not provide for the periods, it would be impossible to consider the aforestated modifying
circumstances.
81.PEOPLE VS BANEZ 288
G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999
FACTS:
Bañez was charged with parricide for killing his father. He pleaded insanity as his defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not illness is an extenuating circumstance in this case?
RULING:
No. His evidence merely consisted of the testimony of his own mother that he was confined at
the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center. Also, the testimony of Dr. Gerona is inconclusive as to
whether accused-appellant was insane at the time immediately preceding or at the very moment
of the killing.
82. PEOPLE VS GUEVARRA 289
G.R. No. 182192, October 29, 2008
FACTS:
Accused armed with a caliber .45 pistol repeatedly shot Barte which directly caused the victim’s
death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not use of an unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in this case.
RULING:
Yes. PD No. 1866, states that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
83. PEOPLE VS SIMON
G.R. No. 130531, MAY 27, 2004
FACTS:
Simon and his group tied the victim’s hands behind his back with and kicked, boxed, hit the
latter with a dos por dos and a gun. As a result, the victim died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abuse of superior strength can be appreciated separately from treachery?
RULING:
NO. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and,
therefore, cannot be appreciated separately as an independent aggravating circumstance.
84. PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008
FACTS:
Accused rob 7-eleven and had a shoot-out with the store’s security guard, which caused the latter
and Duque’s death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated?
RULING:
Yes. The acts of the appellants clearly showed that they prepared to kill the victim in a manner
that would ensure the execution of the crime or make it impossible or hard for the victim to
defend himself. The victim was immediately shot at from outside the store, with a fallback
position in case this first attempt to immobilize him failed.
85. PEOPLE VS AQUINO
G.R. No. 144340-42, AUGUST 6, 2002
FACTS:
Accused was charged with rape. The child-victim was the five-year old daughter of his daughter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstance is present in this case?
RULING:
Yes. Minority and relationship qualify the offense of simple rape to qualified rape. The absence
of the words "qualifying" or "qualified by" cannot prevent the rape from qualifying as a heinous
crime provided these two circumstances are specifically alleged in the Information and proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
86. PEOPLE VS SAYABOC
G.R. No. 147201, JANAURY 15, 2004
FACTS:
Sayaboc was seen waiting at the Rooftop on that day, he then shot Galam shortly after the latter’s
arrival, and fleeing from the scene of the crime to a waiting tricycle.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is an aggravating circumstance present in this case?
RULING:
NO. Neither evident premeditation nor treachery has been sufficiently proved to qualify the
crime to murder. The aggravating circumstances of craft and price or reward, even if proved, can
neither be considered because they were not specifically alleged in the information.
87. PEOPLE VS AQUINO
G.R. No. 144340-42, AUGUST 6, 2002
FACTS:
Accused was charged with rape. The child-victim was the five-year old daughter of his daughter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstance is present in this case?
RULING:
Yes. Minority and relationship qualify the offense of simple rape to qualified rape. The absence
of the words "qualifying" or "qualified by" cannot prevent the rape from qualifying as a heinous
crime provided these two circumstances are specifically alleged in the Information and proved
88. PEOPLE VS ROSAS
G.R. No. 1777825, oct 24, 2008
FACTS:
The appellant, who was coming from the left side behind the victim, shot the latter with a pistol
at close range. After the victim fell on the ground, more gunshots were heard, which gunshots
were fired at him to make sure that he was dead.
ISSUE:
Whether or not treachery is present in this case?
RULING:
Yes. Estacio was attacked from behind and assaulted without warning and provocation. Even
when Estacio was already wounded, appellant mercilessly fired several more shots at him. He
obviously wanted to ensure the execution of the killing, without risk to himself, and deprive the
victim of any opportunity to retaliate or defend himself.
89. PEOPLE VS ABDULAH
G.R. No. 182518, JANUARY 20, 2009
FACTS:
Abdulah was the last seen companion of the herein three female victims. Thereafter, their dead
bodies were found.
ISSUE:
Whether or not treachery and evident premeditation are present in this case?
RULING:
No. It cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing to murder, considering that these were not
proven during the trial. Before they can be appreciated, it must be proved with equal certainty as
those which establish the commission of the criminal offense.
90. PEOPLE vs AMODIA
G.R. No. 177356, NOVEMBER 20, 2008
FACTS:
Amodia and six others mauled Bartina. Lo-oc hold the shoulders of the victim while Marino and
Amodia took turns in beating the victim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present?
RULING:
No. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength. There must be clear
proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available
to the person attacked.
91. PEOPLE VS JUMAWID
G.R. No. 184756, JUNE 5, 2009
FACTS:
Appellant went behind the victim, choked her neck with his left hand, and pointed the knife at
her neck using his right hand. Appellant dragged her to the bedroom and rape her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not use of a deadly weapon qualifies the crime?
RULING:
Yes. There is no need for the allegation to be preceded by the words "qualifying/aggravating,
qualifying, or qualified by" in order that such circumstance may be appreciated as such, more so
when it is the law itself which provides for the qualification of the crime.
92 PEOPLE VS GA
G.R. No. L-49831, JUNE 27, 1990
FACTS:
Accused killed an old couple in Forbes Park and their housemate and inflicted serious injury to
the couple’s daughter in the course of a robbery of a wristwatch and a transistor radio.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due to the victims on
account of age be appreciated in this case?
RULING:
No, because no evidence was presented in the commission of the crime, the appellants
deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the victims.
93. PEOPLE VS TAC-AN
G.R. No. 76338-39, FEBRUARY 26, 1990
FACTS:
Tac-an and the victim belonged to the same gang. The relationship between the two became
sour when Escano quit the said gang. Thereafter, a heated fistfight occurred between the two
inside a classroom where Mr. Pasilbas was teaching, Appellant then shot Escano causing the
death of the latter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the commission of the crime was attended with aggravating circumstance of
disregard of rank?
RULING:
Yes. A teacher is considered a person in authority. The fact that Mr. Pasilbas, was already
checking the attendance did not deter the accused from pursuing his evil act. He also held
hostage the teachers and students who were inside that room. To the court, this act of the accused
was an insult to his teachers and to the school, an act of callous disregard of other’s feelings and
safety and completely reprehensible.
94. PEOPLE VS COLLADO
G.R. No. 88631, APRIL 30, 1991
FACTS:
The accused were charged of robbery with homicide for stealing the victim’s, who is an old
woman, P5,570 and a Seiko watch.
ISSUE:
Whether or not aggravating circumstance of disregard of age and sex is present?
RULING:
No. this circumstance may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor. It is
not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery with
homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere
incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal.
95. PEOPLE VS DELOS REYES
G.R. No. L-44112, OCTOBER 22, 1992
FACTS:
Accused armed with revolvers and a hunting knife barged in at the house of Kapi Baotao.
Cresencio. They then injured the dwellers and stole money before leaving.
ISSUE:
Whether or not crime aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present?
RULING:
Yes. This should be taken into account in the imposition of the proper penalty because robbery
with homicide can be committed without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the home.
96. PEOPLE VS BASA
G.R. No. L-1212, MAY 18, 1949
FACTS:
Accused entered a house and fired several shots at the three sleeping victims, who were at that
time were guests in the said house, leaving them dead instantly.
ISSUE:
Whether or not dwelling can be appreciated as aggravating circumstance?
RULING:
Yes. The aggravating circumstance of residence, even if it was not the home of the
deceased, must be estimated because - according to the Supreme Court of Spain - "not only
because of the respect that someone else's home deserves, as a kind of complement to the
personality, and because of the that it is due to the family home, but because of the fact that the
private residence of any citizen is worthy, and because of the greater degree of malice
revealed by whoever seeks his victim there where he finds his own confidence and
abandonment of the place chosen for rest and the intimacies of life; reason for which the
Criminal Code speaks in article 10, not of domicile in the legal sense, but of residence in its real
meaning, which is none other than that of the place where a person stays as a seat,... as a guest,
or for any other. "
97. PEOPLE VS GALAPIA 304
G.R. No. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978
FACTS:
The husband, entered the house of his mother-in-law by breaking the glass blades or jalousies of
a window. He went to the bed shared by his wife and son. Thereafter, he had a physical quarrel
with his wife and mother in law, which resulted to the killing of the two.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present in the commission of the
crime?
RULING:
Yes, the crime was committed in the house occupied by his estranged wife, other than the
conjugal home. Unlawful entry is also present since the accused admittedly destroyed the glass
blades or jalousies of a window in gaining entry into the house.
98. PEOPLE VS STO TOMAS
G.R. No. L-40367-69, Aug 22, 1985
FACTS:
Accused was charged of killing his wife, mother-in-law and sister in law in the house of his
mother-in-law.
ISSUE:
crime?
RULING:
Yes. The fact that his wife’s stay in the said place may be considered as a temporary sojourn
does not negate the appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.
99. PEOPLE VS BALANSI
G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990
FACTS:
The victim, a nephew of the appellant, was then sleeping at the house of his parents when he was
killed by the accuse.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated?
RULING:
Yes. Although the victim was not shot in his house (his parents owned it) it has been held that
the dwelling place need not be owned by the victim.
100. PEOPLE VS PARAZO
G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997
FACTS:
Capulong was sleeping in her room in a boarding house she was suddenly awakened because
someone was ransacking her thing. Thereafter, the man forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.
ISSUE:
crime?
RULING:
Yes. The crime of rape was committed in the boarding house where the complainant was staying.
Dwelling may be aggravating even if it does not belong to the victim. The dwelling need not be
owned by the victim. The Code speaks of "dwelling", not domicile.
121. PEOPLE VS GANOHON

G.R. Nos. 74670-74, APRIL 30, 1991
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Prosecution witness, Bernardino, testified that he saw the accused-appellant and Gerardo Obod pass by his
house going to the house of Eduardo Anoos with bolos tacked on their hips. The next day, he heard of the news that
Eduardo and his family were hacked to death in their house.
ISSUE:
Whether or not treachery is present in the commission of the crime?
RULING:
No. In the absence of proof as to how the victims were killed, treachery cannot be properly appreciated.
Thus, the records are totally bereft of any evidence as to the means or method resorted to by the accused appellant in
attacking the victim. It is needless to add that treachery cannot be deduced from mere presumption, much less from
sheer speculation
122. PEOPLE VS CEMPRON
G.R. No. L-66324, July 6, 1990
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Gregorio Gudelusao was inside the cockpit and in a squatting position counting the bettors’ money when
suddenly, accused-appellant, holding a knife which was concealed under a cock’s wing, and while passing behind
the deceased, stabbed the latter on different parts of the body which caused his death.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. The foregoing appears that the mode of attack adopted by appellant insured the accomplishment of his
purpose without risk to himself. The trial court therefore correctly applied the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
123. PEOPLE VS ILIGAN
G.R. No. 75369, NOV 26, 1990
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Quiñones, Asis and Lukban were walking home when they met the accused-appellants. A fight ensued
between them. The trio then ran and decided to go back when they were no longer being chased. However, on their
way back, Iligan suddenly emerged and hacked Quiñones on the forehead causing him to fall down. As a defense,
they contended that the victim was run over by a vehicle.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. There must be evidence that the mode of attack was consciously adopted by the appellant to make it
impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself. In this case, the hacking of Edmundo Asis by Iligan
followed by the chasing of the trio by the group of Iligan was a warning to the deceased and his companions of the
hostile attitude of the appellants.
The group of Quiñones, Jr. was therefore placed on guard for any subsequent attacks against them.

124. PEOPLE VS LAPAN
G.R. No. 88300, JULY 6, 1992
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Violeta Parnala and her common-law husband arrived at their house, when suddenly the accused
appellants, came out of their front door and ran away. Failing to catch up with the intruders, they went inside the
house and found her housemaid and her son lying dead.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the alibi of the accused is with merit? (wara treachery issue, anes!)
RULING:
No. The requisites of a valid conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence are set out in Section 4,
Rule 133 of the Rules of Courts, thus: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction
125. People vs Gupo
G.R. No. 75814 September 24, 1990
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Magno Gupo’s group had an initial encounter with Miguel’s group but the fistfight was warded off by
Patrolman Africa, who sent them home. On their way back, Miguel's group were stopped by the defendants and saw
Magno holding a lead pipe, acting suspiciously. Prosecution witnesses testified that Flavio grabbed and pulled
Miguel from inside the jeepney, hacked him, while Magno hit him with a lead pipe.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. There is no treachery where the victim saw the four malefactors as they approached him. Neither may
treachery be appreciated where the attack was preceded by a quarrel and a heated discussion because the victim was
placed on his guard.
126. PEOPLE VS TORIBIO

G.R. No. 88098, JUNE 26, 1991
(Treachery)
FACTS:
The appellant aimed his shotgun at Romulo who was on top of the coconut tree to tap tuba. The latter was
able to dodge the shot but appellant fired again causing the victim to fall to the ground causing his death.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Romulo Sonio was clearly not in a position to defend himself at the time of the attack, he was then on
top of a coconut tree. His assailant was on the ground aiming and firing at him much as if he were a sitting duck.
There was, in other words, here the employment of means or methods or manner of execution which insured the
attacker's safety from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of the victim.

127. PEOPLE VS FLORES
G.R. No. 103801-02, OCTOBER 19, 1994
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Edwin and Demetrio were on their way home from disposing garbage when accused-appellant, apparently
drunk and carrying a gun, suddenly and for no apparent reason, fired at them. The two ran but accused-appellant
chased them and again fired at them. Alberto was hit at the back which caused his death.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. There could be no treachery since, prior to the attack, the victim has been forewarned of the danger to
his life and has even attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to escape. Moreover, there was absolutely no evidence to
show that accused-appellant consciously and deliberately employed a specific form of attack which would specially
and directly ensure its commission without impunity.

128. PEOPLE VS VIOLIN
G.R. Nos. 114003-06, JANUARY 14, 1997
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Violin and two others fired at Astorga, while a stray bullet grazed the head of Darmo while hiding at the
kitchen table. The three (3) assailants looked for Darmo but could not find him. Failing thus, they left.
ISSUE:
Whether or not killing was attended by treachery?
RULING:
Yes. The victim was not afforded the opportunity to defend himself while the assailants themselves ensured
that the crime would be consummated with the least risk to their persons. The three (3) conspirators pounced upon
their victim as soon as he stepped out of the house. The latter had no inkling at all that he would be assaulted by
them considering that they were all guests of Cesar Allego. This is indicative of treachery which qualifies the crime
to murder.

129. PEOPLE VS HERBIETO
G.R. No. 103611, MARCH 13, 1997
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Herbieto together with six (6) armed men pulled Leticio out of his house. Immediately thereafter, a gunshot
was heard. Herbieto ordered his boys to kill the other male occupants of the house. Leticio died from gunshot
wounds while two other victims sustained injuries.
ISSUE:
Whether or not killing was attended by treachery?
RULING:
No. Treachery cannot be considered because the prosecution failed to definitely establish the manner in
which the initial assault or even the fatal blows were inflicted on Leticio. Treachery cannot also be appreciated in
Criminal Cases Nos. DU-1282 and 1283 where appellants were separately found guilty of attempted murder for
wounding Timoteo and Corsino, respectively, it appearing that the latter victims have been forewarned of the attack.
The felonies were merely attempted.

130. PEOPLE VS FLORES
G.R. No. 116524, JANUARY 18, 1996
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Emperatriz Lazarte had an altercation with Lyndon Flores when the latter kick Manuel Lazarte who was
lying on the pavement dead drunk. Flores hit Lazarte three times at the breast and stomach with Lyndon's left and
right feet wearing leather shoes which caused the victim’s death.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Unquestionably, the attack was characterized by treachery. An attack upon an unconscious victim who
could not have put up any defense whatsoever is treacherous. There was absolutely no risk to accused-appellant
from any defense that the victim might have make.
131. PEOPLE VS DELPINO
G.R. No. 171453, JUNE 18, 2009
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Gabriel and his son were watching TV inside their house when they heard a knock at the door. Gabriel
asked who was knocking, but no answer. When opened the door, while he was stooping down to get his slippers,
appellant armed with a short firearm, shot him on the neck which caused his death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not treachery is present?
RULING:
Yes. The means employed by the accused-appellant by using a firearm, and firing it when the accused was
caught unaware at what could have hit him, was such that the victim would be unable to fight him back. The attack
was so swift and unexpected that the unarmed victim had no chance to resist the attack
132. PEOPLE VS ESQUEDA
G.R. No. 170222, JUNE 18, 2009
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Gaudencio was awakened by a voice coming from the outside of their house calling and asking for a drink.
These men identified themselves and informed that they were conducting a roving patrol. When Gaudencio
proceeded to open the door, an unidentified man suddenly stabbed him on the chest. The assailant also ran after
Venancia, his live-in partner, stabbing her on different parts of her body.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Petitioner misled the victims, so the latter lowered their guard and suspicion. Thereafter, when the
door was opened, the malefactors attacked them. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the
victims was treacherous.
133. PEOPLE VS BOHOL
G.R. No. 130587. July 12, 2000
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Epitacia Centeno saw the accused forcibly dragging a person wearing a barong tagalog in front of her
mother’s house. Frightened, she hid herself and watched in silence as the accused aimed a gun at the other person.
Suddenly, two gunshots were heard and the person fell to the ground. Accused fired two additional shots and walk
away. She later found out that the victim was her sister.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest
provocation on the part of the victim. From the evidence, the manner in which accused-appellant killed the victim
showed abuse of superior strength, not treachery.
134. People vs Dumcilahay - CASE NOT FOUND
380 S 37, Apr 2, 2002
(Treachery)
Replaced by:
PEOPLE vs RACAL
G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017
FACTS:
Francisco and the accused Racal, both trisikad drivers, were lining up to pick up passengers. The latter, in a
loud voice, told the group of drivers not to trust Francisco because he is a traitor. Francisco, who was eating, retorted
and asked why he was being called a traitor. Without warning, Racal approached Francisco and stabbed him several
times with a knife which caused his death.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. The appellant's sudden and unexpected onslaught upon the victim and the fact that the former did not
sustain any injury evidences treachery.
135. PEOPLE VS TAVAS
G.R. No. 123969, FEBRUARY 11, 1999
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Adorada Dulay heard a gunshot from her house located about fifty (50) meters away. She rushed to the
store where the incident happened and found his brother sprawled on the floor. The victim identified who shot him.
The accused retorted that the victim was trespassing and intended to steal.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. The shooting resulted from the accused-appellant's mistaken belief that the victim was a trespasser and
a robber. While the shooting was sudden and unexpected and gave the victim no opportunity whatever to undertake
any form of defense or evasion, this does not necessarily justify a finding of treachery, absent any evidence that this
mode of assault was consciously and deliberately adopted to insure execution of the crime without risk to the
accused-appellant.
136. PEOPLE VS HONOR
G.R. No. 175945, APRIL 7, 2009
(Treachery)
FACTS:
The victim’s group had a drinking spree at a videoke house when one of them accidentally dropped a bottle
of Mallorca near the table of the accused. The group of the accused then stared at them angrily. Thereafter, the two
groups left one after another. When they were only one meter apart, the accused suddenly stabbed the victims.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. In this case, the victims were unarmed and on their way home when they were suddenly attacked and
stabbed, hence they were helpless and without means of defending themselves.
137. PEOPLE VS GUEVARRA
G.R. No. 182192, October 29, 2008
(Treachery)
FACTS:
Inspector Barte and his companions were inside an owner-typed jeep parked near a videoke bar when
appellant suddenly appeared and asked if he was "Major Barte." Thereupon, appellant shoot Inspector Barte several
times with a short firearm and immediately fled the scene.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Treachery was alleged in the information and all its elements were duly established by the
prosecution. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellant’s attack rendered Inspector Barte defenseless and
without means of escape.
138. GANDOL VS PEOPLE
G.R. No. 180510, DECEMBER 4, 2008
(Treachery)
FACTS:
During a drinking session, Nestor and Ricardo were having an argument over the slow passing around of
the glass of gin. The accused Gandol got mad and asked the squabbling buddies to leave the living room. Thereafter,
Gandol went outside and was followed by Ricardo. There, Joseph stabbed Ricardo causing the latter’s death.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. The assault was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to
defend himself or repel the aggression. He was unarmed when he was attacked. Truly, all these circumstances
indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous
139. PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO
G.R. No. 176385, FEBRUARY 26, 2008
(Treachery)
FACTS:
The assailants went to the victim’s house. There, Antonio Bea, the caretaker, was tied. In that position, he
saw Josita being mauled by the assailants and shot her on the cheek. Thereafter, the assailants stabbed Bea four
times in the stomach with a jungle bolo.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. In the killing of Josita Novelo, she was unarmed when she was attacked. Indeed, all these
circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous. The stabbing of Antonio Bea was also
attended with treachery. The victim could not put up a defense as the attack was swift and he was not in the position
to repel the same since his hands were tied.
140. PEOPLE VS MARA
G.R. No. 184050, MAY 8, 2009
(Treachery)
FACTS:
The victim and accused-appellant were among the visitors in a birthday celebration. While seated at the
table, the accused-appellant hacked the victim on the right side of his neck with a bolo.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes, the facts are enough to show the treachery employed by accused-appellant. The attack was sudden, as
testified by the witnesses, and unexpected, considering it happened at a birthday celebration, without any warning.
Thus, the victim had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming and had no opportunity to mount a defense.
141. PEOPLE VS GLINO
G.R. No. 173793, DECEMBER 4, 2007
(Treachery)
FACTS:
The spouses Virginia and Domingo, while riding inside a jeepney, got into a heated argument with the
accused-appellants Glino and Baloes who were both drunk. They took turns in stabbing Domingo where the latter
sustained nine stab wounds throughout his body.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Domingo was caught unaware that an attack was forthcoming. Although he had a verbal exchange
with accused-appellant and Baloes, the assault was sudden, swift and unexpected. By all indications, Domingo was
without opportunity to evade the knife thrusts, defend himself, or retaliate. In sum, the finding of treachery stands
141. People vs. Glino

G.R. No.173793
December 4, 2007
Facts:
Spouses Domingo and Virginia Boji were sitting on opposing rows of the passenger
jeepney when accused-appellant Conrado Glino, reeking of liquor sat beside Virginia.
Irked by Glino’s invading her personal space, she sought Glino’s attention and asked
him to sit properly. Glino became angry but Virginia decided to ignore his snide
remarks. As the jeepney approached Casimiro Village, Baloes turned to the driver and
told him that he and Glino were about to alight. As the jeepney ground to a halt, Baloes
unexpectedly drew an improvised knife and stabbed Domingo in the chest. Accused-
appellant then unfolded a 29-inch Batangas knife and joined Baloes in stabbing
Domingo.
Issue:
Whether or not treachery is attendant in this case?

Held:
Yes. Treachery or alevosia’s presence is incontrovertible. The attack was executed in a

manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate. Concededly,
Domingo was caught unaware that an attack was forthcoming. Although he had a verbal
exchange with accused-appellant and Baloes, the assault was sudden, swift and
unexpected.
142. People v Abare
GR No 172973
Dec. 18, 2008
Facts:
Abare demanded from the victim his wages when the latter told him that he had
no money, and he replied that he could give him rice. The victim, however, told
him, "problema mo na yan, hindi ko problema yan!" The witness then saw a
scythe on top of the table which they were then using to cut calamansi fruits, and
he and the victim grappled for it. He was able to take possession of the scythe
and when the victim turned his back on him, he struck the former with a scythe.
Issue:
WON treachery was attendant in the case at bar?
Ruling:
Yes. In the case at bar, considering that the victim was suddenly hacked on his neck as
he was seated with his back turned against the window and that appellant was outside
the window when he hacked the victim, the first element has been satisfied, because no
man could have offered any type of defense under those circumstances. Thus, there
exists no cogent reason to disturb the finding of the lower court on the existence of
treachery in the case at bar.
143. People vs Balinas
GR No 181631
September 30, 2008
Facts:
Appellant and his father, Jose Balinas, Sr. were exchanging words over a bet. Sayson
tried to settle things for the sake of peace. When Sayson run into appellant in the store,
he was confronted by the latter. Sayson and Gomez left the store but appellant overtook
the duo and stabbed Sayson twice on the chest. Appellant immediately ran away while
Sayson shouted for help.
Issue:
Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery?
Ruling:
Yes. While the stabbing was preceded by a brief argument between appellant and
Sayson, it cannot be gainsaid that the attack was indeed sudden and unexpected.
Moreover, the fact that appellant went around the store in order to catch up with Sayson
showed his tenacity to execute the crime.
144. People vs Rodas
GR No 175881
August 28, 2007
Facts:
Titing Asenda was at Milaub, to help his brother, Danilo Asenda, in the harvesting of the
latter’s corn. On the evening of same day, a benefit dance was being held at Milaub.
Among those roaming in the vicinity of the dance hall were Alberto Asonda and Ernie
Anggot. They stopped and hung out near the fence to watch the affair. Titing Asenda
was standing near them. They saw Charlito, Armando, Jose Jr., and Jose Sr- all
surnamed Rodas surround Titing Asenda. Suddenly, without a word, Charlito, armed
with a hunting knife, stabbed Titing at the back. Armando then clubbed Titing with a
chako hitting him at the left side of the nape causing him to fall. Jose Sr. handed to
Jose, Jr. a bolo which the latter used in hacking Titing, hitting him on the left elbow.
Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot tried to help Titing but Armando Rodas prevented
them by pointing a gun at them and firing it towards the sky. After the assailants left,
Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot approached Titing Asenda who was already dead.
Issue:
WON there is treachery?
Ruling:
Yes. In the case under review, the victim was completely unaware that he was going to
be attacked. He was not forewarned of any danger to himself as there was no
altercation or disagreement between the accused and the victim. If treachery may be
appreciated even when the victim was forewarned, more so should it be appreciated
when the victim was not, as in the case at bar. The suddenness of the attack, the
number of the accused and their use of weapons against the unarmed victim prevent
the possibility of any defense or retaliation by the victim. The fact that the victim was
already sprawled on the ground and still Jose Jr. hacked him with a bolo clearly
constitutes treachery.
145. People vs Ellado

GR No 124686
March 5, 2001
Facts:
Appellant Roque Ellado and co-accused Rodolfo Bakunawa are brothers-in-law. On

December 19, 1994 at 6:00 P.M., Roque and Rodolfo entered the gate of Rogelio's
house. Shortly, Rodolfo left to go his separate way. Roque was left behind and talked to
Rogelio. While Roque and Rogelio were talking, Rodolfo suddenly appeared from
behind them and stabbed Rogelio. Rogelio managed to go inside his house. Roque
went near the window, aimed a knife at Rogelio and asked if the latter would still fight.
Rodolfo went around Rogelio's house. Later, Rogelio collapsed and died.
Issue:
WON treachery is attendant in this case?
Ruling:
Yes. The deceptive manner by which the two accused fatally assaulted the victim shows
that they had intended to catch him off guard, to insure the success of the attack. An
unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and
unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack
constitutes alevosia.
146. People vs Tabag
GR No 116511
February 12, 1997
Facts:
An information for murder against accused Coloma Tabag, et al was filed for the
massacre of the spouses Welbino Magdasal, Sr., and Wendelyn Repalda Magdasal,
together with their children Welbino, Jr., and Melisa, in their home on March 11, 1984 at
about 10 pm in Sitio Candiis, Barangay Cabidianan, New Corella, Davao.
Issue:
WON there was treachery?
Ruling:
Yes. On the other hand, treachery was established beyond cavil. The victims, all
unarmed, were caught by surprise and were in no position to offer any defense. There
can be no doubt in any ones mind that the accused employed means, methods, or
forms in the execution of the killings which tended directly and specially to ensure their
execution, without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
PEOPLE VS FERRER 368
G.R. No. 102062, Mar 14, 1996
FACTS:
When Florante Agtang and his companions were on thier way home two unidentified persons
approached and frisked them for hidden weapons with one of the two pointing a long firearm at
them.
They were brought near a cornfield where four (4) more persons emerged, one of whom was
identified as the accused Tomas Agner. Apolonio was able to flee. They started beating Florante
and Oscar. Upon reaching the Magsaysay Quirino boundary, Doming hit Florante with a butt of
the gun, while Camilo Ferrer and Romeo Reyes took turns in stabbing the latter. They waylaid
Florante and the group left him where he was slain, including Oscar Viernes who was released
but was forewarned not to reveal what happened to anyone.
The following morning, the incident was reported by Oscar Viernes. Acting on said report the
police found the dead body at the place pointed to by Oscar where they were maltreated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of cruelty is attendant in the commission of the
crime?
RULING:
No. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is "whether the accused
deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its
commission or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or
corpse.
The Court did not appreciate cruelty as a generic aggravating circumstance in the absence of positive
proof that the wounds were inflicted while the victim was still alive to prolong unnecessarily his physical
suffering.
PEOPLE VS BELGAR 369

G.R. No. 92155, MARCH 11, 1991
FACTS:
This is a rape case of a 12-year old girl, a mental retardate with the mentality of a 6-year old.
The assailant is a young man who is a habitual drug addict. On May 11, 1987, the accused by
means of force lay down Lorelyn Vallecer succeeded in having carnal knowledge against her
will.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the qualifying/aggravating circumstance of drug addiction is present?
RULING:
Yes. Under Section 17 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Batas Pambansa
Blg. 179, "when a crime is committed by an offender who is under the influence of dangerous
drugs, such state shall be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the definition of
a crime and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code." Their
addiction will be no excuse but will aggravate any offense they commit.
PEOPLE VS GUEVARRA 370
G.R. No. 182192, October 29, 2008
FACTS:
That on or about August 24, 2002, the accused armed with a caliber .45 pistol with intent to kill,
suddenly and without warning shot P/Chief Inspector Marcos Barte y Paz while the latter was
unarmed and completely defenseless, while the latter was unarmed and completely defenseless,
which directly caused the victim’s death. Thereafter, the accused voluntarily surrendered.
ISSUE:
Whether or not both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the
crime be offset with one another?
RULING:
No. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the aggravating circumstances of
treachery and use of an unlicensed firearm were present in the instant case. Nonetheless, the
aggravating circumstance of treachery in this case cannot be applied for offsetting because it
was already considered as a qualifying circumstance. Thus, only the aggravating circumstance
of use of an unlicensed firearm may be utilized in offsetting the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.However, use of an unlicensed firearm in murder is a special aggravating
circumstance and not merely a generic aggravating circumstance. As such, it cannot be offset by
an ordinary mitigating circumstance such as voluntary surrender.
PEOPLE VS DE LEON 371
G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009
FACTS:
The accused together with other robbers, armed with unlicensed firearms, rob ENERGEX
GASOLINE STATION. They took the money worth ₱3,000.00. Those four robbers were also
the ones who shot Edralin Macahis in the stomach. Thereafter, the same robbers took Edralin
Macahis' service firearm.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a qualifying aggravating circumstance is attendant in the case at bar?
RULING:
No. Although jurisprudence dictates that the existence of the firearm can be established by mere
testimony, the fact that appellant was not a licensed firearm holder must still be established. The
prosecution failed to present written or testimonial evidence to prove that appellant did not have a
license to carry or own a firearm, hence, the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance
cannot be appreciated
MENDOZA VS PEOPLE 372
G.R. No. 173551, OCTOBER 4, 2007
FACTS:
On 1 September 1998, petitioner a d Ernesto had a confrontation when Glenn drew a short
firearm, approached Ernesto frontally and shot the latter who was sitting at that moment. Ernesto
stood up and tried to run, but he fell towards the ground. Glenn fired more shots at Ernesto, who
was lying on the ground. When petitioner and Glenn were about to board the car, petitioner
noticed that Ernesto was still alive.
Manolito took the armalite and moved to the driver’s seat. Thereupon, shot Ernesto with the
armalite. Ruperto also shot Ernesto with a short firearm.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the penalty for murder under Art 248 of the RPC will be imposed?
RULING:
No. The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to
death. As we earlier found, there were evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior
strength and use of unlicensed firearm in the killing of Ernesto. Considering that only one
between evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength is necessary to qualify
the killing to murder, the other one becomes a generic aggravating circumstance. There being
one generic aggravating circumstance plus the special aggravating circumstance of use of
unlicensed firearm, and there being no mitigating circumstance, the penalty, following Article
63(1) of the Revised Penal Code, is death.
PEOPLE VS VERZO 373
G.R. No. L-24917, Jul 25, 1975
FACTS:
On July 6, 1962, Getulio stoned Felimon causing him to fall down from his bike. Then, an
confrontation took place between Camino and Getulio. Aterwards, the latter left and returned
with his two (2) sons Reynaldo and Roberto armed with bolos in their hands. Jariel fired his gun
in the air to stop them, but the accused ignored Jariel’s warning and assaulted Camino, who
suffered several wounds.
After Camino had fled, the three accused directed their attack against Filemon. Filemon was able
to get hold of Getulio’s hand holding the bolo. They both grappled for the possession of the bolo,
and while in this act Reynaldo embraced Filemon from behind and said, "Now, father stab him",
and Getulio did. Roberto then followed, attacking Filemon until the latter fell to the ground
unconscious and later died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstance is attendant in the commission of the crime?
RULING:
While there is no sufficient showing that there was evident premeditation in the commission of
the crime, however, it has been fully established that the accused acted with abuse of superior
strength in attacking their victim, for despite the fact that the latter was unarmed, they ganged up
on him, thereby affording opportunity to the latter to deliver his thrust to the victim.
PEOPLE VS REGASA 374
G.R. No. L-40310, July 25, 1983
FACTS:
September 10, 1972, when Concordio together with Robion went to the house of the accused
Dionisio Pospos to ask for an accounting of their store in partnership. However, Dionisio Pospos
retorted: "What money are we going to account for when there is none, are you a fool?" Upon
hearing this, Sergio Pospos stood up and stabbed Concordio at the chest. Concordio fell and the
accused Dionisio Pospos and Antonio Pospos took turns in stabbing him with small pointed
boloes. The following morning, they found the body of Concordio Empis lying by the roadside
near the house of the accused.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is present in this case?
RULING:
No. There was absence of evident premeditation in the commission of the crime since the
execution of the criminal act was not preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution
to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
Conspiracy, however, could be implied since the appellants all took part in the deed and
cooperated with unity of purpose and criminal intent when they took turns in stabbing the
deceased.
PEOPLE VS TIONGSON 375
G.R. No. L-35123-24, Jul 25, 1984
FACTS:
Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao together with George de la Cruz and
Rolando Santiago, where they were detained. While in the act of escaping, Tiongson killed Pat.
Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police force of Bulalacao, who was guarding the said accused,
and PC Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao who went in
pursuit of them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is present in this case?
RULING:
No. The aggravating circumstances of (1) evident premeditation, (2) in contempt of or with
insult to public authorities, (3) uninhabited place, and (4) abuse of superior strength were
not present in the commission of the crimes.
Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that a
plan to kill the victims existed, the execution of which was preceded by deliberate thought
and reflection
PEOPLE VS RODIL 376
G.R. No. L-35156, Nov 20, 1981
FACTS:
Lt. Masana approached appellant and asked the latter whether his gun had a license. Instead of
answering the question of Lt. Masana appellant attempted to draw his gun. Thereafter, the gun
was confiscated and let the appeallant to sign the paper, which the latter refused. Instead, he
asked Lt. Masana to return the gun to him. Lt. Masana rejected appellant's plea. When Lt.
Masana was about to stand up, appellant suddenly pulled out a double-bladed dagger and with it
he stabbed Lt. Masana several times, on the chest and stomach causing his death several hours
thereafter
ISSUE:
Whether or not a special aggravating circumstance is attendant in the commission of the crime?
RULING:
Yes. The case at bar, the appellant is accused of murder only. Consequently, either
aggravating circumstance should be considered in the imposition of the penalty. The
aggravating circumstance of contempt of, or insult to, public authority under paragraph 2
of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code can likewise be appreciated in the case at bar.
The evidence of the prosecution clearly established that Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang was
present as he was taking his lunch in the same restaurant when the incident occurred.
PEOPLE VS SANTIAGO 377
G.R. No. 175326, NOVEMBER 28, 2007
FACTS:
On 9 April 1999, the team went to the Manila Western Police District Command (WPDC) and
coordinated the planned entrapment of appellants. Vladimir handed the three plastic bags of
shabu to Inspector Cortez, while the latter turned over the briefcase containing the boodle money
to the former. Thereupon, he drew his service firearm, introduced himself as a narcotics agent,
and declared the arrest of appellants. Instead of yielding peacefully, appellants ganged up on
Inspector Cortez. Thereafter the back-up arrived and seized the three plastic bags of shabu, the
weighing scale, and the briefcase containing the boodle money.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstance of organized/syndicated crime group can be
appreciated in this case?
RULING:
NO. While the existence of conspiracy among appellants in selling shabu was duly established,
there was no proof that appellants were a group organized for the general purpose of committing
crimes for gain, which is the essence of the aggravating circumstance of organized/syndicated
group under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code.
Moreover, this aggravating circumstance was not specifically alleged in the information. Both
law and jurisprudence require aggravating circumstances to be expressly and specifically alleged
in the complaint or information; otherwise, the same will not be considered by the court even if
proved during the trial.
PEOPLE VS TAC-AN 378
G.R. No. 76338-39, FEBRUARY 26, 1990
FACTS:
The appellant, Renato Tac-an and the victim, Francis Ernest Escano, were classmates and
belonged to the same gang. Later on the relationship between the two became sour when Escano
quit the said gang. On December 14, 1984, after a heated fistfight between the two, the appellant
shot Escano causing the death of the latter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the illegal possession of firearms aggravates homicide?
Crime itself
RULING:
There is no law which renders the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in
homicide or murder. Under an information charging homicide or murder, the fact that the death
weapon was an unlicensed firearm cannot be used to increase the penalty for the second offense
of homicide or murder to death (or reclusion perpetua under the 1987 Constitution). The
essential point is that the unlicensed character or condition of the instrument used in destroying
human life or committing some other clime, is not included in the inventory of aggravating
circumstances set out in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS GA 379
G.R. No. L-49831, JUNE 27, 1990
FACTS:
This case involves the dastardly killing of an old couple in Forbes Park and their housemate and
serious injury to a daughter in the course of a robbery of a wristwatch and a transistor radio. It
reached this Court on mandatory review of the judgment promulgated on 10 August 1977 by the
Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, 1 convicting the accused of the
crime of Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and imposing the penalties of
three death sentences for each of the accused.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of robbery with triple homicide?
RULING:
The lower court, however, was in error when it convicted the accused of "the crimes of Robbery
with Triple Homicide, and Frustrated Homicide," and in imposing on each of the accused the
death penalty three times. On the case of People v. Cariño, 45 that there is no crime of Robbery
with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The term 'Homicide' in paragraph 1, Art. 294 is to be
understood in its generic sense. It includes murder and slight physical injuries committed during
the occasion of the robbery wmeh crimes are merged in the crime of robbery with homicide as
defined in paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Saquing, 30 SCRA
834)."
Notwithstanding the fact that three persons were killed and one seriously injured in the
commission of the robbery, the charge should have been only for robbery with homicide.
PEOPLE VS PAGAL 380
G.R. No. L-32040, Oct 25, 1977
FACTS:
Pagal and Torcelino sought to rob Guan, but Guan would not open the kaha de yero.
Because of Guan’s resistance, the two resorted to violence, stabbed Guan with an icepick,
and clubbed him with an iron pipe. The beating later caused Guan’s death. Thereafter, a
criminal case was filed against them for the crime of robbery with homicide with the
aggravating circumstance of lack of respect for aged, among others.
Pagal and Torcelino, through their counsel sought to plead guilty provided that they be
able to prove the existence of the mitigating circumstances (MC) of sufficient provocation
and acted on impulse which produced passion obfuscation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation can be appreciated in this
case?
RULING:
Appellants'contention is devoid of merit. Firstly, since the alleged provocation which
caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident, that is, the alleged
maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the appellants by the deceased, these two mitigating
circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct and separate circumstances but should
be treated as one. 11 Secondly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be
mitigating in a crime which — as in the case at bar — is planned and calmly meditated
before its execution.
PEOPLE VS DELOS REYES 381
G.R. No. L-44112, OCTOBER 22, 1992
FACTS:
Faustino de los Reyes, Cresencio Singue, Crispulo de los Reyes and Perfecto Gulo, armed with
revolvers and a hunting knife barged in at the house of Kapi Baotao. Cresencio immediately
grabbed Tibulao and struck him on the head with a revolver. Alarmed by the ensuring
commotion, Sumpian, who was in another room, rushed at Cresencio and tried to push him;
Sumpian got hacked instead. Kapi and Rosa also tried to help but Faustino shot Kapi several
times and pistol-whipped Rosa in the mouth, rendering her unconscious. Sandiali grabbed her
granddaughter and jumped through the window for safety.
They discovered that P10,000.00 paper bills kept inside a suitcase was missing. That same night,
the incident was reported to the authorities.
ISSUE:
Whether or not crime committed is robbery with homicide and physical injuries?
RULING:
No. Instead of convicting the accused for "robbery with homicide and physical injuries",
"physical injuries" should be deleted therefrom, so that the offense should be denominated
plainly as "robbery with homicide," regardless of the number of persons killed, maimed or
injured. The term homicide found in par. 1, Art. 294, of the Revised Penal Code should be
understood in its generic sense; it includes murder and physical injuries, whether serious
or slight, committed during the robbery, which crimes are merged in robbery with
homicide.
PEOPLE VS LEE 383
G.R. No. L-66848, DECEMBER 20, 1991
FACTS:
On June 22, 1982, the accused, Ruben Lee, drew out a gun and first poked it at Gina Salvador
who was to his left and then waived (sic) said gun at the other passengers, at the same time
announcing a hold-up. Simultaneously, the passenger seated in front of Ruben Lee who turned
out to be Quirino Viray, Jr. drew out a knife and poked it at Maria Lourdes Javier who was to his
right; the passenger seated just behind the driver who turned out to be Geronimo Gerdad drew
out a gun and pointed it at the driver; and the passenger seated further from the driver drew out
and poked a knife at the driver. The hold-uppers jumped out of the jeepney and engaged the
pursuing policemen in a shoot out.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime was committed by a band (brigandage)?
RULING:
Yes. In the case at bar, commission by a band was properly appreciated as it has been shown that
when the holdup was staged, Ruben Lee, Quirino Viray, Geronimo Gerdad (deceased), and
accused Larosa were all armed with guns and knives.
PEOPLE VS CARPIO 384
G.R. No. 82815-16, Oct. 31, 1990
FACTS:
Carpio, who was fronting Pat. Pacis, stabbed the latter on the breast while Arnold Carpio kept on
delivering fist blows on the different parts of Pat. Pacis' body. When the latter was able to free
himself, he ran towards Palpallatoc and the three gave chase. Bablis shot Pat. Pacis five (5) times
with a short firearm but missed. Pat. Pacis passed by Palpallatoc and when the three reached the
place where he was, they stopped and warned him not to reveal what he saw to anybody
otherwise they will kill him. They ordered him to leave immediately and so Palpallatoc left
hurriedly.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime was attended by qualifying circumstance?
RULING:
No. The trial court correctly found that commission of the felony was not attended by the
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. The fact that the accused-appellant and Edwin
Bablis were seen riding together on the former's motorcycle does not by itself prove that they
were then determined to commit the crime. Not even appellant's remark, "Kursunada ko siya"
(referring to the victim) uttered to Ceasar Domingo in the municipal hall when he was looking
for the victim, constitute a sufficient proof that it was during that time that he was determined to
kill Pacis. Evident premeditation cannot be considered to qualify murder where it is not shown
when the plan to kill was hatched, or what time elapsed before it was carried out.
383 PEOPLE VS MARLON DELIM
G.R. NO. 142773, JANUARY 28, 2003
FACTS:
The accused armed with short firearms barged-in and entered the house of Modesto Delim and once inside with
intent to kill, treachery, evident premedidation (sic), conspiring with one another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously grab, hold, hogtie, gag with a piece of cloth, brought out and abduct Modesto Delim,
accused Leon Delim and Manuel Deli; stayed in the house guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto
Delim from helping the latter, thereafter with abuse of superior strength stabbed and killed said Modesto Delim, to
the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the abuse of strenght modify the case?
RULING:
No. The victim was defenseless when seized by Marlon and Ronald. However, the prosecution
failed to present any witness or conclusive evidence that Modesto was defenseless immediately
before and when he was attacked and killed. It cannot be presumed that although he was
defenseless when he was seized the victim was in the same situation when he was attacked, shot
and stabbed by the malefactors.
In this case, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that Marlon and Ronald deliberately took
advantage of their numerical superiority when Modesto was killed.
PEOPLE VS ILAGAN 386
G.R. No. L-25796, January 29, 1974
FACTS:
The accused while drinking beer inside the bar had an altercation with the floor manager of the
bar whom he threatened with a gun. When charged with illegal possession of firearm, his
defense was he had no animus possidendi since he was just carrying the gun home to his wife
from the place where it was supposed to have been repaired.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused should be acquitted because of his lack of animus possidendi?
RULING:
No. The actuations of the accused as shown during the trial belie his claim of lack of animus
possidendi. It was shown that the accused instead of going home directly to deliver the gun to his
wife, went to the Idle Hours Bar carrying with him the pistol loaded with eight live bullets. And
when trouble arose between the accused and the manager of the bar, the accused got hold of the
pistol, used it in attempting to break down the door of the bar and as a matter of fact, the
manager of the bar complained to the police that the accused threatened the manager's life with
the pistol.
PEOPLE VS GANOHON 387
G.R. Nos. 74670-74, APRIL 30, 1991
FACTS:
Prosecution witness, Bernardino, testified that he saw the accused-appellant and Gerardo Obod
pass by their house proceeding towards the house of Eduardo Anoos. The next day, he heard of
the news that Eduardo and his family were hacked to death in their house. RTC found Charlie
guilty of murder qualified by treachery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the denials of the accused are sufficient to rebut the incriminating circumstances
testified to by the prosecution witnesses?
RULING:
Yes. The circumstantial evidence attendant and relied upon by the trial court is sufficient for
conviction. There is more than one circumstance. The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven. The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
The accused-appellant is held guilty of murder. With the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling.
198PEOPLE VS BALDERAMA 402
G.R. No. 89597-98, SEPTEMBER 17, 1993
FACTS:
Heated argument ensued between Nestor Duran and Ernesto Balderama. Ernesto challenged
Nestor to a fight. Nestor did not take on the challenge. Then, Ernesto shouted, "Birahin mo na,
birahin mo na." Oscar, Ernesto's brother, suddenly emerged from behind and stabbed Nestor at
the back. Nestor died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is guilty of the crime as principal by inducement?
RULING:
Yes. Ernesto's remarks make him a principal by inducement. Court said that utterances of
an accused make him a principal by inducement, the same must be of a nature and uttered
in such manner as to become the determining cause of the crime, and that the inducement
precisely was intended to serve such purpose.
199PEOPLE VS AGAPINAY 403
G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990
FACTS:
After the infliction of mortal wound by other co-principal, all of a sudden Amor Flores appeared
and plunged a knife at the back of Virgilio. It was then that Virgilio collapsed. Meanwhile Julia
cried, "Kill him and we will bury him."
ISSUE:
WON the utterances of Julia Rapada is sufficient to make her guilty as co-principal by
inducement?
RULING:
No. Her words, " Kill him and we will bury him" amount but to imprudent utterances said
in the excitement of the hour or in the heat of anger and not, rather, in the nature of a
command that had to be obeyed.
200PEOPLE VS MADALI 404
G.R. No. L-67803-04, JULY 30, 1990
FACTS:
Annie beamed her flashlight at Felix and she said, "Here comes another."Felix told Madali that
he would not fight but Madali shot Felix twice. Annie beamed her flashlight at Cipriano and she
said, "Here comes, here comes another, fire upon him. Madali shot Cipriano who fell to the
ground.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Annie is liable as principal by inducement in this case?
RULING:
There is no proof that those inciting words had great dominance and influence over Madali as to
become the determining cause of the crimes. The rapidity with which Madali admittedly fired the
shots eliminated the necessity of encouraging words such as those uttered by Annie.
201-PEOPLE VS TAMPUS 405
G.R. No. 181084, JUNE 16, 2009
FACTS:
Tampus was accused of taking advantage of victim by having carnal knowledge of her, against
her will, while she was intoxicated and sleeping. She declared in her Complaint that this was
done in conspiracy with accused Ida who gave permission to Tampus to rape her.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ida is also a principal or merely an accomplice in this case?
RULING: Yes, there was community of design between Ida and Tampus. Ida forced ABC to
drink beer, and when ABC was already drunk, she left ABC alone with Tampus, with the
knowledge and even with her express consent to Tampus’ plan to have sexual intercourse with
her daughter.
202-PEOPLE VS CAGALINGAN 406
G.R. No. 79168, August 3, 1990
FACTS:
Joemar held the throat of Jovito with his right hand. Veron Cagalingan shouted that Jovito was
being killed by Joemar. This impelled accused Alfredo Cagalinganto stabbed him twice, Jovito
also stabbed the victim twice. Victor Romina, Jr. stabbed Joemar once.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cagalingan is merely an accomplice in this case?
RULING:
Yes, Jovito Cagalingan and Victor Romina, Jr. are only accomplices, their participations therein
were not absolutely indispensable in the commission of the crime.Jovito Cagalingan stabbed the
deceased after Alfredo Cagalingan had stabbed the deceased at the back, while Victor Romina,
Jr. stabbed the said deceased while the latter was already lying prostrate on the ground.
203-PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA 407
G.R. No. 110613, Mar 26, 1997
FACTS:
accused Edgar lighted his lighter and his co-accused brother Wilson appeared and hacked
Amando. Ronald went back for Amando to lift him up but Wilson hacked him (Ronald) on his
right shoulder, followed by Edgar who struck him on the right side, so, he ran for his life.
ISSUE:
WON Villanueva is an accomplice in this case?
RULING:
Yes, flicking his lighter was a pre-arranged signal for his brother-accused to attack them. Why
should he be carrying a lighter when, by his own admission, he is a non-smoker?.
Moreover, he actually participated in the killing as he followed his brother in hacking Ronald in
a determined move to finish what his brother started.
204-TAN VS PEOPLE 408
G.R. No. 134298, AUGUST 26, 1999
FACTS:
Rosita discovered that some of the manufactured spare parts were missing. Mr. Mendez and
admitted to his having stolen the missing spare parts sold then to Ramon Tan. She then talked to
Mr. Tan, who denied having bought the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of fencing?
RULING:
No. In this case, the theft was not proved because complainant Rosita Lim did not complain to
the public authorities of the felonious taking of her property. There was no showing at all that the
accused knew or should have known that the very stolen articles were the ones sold him.
205-CAPILI VS PEOPLE 409
G.R. No. 139250, AUGUST 15, 2000
FACTS:
Christine Diokno discovered that some of her items were taken. Upon call, police responded and
surveyed the room where the robbery took place. The police officer investigated the theft case
and concluded that Michael Manzo, her former houseboy, committed the offense so a case
against Manzo was filed.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes, the fact of theft was proved by prosecution witness,
At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as
mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. Accused has not
rebutted this presumption.
206-US VS MENDOZA 410
G.R. No. 7540, Sept 23, 1912
FACTS:
Mateo del Rosario reported the incident of to Vicente Mendoza and accused Bernabe Mangunay
of starting the fire. Mendoza took no action whatever. Hence, he was charged as accessory after
the fact in the crime of arson.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Mendoza will be held as an accessory despite the acquittal of Bernabe?
RULING:
No. there are indications that the fire was accidental and, if so, the acquittal of perhaps
due to the lack of proof of his guilt or the acts charged do not constitute a crime. Therefore,
it is neither proper nor possible to convict the defendant, Mendoza, as accessory.
207-VINO VS PEOPLE 411
G.R. No. 84163, OCTOBER 19, 1989
FACTS:
Roberto cry out in a loud voice saying that he had been shot. they saw Vino was the one driving
the bicycle while Salazar was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto's house, they stopped
to watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his companions. Thereafter, the
two left. Roberto later died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused can be convicted as an accessory to the crime of murder?
RULING:
Yes. evidence adduced, showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. The greater
responsibility necessarily includes the lesser. An accused can be validly convicted as an
accomplice or accessory under an information charging him as a principal.
208-TAER VS CA 412
G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990
FACTS:
Accused arrived at Taer's house with two carabaos owned Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend.
Owners discovered in the morning their respective carabaos were missing. They were informed
that the carabaos were at Datag. There they found their missing carabaos tied to a bamboo
thicket near the house accused Taer who.
ISSUES:
Whether or not there is conspiracy between Namocatcat and Taer?
RULING:
Yes, Taer's has knowledge of the crime. however he did not participate in the taking of the
carabaos, he took part subsequent to the commission of the act of taking by profiting himself by
its effects. Taer is thus only an accessory after the fact.
209-DELA TORRE VS COMELEC 413
G.R. No. 121592, JULY 5, 1996
FACTS:
The petitioner seeks to nullify the resolutions issued by the COMELEC which declared the
petitioner disqualified from running for the position of Mayor for being convicted of Fencing
which is a crime involving moral turpitude.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of fencing involve moral turpitude? (ky waray accessories)
RULING:
Yes. Moral turpitude is deducible from the third element. Actual knowledge by the "fence" of the
fact that property received is stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of one's
rightful property as that which animated the robbery or theft which, by their very nature, are
crimes of moral turpitude.
210ENRILE VS AMIN 412
G.R. No. 93335, SEPT 13, 1990
FACTS:
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged as having committed rebellion complexed with murder
and violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 for obstructing the apprehension of said Col.
Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan, a suspect.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the rebellion can be complexed with PD nO. 1829
RULING:
It cannot complex the rebellion. If Senator Ponce Enrile harbored or concealed Colonel
Honasan simply because the latter is a friend, the motive for the act is completely different.
But if the act is committed with political or social motives, that is in furtherance of
rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion instead of being
punished separately.
211-PEOPLE VS BILLONES 413
GR NO 92795-96, SEP 2, 1992
FACTS:
Billones was charged with the violation The Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended. Upon
arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. It may also be true that the evidence for the accused is weak. Nonetheless, if the evidence for
the prosecution does not meet the quantum of proof required for a conviction, the weakness of
the accused’s evidence is totally irrelevant for. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its
evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
212-414 PEOPLE VS BARRA
G.R. NO. 198020, JULY 10, 2013
FACTS:
Barra enter the house of Lagdaan, was lit with a lamp, and poked a gun to the victim’s right
forehead and demanded money. When the victim stated that the money was not in his
possession, appellant shot him.
In his defense, appellant denied the charges against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide?
RULING:
No. the crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim refused to give his money
to appellant and no personal property was shown to have been taken. It was for this reason that
the victim was shot. Appellant can only be found guilty of attempted robbery with homicide.
213-PEOPLE VS INOVERO 415
GR NO 195668, June 25, 2014
FACTS:
Inovero seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated whereby the Court of Appeals
(CA) affirmed her conviction for illegal recruitment committed in large scale amounting to
economic sabotage under the judgment renderedRegional Trial
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Strong and positive evidence demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt her having conspired
with her co-accused in the recruitment of the complainants. The decision of the CA amply
recounted her overt part in the conspiracy. Under the law, there is a conspiracy when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and decide to
commit it.
PEOPLE VS SIMON 267

G.R. No. 93028, July 24, 1994
FACTS:
Martin Simon y Sunga sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM)
poseur-buyer for P40.00, and when subjected to laboratory examination, were found positive for
marijuana.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority?
RULING:
The rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code cannot and
should not be applied. A review of such doctrines reveals that the reason therefor was because
the special laws involved provided their own specific penalties for the offenses punished
thereunder, and which penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in the Revised
Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS TISMO 268
G.R. No. L-44773, DECEMBER 4, 1991
FACTS:
The accuse armed with a revolver have carnal knowledge with the complainant against her will.
However, according to the accused, the accusation of complainant Lolita Avila is not true
because they are sweethearts.
ISSUE:
WON the mitigating circumstance of minority can be appreciated?
RULING:
Yes. The appellant was less than 18 but more than 15 years of age when the crime in question
was committed and that, therefore, he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority under the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS VILLAGRACIA 269
G.R. No. 94311, SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
FACTS:
Shortly after Thelma entered the house, six men, with their faces half-covered by handkerchiefs
barged inside. They also divested Cenon of his watch and ransacked the house. The accused
were able to take cash and other valuables. When the accused left the house, they dragged
Thelma along with them and was raped by them.
ISSUE:
WON the mitigating circumstance of minority can be considered?
RULING:
When the crime was committed on September 23, 1987, or more than a year before he was
presented as a witness, Nixon Ledesma was less than 15 years old.
In view of his minority, appellant Nixon Ledesma is entitled to a two-degree reduction of his
penalty as provided for in Article 68 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS MANALANSAN 270
G.R. No. 76369-70, SEPTEMBER 14, 1990
FACTS:
Manalansan sold 500 grams of marijuana to Quevedo and Manalastas. The team arrested
Manalansan, when he was frisked another 50 grams of marijuana was confiscated.
ISSUE:
WON possession of marijuana is absorbed in the crime of selling prohibited narcotic?
RULING:
He is correct in arguing that the possession of the marijuana was absorbed in the sale thereof, but
that is true only of the 500 grams he delivered to the poseurs/buyers for P750.00. It was quite
proper for the trial judge to hold that the accused-appellant was guilty of two separate offenses,
to wit, sale of the 500 grams of marijuana, and possession of the other 50 grams, at the time of
his arrest.
PEOPLE VS CEMPRON 271
G.R. No. L-66324, July 6, 1990
FACTS:
Appellant successively stabbed Gudelusao which caused his death. Appellant voluntarily
surrendered to Agripino Lofranco, a Barangay Officer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant is entitled to mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? (wara
minority-incomplete self-defense)
RULING:
Yes. Prosecution witness Agripino Lofranco, a barangay official in the place of the stabbing
incident, positively testified that in the same evening of said incident appellant purposely went to
him and sought his help in surrendering to the police authorities and he actually turned over
appellant to them.
POLO VS PEOPLE 273
G.R. No. 160541, Oct 24, 2008
FACTS:
While they were on their way home from the dance hall, Polo called Balisoro. Polo had a short
conversation with Balisoro. Suddenly, Polo hacked Balisoro on the head, which caused his death.
Polo admitted hacking Balisoro with a bolo but claimed to have done it in self-defense.
ISSUE:
WON there was sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceding
the act?
RULING:
In this case, there was no showing that Balisoro provoked Polo. If there was indeed provocation
from Balisoro to merit the attack, it was not adequate to excite Polo to commit a wrong, which
must be proportionate in gravity. Also, a sufficient interval of time had already elapsed giving
Polo time to regain his reason and exercise self-control.
PEOPLE VS VALLES 274
G.R. No. 110564, JANUARY 28, 1997
FACTS:
Porcullo went to collect his salary. However, Valles did not allow him to enter the compound.
Porcullo had a brief conversation with the accused. Porcullo then turned around and walked
away from the accused, but the latter without warning shot Porcullo, which caused the victim’s
death.
ISSUE:
WON the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation can be considered?
RULING:
Yes. There is passional obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable
burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so
powerful as to overcome reason. The attack by accused-appellant Valles upon the person of the
victim was evidently dictated by the sudden impulse of his natural fury that was fomented by
Porcullo's acts of provocation.
PEOPLE VS CUASAY 275
G.R. No. 180512, Oct 17, 2008
FACTS:
Accused-appellant suddenly stabbed Ansuli with a Swiss-type knife, hitting the latter on the right
breast which caused his untimely death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation?
RULING:
NO. To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1)
there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2)
the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
PEOPLE VS MALEJANA 276
G.R. No. 145002, JANUARY 24, 2006
FACTS:
Appellant brandished an armalite rifle and fired a shot into the air. Then he pointed the barrel of
the gun at Roces and fired five times, hitting Roces thrice, causing Roces’ death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation can be appreciated?
RULING:
No. To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1)
There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the
act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
PEOPLE VS GRACIA 277
G.R. No. 112984, Nov 14, 1996
FACTS:
The De Gracia brothers hurled invectives against the Almasan family. Crispin Almasan, went out
of his house. Bonifacio stabbed Crispin causing the latter to fall to the ground. The De Gracias
pulled Crispin toward the door of their house where they took turns in stabbing him.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender in this case?
RULING:
Yes. Bonifacio surrendered and was in fact accompanied by his uncle to the police station, albeit
he remained silent. Nonetheless, we cannot take Bonifacio’s silence against him. What matters is
that Bonifacio, spontaneously, voluntarily and unconditionally placed himself at the disposal of
the authorities. This act of repentance and respect for the law indicates a moral disposition
favorable to his reform.
PEOPLE VS OBLIGADO 278
G.R. No. 171735, APRIL 16, 2009
FACTS:
The victim along with several others were having a drinking spree. They were later joined by
appellant. Appellant grabbed the victim’s hair with his left hand and, with his right, pulled out a
bolo from underneath his shirt and slashed the victim’s neck which caused the latter’s death.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?
RULING:
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should not have been considered. In this
case, SPO4 Sarto testified that appellant’s residence could be accessed only through a footpath
where they met appellant. His surrender therefore was neither voluntary nor spontaneous. On the
contrary, the aforementioned circumstances revealed that he had no option but to yield to the
authorities.
PEOPLE VS GUEVARRA 279
G.R. No. 182192, October 29, 2008
FACTS:
The above-named accused repeatedly shot P/Chief Inspector Marcos Barte while the latter was
unarmed and completely defenseless, thereby hitting him on different parts of his body which
directly caused the victim’s death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not treachery is present in the crime?
RULING:
Yes, treachery is present. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellant’s attack rendered
Inspector Barte defenseless and without means of escape. There is no doubt that appellant’s use
of a caliber .45 pistol, as well as his act of waiting for Inspector Barte to be seated first in the
jeep before approaching him and of shooting Inspector Barte several times on the head and chest,
was adopted by him to prevent Inspector Barte from retaliating or escaping.
MENDOZA VS PEOPLE 280
G.R. No. 173551, OCTOBER 4, 2007
FACTS:
Glenn drew a short firearm, approached Ernesto frontally and shot the latter who was sitting at
that time. Ernesto stood up and tried to run, but he fell towards the ground. Glenn fired more
shots at Ernesto. Petitioner also drew a short firearm and shot Ernesto once.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?
RULING:
No. In order for a surrender to be considered as voluntary, the same must be spontaneous in such
a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities,
either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
PEOPLE VS CONCEPCION 281
G.R. No. 169060, FEBRUARY 6, 2007
FACTS:
Appellant suddenly stand up, rushed toward Nicolas and stabbed him. Thereafter, appellant fled.
Nicolas was stunned, managing to utter only the words, "Why, Joey?" before collapsing. He was
rushed to a nearby hospital where he expired.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?
RULING:
No. The records show that appellant did not surrender but was arrested in his residence by SPO4
Cuison. This arresting officer even had to go twice to appellant’s home to effect the arrest,
because during the first attempt, appellant would not come out of his house and his mother
refused to turn him over to the arresting officer.
PEOPLE VS BADRIAGO 282
G.R. No. 183566, May 8, 2009
FACTS:
Appellant suddenly hacked Oliver with a long bolo. Adrian pushed Oliver off the tricycle so he
could run away and call for help. He lost consciousness and when he woke up he was at the
hospital. He was later informed that Oliver died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?
RULING:
For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be
spontaneous and in a manner that shows that the accused made an unconditional surrender to the
authorities, either based on recognition of guilt or from the desire to save the authorities from the
trouble and expenses that would be involved in the accused’s search and capture.
PEOPLE VS MINDAC 283
G.R. No. 83030, DECEMBER 14, 1992
FACTS:
Glenn Bolisig was accosted by the accused Mindac, Trinidad and Laguras. Trinidad beat Bolisig
on the nape with an empty bottle causing the latter to stagger. Thereupon, Mindac stabbed Glenn
Bolisig below his left nipple which caused his death.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?
RULING:
The fact that appellant Mindac asked Sgt. Gono to accompany him to the municipal building
because he was a suspect in the killing of the deceased is not tantamount to voluntary surrender.
His act does not show a desire on his part to own responsibility for the killing of the deceased.
While he admitted his participation in the killing of the deceased, he claimed self-defense which
he was unable to prove.
PEOPLE VS LOPIT 284
G.R. No. 177742, DECEMBER 17, 2008
FACTS:
Accused pleaded guilty to the crime charged. The court found him guilty of Qualified Rape
committed against his own daughter and sentenced him to suffer the extreme penalty of death.
ISSUE:
WON his plea of guilt is a mitigating circumstance that would reduce his penalty?
RULING:
No. Death is a single and indivisible penalty and will be imposed regardless of any mitigating
circumstance that may have attended the commission of the felony.
PEOPLE VS TAMPUS 285
G.R. No. 181084, JUNE 16, 2009
FACTS:
ABC filed two Complaints accusing Tampus of taking advantage of her by having carnal
knowledge with her, against her will, while she was intoxicated and sleeping. She declared that
this was done in conspiracy with accused Ida who gave permission to Tampus to rape her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a mitigating circumstance of illness can be considered in this case?
RULING:
Yes. We have previously held that Schizophrenia may be considered mitigating under Art. 13(9)
if it diminishes the exercise of the willpower of the accused. In this case, the testimony of Dr.
Costas shows that even though Ida was diagnosed with schizophrenia, she was not totally
deprived of intelligence but her judgment was affected.
PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA 286
G.R. No. 172697, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
FACTS:
Appellant killed his niece Angelica, by boxing her on the head and kicking her several times on
the different parts of her body. Appellant also mauled his nephews Rexie and Enrique. Appellant
pleaded insanity.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of illness?
RULING:
Yes. There is no dispute that appellant has a history of mental illness. He was diagnosed to
be suffering from "Schizophrenia, Paranoid, Episodic with Interepisode Residual
Symptoms" which began in 1985 and was characterized by intermittent episodes of
psychotic signs and symptoms since then until appellant’s examination on 21 June 2000.
We find that such illness diminished the exercise of appellant’s will power without however
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
PEOPLE VS PAMBID 287
G.R. No. 124453, MARCH 15, 2000
FACTS:
Accused Joseph Pambid was found guilty of two counts of statutory rape. The defense pleads
insanity.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance of illness?
RULING:
No. The defense failed to conclusively establish that accused-appellant was suffering from
schizophrenia or any mental illness that could diminish his will power at the time
immediately preceding or during the commission of the crime. Acts penalized by law are
always presumed to be voluntary, and it is improper to conclude that a person acted
unconsciously in order to relieve him of liability, unless his insanity is conclusively proved.
It was, therefore, error for the trial court to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of
insanity in favor of accused-appellant.
198PEOPLE VS BALDERAMA 402

G.R. No. 89597-98, SEPTEMBER 17, 1993
FACTS:
Heated argument ensued between Nestor Duran and Ernesto Balderama. Ernesto challenged
Nestor to a fight. Nestor did not take on the challenge. Then, Ernesto shouted, "Birahin mo na,
birahin mo na." Oscar, Ernesto's brother, suddenly emerged from behind and stabbed Nestor at
the back. Nestor died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is guilty of the crime as principal by inducement?
RULING:
Yes. Ernesto's remarks make him a principal by inducement. Court said that utterances of
an accused make him a principal by inducement, the same must be of a nature and uttered
in such manner as to become the determining cause of the crime, and that the inducement
precisely was intended to serve such purpose.
199PEOPLE VS AGAPINAY 403

G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990
FACTS:
After the infliction of mortal wound by other co-principal, all of a sudden Amor Flores appeared
and plunged a knife at the back of Virgilio. It was then that Virgilio collapsed. Meanwhile Julia
cried, "Kill him and we will bury him."
ISSUE:
WON the utterances of Julia Rapada is sufficient to make her guilty as co-principal by
inducement?
RULING:
No. Her words, " Kill him and we will bury him" amount but to imprudent utterances said
in the excitement of the hour or in the heat of anger and not, rather, in the nature of a
command that had to be obeyed.
200PEOPLE VS MADALI 404

G.R. No. L-67803-04, JULY 30, 1990
FACTS:
Annie beamed her flashlight at Felix and she said, "Here comes another."Felix told Madali that
he would not fight but Madali shot Felix twice. Annie beamed her flashlight at Cipriano and she
said, "Here comes, here comes another, fire upon him. Madali shot Cipriano who fell to the
ground.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Annie is liable as principal by inducement in this case?
RULING:
There is no proof that those inciting words had great dominance and influence over Madali as to
become the determining cause of the crimes. The rapidity with which Madali admittedly fired the
shots eliminated the necessity of encouraging words such as those uttered by Annie.
201-PEOPLE VS TAMPUS 405
G.R. No. 181084, JUNE 16, 2009
FACTS:
Tampus was accused of taking advantage of victim by having carnal knowledge of her, against
her will, while she was intoxicated and sleeping. She declared in her Complaint that this was
done in conspiracy with accused Ida who gave permission to Tampus to rape her.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ida is also a principal or merely an accomplice in this case?
RULING: Yes, there was community of design between Ida and Tampus. Ida forced ABC to
drink beer, and when ABC was already drunk, she left ABC alone with Tampus, with the
knowledge and even with her express consent to Tampus’ plan to have sexual intercourse with
her daughter.
202-PEOPLE VS CAGALINGAN 406

G.R. No. 79168, August 3, 1990
FACTS:
Joemar held the throat of Jovito with his right hand. Veron Cagalingan shouted that Jovito was
being killed by Joemar. This impelled accused Alfredo Cagalinganto stabbed him twice, Jovito
also stabbed the victim twice. Victor Romina, Jr. stabbed Joemar once.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cagalingan is merely an accomplice in this case?
RULING:
Yes, Jovito Cagalingan and Victor Romina, Jr. are only accomplices, their participations therein
were not absolutely indispensable in the commission of the crime.Jovito Cagalingan stabbed the
deceased after Alfredo Cagalingan had stabbed the deceased at the back, while Victor Romina,
Jr. stabbed the said deceased while the latter was already lying prostrate on the ground.
203-PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA 407

G.R. No. 110613, Mar 26, 1997
FACTS:
accused Edgar lighted his lighter and his co-accused brother Wilson appeared and hacked
Amando. Ronald went back for Amando to lift him up but Wilson hacked him (Ronald) on his
right shoulder, followed by Edgar who struck him on the right side, so, he ran for his life.
ISSUE:
WON Villanueva is an accomplice in this case?
RULING:
Yes, flicking his lighter was a pre-arranged signal for his brother-accused to attack them. Why
should he be carrying a lighter when, by his own admission, he is a non-smoker?.
Moreover, he actually participated in the killing as he followed his brother in hacking Ronald in
a determined move to finish what his brother started.
204-TAN VS PEOPLE 408

G.R. No. 134298, AUGUST 26, 1999
FACTS:
Rosita discovered that some of the manufactured spare parts were missing. Mr. Mendez and
admitted to his having stolen the missing spare parts sold then to Ramon Tan. She then talked to
Mr. Tan, who denied having bought the same.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. In this case, the theft was not proved because complainant Rosita Lim did not complain to
the public authorities of the felonious taking of her property. There was no showing at all that the
accused knew or should have known that the very stolen articles were the ones sold him.
205-CAPILI VS PEOPLE 409
G.R. No. 139250, AUGUST 15, 2000
FACTS:
Christine Diokno discovered that some of her items were taken. Upon call, police responded and
surveyed the room where the robbery took place. The police officer investigated the theft case
and concluded that Michael Manzo, her former houseboy, committed the offense so a case
against Manzo was filed.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes, the fact of theft was proved by prosecution witness,
At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as
mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. Accused has not
rebutted this presumption.
206-US VS MENDOZA 410
G.R. No. 7540, Sept 23, 1912
FACTS:
Mateo del Rosario reported the incident of to Vicente Mendoza and accused Bernabe Mangunay
of starting the fire. Mendoza took no action whatever. Hence, he was charged as accessory after
the fact in the crime of arson.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Mendoza will be held as an accessory despite the acquittal of Bernabe?
RULING:
No. there are indications that the fire was accidental and, if so, the acquittal of perhaps
due to the lack of proof of his guilt or the acts charged do not constitute a crime. Therefore,
it is neither proper nor possible to convict the defendant, Mendoza, as accessory.
207-VINO VS PEOPLE 411
G.R. No. 84163, OCTOBER 19, 1989
FACTS:
Roberto cry out in a loud voice saying that he had been shot. they saw Vino was the one driving
the bicycle while Salazar was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto's house, they stopped
to watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his companions. Thereafter, the
two left. Roberto later died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused can be convicted as an accessory to the crime of murder?
RULING:
Yes. evidence adduced, showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. The greater
responsibility necessarily includes the lesser. An accused can be validly convicted as an
accomplice or accessory under an information charging him as a principal.
208-TAER VS CA 412
G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990
FACTS:
Accused arrived at Taer's house with two carabaos owned Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend.
Owners discovered in the morning their respective carabaos were missing. They were informed
that the carabaos were at Datag. There they found their missing carabaos tied to a bamboo
thicket near the house accused Taer who.
ISSUES:
Whether or not there is conspiracy between Namocatcat and Taer?
RULING:
Yes, Taer's has knowledge of the crime. however he did not participate in the taking of the
carabaos, he took part subsequent to the commission of the act of taking by profiting himself by
its effects. Taer is thus only an accessory after the fact.
209-DELA TORRE VS COMELEC 413

G.R. No. 121592, JULY 5, 1996
FACTS:
The petitioner seeks to nullify the resolutions issued by the COMELEC which declared the
petitioner disqualified from running for the position of Mayor for being convicted of Fencing
which is a crime involving moral turpitude.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of fencing involve moral turpitude? (ky waray accessories)
RULING:
Yes. Moral turpitude is deducible from the third element. Actual knowledge by the "fence" of the
fact that property received is stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of one's
rightful property as that which animated the robbery or theft which, by their very nature, are
crimes of moral turpitude.
210ENRILE VS AMIN 412

G.R. No. 93335, SEPT 13, 1990
FACTS:
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged as having committed rebellion complexed with murder
and violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 for obstructing the apprehension of said Col.
Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan, a suspect.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the rebellion can be complexed with PD nO. 1829
RULING:
It cannot complex the rebellion. If Senator Ponce Enrile harbored or concealed Colonel
Honasan simply because the latter is a friend, the motive for the act is completely different.
But if the act is committed with political or social motives, that is in furtherance of
rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion instead of being
punished separately.
211-PEOPLE VS BILLONES 413

GR NO 92795-96, SEP 2, 1992
FACTS:
Billones was charged with the violation The Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended. Upon
arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. It may also be true that the evidence for the accused is weak. Nonetheless, if the evidence for
the prosecution does not meet the quantum of proof required for a conviction, the weakness of
the accused’s evidence is totally irrelevant for. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its
evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
212-414 PEOPLE VS BARRA
G.R. NO. 198020, JULY 10, 2013
FACTS:
Barra enter the house of Lagdaan, was lit with a lamp, and poked a gun to the victim’s right
forehead and demanded money. When the victim stated that the money was not in his
possession, appellant shot him.
In his defense, appellant denied the charges against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide?
RULING:
No. the crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim refused to give his money
to appellant and no personal property was shown to have been taken. It was for this reason that
the victim was shot. Appellant can only be found guilty of attempted robbery with homicide.
213-PEOPLE VS INOVERO 415

GR NO 195668, June 25, 2014
FACTS:
Inovero seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated whereby the Court of Appeals
(CA) affirmed her conviction for illegal recruitment committed in large scale amounting to
economic sabotage under the judgment renderedRegional Trial
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Strong and positive evidence demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt her having conspired
with her co-accused in the recruitment of the complainants. The decision of the CA amply
recounted her overt part in the conspiracy. Under the law, there is a conspiracy when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and decide to
commit it.
1. LAUREL vs. MISA
G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947
FACTS: Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that his adherence to the
Japanese, giving the latter aid and comfort cannot be prosecuted for treason for the reason (1)
that the sovereignty of the government and the allegiance of Filipinos was suspended; and (2)
that there was a change of sovereignty.
ISSUE: WON Laurel can be prosecuted for the crime of treason?
HELD: Yes. Laurel’s contentions are without merit because (1) the absolute and permanent
allegiance of the inhabitants of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or
severed by the enemy occupation; and (2) the change of form of government does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason.
3. People vs Abad
G.R. No. L-430, Jul 30, 1947
Crimes against national security
FACTS:
Appellant was charged of the crime of treason as defined and penalized under article 114 of the Revised
Penal Code by giving aid and comfort to the Empire of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces during
the period comprised between December 24, 1943, and September 26, 1944,
ISSUE:
WON the accused is guilty notwithstanding the fact that only one witness testified to the overt act?
RULING:
No. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and everyone of all the external
manifestations of the overt act in issue. Appellant's going to the Ibarra house, in search of the
revolver, is a single overt act, distinct and independent from appellant's overt act in requiring Magno
Ibarra, when the latter went to the garrison, to produce his revolver. Although both overt acts are
inter-related, it would be too much to strain the imagination if they should be identified as a single act
or even as different manifestations, phases, or stages of the same overt act. The searching of the
revolver in the Ibarra house is one thing and the requiring to produce the revolver in the garrison,
another. Although both acts may logically be presumed to have answered the same purpose, that of
confiscating Ibarra's revolver, the singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of two acts.
4. US VS LAGNASON
GR NO 1582; MAR 28, 1904
FACTS: Lagnason formed a band of men in arms against the US Govt with the purpose of establishing an
independent govt. They made an attack upon Pueblo of Murcia in Negros. Lagnason was captured and was charged
with treason.
ISSUE: WON he is guilty of treason?
RULING: YES. Whatever differences there may have been among the early judges as to whether an armed
resistance to the enforcement of a public law constituted a levying of war or not, and was or was not treason, they
are all unanimous in holding that acts of violence committed by an armed body of men with the purpose of
overthrowing the govt “was levying war against the US” and is therefore treason.
11. People vs. Fernando

GR No. L-1138, Dec 17, 1947
Crimes Against National Security
Facts:
Jose Fernando was charged of treason. He allegedly aid and give comfort to the military forces of Japan
during its occupation. In his defense, Fernando purported that he was forced into the service of the
kempei-tai by the enemy.
Issue: WON Fernando is guilty of treason?
Ruling:
Yes. If appellant's claim of unwillingness was true and he was helping the underground resistance
movement at heart, he offered no explanation for his failure to take advantage of the freedom granted
him during the long months of service in the Kempei-tai by fleeing from the enemy to join the guerrilla
forces or by sabotaging the military efforts of the Japanese.
To place appellant in such a responsible position, full of opportunity and means either of helping the
Japanese or sabotaging their military efforts, appellant must beforehand have shown them strong
evidence of adherence and loyalty for the Japanese to trust him.
12. PEOPLE vs. DE LOS SANTOS

G.R. No. L-1975, December 21, 1950
FACTS: De los Santos is charged with treason when he participated with the Japanese in the
apprehension, investigation and torture of the alleged bandits.
ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of treason?

HELD: Yes. The appellant, who is a Filipino citizen owing allegiance and loyalty to the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, joined the enemy, giving him aid and comfort by actually
helping him in the arrest, investigation and torture of his countrymen engaged in the resistance
movement. He is, therefore, guilty of treason.
14. US vs Magtibay
G.R. No. 1317, Nov 23, 1903
FACTS:
The defendant has been convicted of the crime of treason as defined in Act No. 292, section 1, and
sentenced to death
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty as charged?
RULING:
No. Under the act of Congress there can be no conviction, unless two witnesses testify to the same overt
act of treason. There is no such testimony in this case. The evidence of the Government related
exclusively to the desertion of the defendant and his capture.
15. PEOPLE VS TULIN

GR NO 111709; AUG 30, 2001
FACTS: M/T Tabangao was off-coast Mindanao directed to sail to Singapore when it was boarded by 7 fully armed
pirates who took over the vessel. When the vessel arrived at Singapore, the cargoes that it was supposed to receive,
was rather received by another vessel, Navi, under the supervision of Hiong. When Tabango returned to the
Philippines, they were charged with qualified piracy or piracy in Philippine waters (PD 532).
ISSUE: WON Hiong is guilty of piracy? (considering that he took part only when the ship was already in Singapore)
RULING: YES. Altho PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in the
Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy,
hence, it need not be committed in the Philippines.
22. People v. Adlawan

G.R. No. L-456
Facts:
Adlawan was charged and convicted of the complex crime of treason with murder, rape and robbery.
The alleged acts were committed on various occasions with the intention of giving aid and comfort to
the Japanes military.
Issue: WON the crime committed is a complex crime of treason with murder, rape and robbery?
Ruling:
No." The killings, robbery, and raping mentioned in the information are therein alleged not as specific
offenses but as mere elements of the crime of treason for which the accused is being prosecuted. Being
merged in and identified with the general charge, they cannot be used in combination with treason to
increase the penalty under article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
23. PEOPLE vs. PRIETO

G.R. No. L-399, January 29, 1948
FACTS: Accused was a member of the Japanese Military Police and acted as undercover
for the Japanese forces. He accompanied a group of Filipino undercovers for the purpose of
apprehending guerrillas and guerrilla suspects.
ISSUE: WON accused is liable of treason complexed by murder and physical injuries?
HELD: The execution of some of the guerrilla suspects mentioned in these counts and the
infliction of physical injuries on others are not offenses separate from treason. Under the
Philippine treason law, there must concur both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and
comfort. One without the other does not make treason.
However, the brutality with which the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken
as an aggravating circumstance. Thus, the use of torture and other atrocities on the victims
instead of the usual and less painful method of execution will be taken into account to increase
the penalty under the provision of article 14, paragraph 21, of the Revised Penal Code, since
they, as in this case, augmented the sufferings of the offended parties unnecessarily to the
attainment of the criminal objective. (For your reference la)
25. US vs Bautista, et. Al.
G.R. No. 2189, Nov 3, 1906

FACTS:
The appellants in this case were convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila of the crime of
conspiracy to overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the. Government of the United States in the
Philippine Islands and the Government of the Philippine Islands, as defined and penalized in section 4 of
Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission.
ISSUE:
Whether or not de Guzman was guilty as charged?
RULING:
No. The evidence of record does not sustain the conviction of Aniceto de Guzman. The finding of his
guilt rests substantially upon his acceptance Of a number of bonds from one of the conspirators, but it
does not affirmatively appear that he knew anything of the existence of the conspiracy.
26. US v. Caballeros, 4 P 350

GR NO. 8606; SEPT 26, 1913
FACTS: Macario is Caballero’s tenant. He allegedly passed by the house of Caballero, the municipal president. He
carried a cow to have the same branded when the Caballero asked him to buy it for only half the interest. Macario
refused. When the certificate for the cow was issued, Caballero took the same and ordered that his name be entered
therein. It is however established that the cow was the offspring of Caballero’s cow.
ISSUE: WON Caballero is liable for robbery?
RULING: NO. Under Art 355 of the CC, it is presumed that Caballero owned the cow. Further, when Macario had the
cow registered, he could not present a document of origin or acquisition. Pursuant to Act 1147, the presumption juris
tantum is that the animal in question belongs to the person designated in the certificate.
33. JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO and J. BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES, INC. vs.
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, THE CHIEF, PC THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, PSC, JAGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984;
(Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State)
Facts:
Respondents, pursuant to 2 search warrants, seized articles belonging to petitioners which were
allegedly used as a means of committing the offense of subversion. The latter invoking their
constitutional right, sought the return of said articles and prayed to enjoin respondents from using the
same as evidence against them.
Issue: WON the search warrants are valid?
Ruling:
No. The statement in Col. Abadilla's application that petitioner is in possession or has in his control
printing equipment and other paraphernalia, which were used and are all continuously being used as a
means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under PD 885, as amended ..." is a mere
conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause.
36. DAVID VS MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

GR NO. 171396, MAY 3, 2006
CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE
FACTS:
These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing PP 1017 and
G.O. No. 5, PGMA committed grave abuse of discretion. Hence, such issuances are void for being
unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest of petitioners David and Llamas is valid?
RULING:
No. The warrantless arrest of David and Llamas in the absence of proof that these petitioners were
committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition
of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the
Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
37. People vs. Cruz, Feb. 21, 1961;

(CASE NOT FOUND)
PEOPLE VS CRUZ;
GR NO L-52; FEB 21, 1946
FACTS: Four armed men robbed Gregorio’s drugstore. Cruz was one of the suspects. He however denies having
participated therein. Two eye-witnesses and Gregorio however recognized him.
ISSUE: WON Cruz is guilty of robbery in band?

RULING: YES. The analysis of the given testimonies in this case convinces us that appellant was conclusively
identified as the robber who kept watch of the people inside the drug store while lying down.
44. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., in his capacity as
Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC, Manila, and LAWRENCE WANG Y CHEN, Respondents
G.R. No. 128587 March 16, 2007
Facts:
Respondent was charged with 3 informations implicating him for violations of dangerous drugs act,
illegal possession of firearms and comelec gun ban. He assailed the validity of his arrest and the
inadmissibility of the prosecution’s evidence against him. Petitioner on the other hand, alleging that the
warrantless search was legal as an incident to the lawful arrest and that it has proven its case.
Issue: WON the warrantless search and the seizure is unlawful?
Ruling:
Yes. Section 5, Rule 113 of the New Rules of Court laid down the instances where a peace officer may
arrest a person without a warrant. None of the circumstances were present when the accused was
arrested.
45. SANCHEZ vs. Hon. DEMETRIOU
G.R. Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993
FACTS: Mayor Sanchez was invited by the PNP for investigation regarding the rape-slay of
Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. An inquest was made and after hearing, a warrant of arrest
was issued on him. Seven information were served upon him. The petitioner moved to quash the
information because x x x 3) his warrantless arrest is illegal and the court has therefore not
acquired jurisdiction over him.
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest of the petitioner is illegal?
HELD: The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the
Regional Trial Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by virtue of
the warrant of arrest it issued on August 26, 1993 against him and the other accused in
connection with the rape-slay cases. It was belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal.
47. Umil vs Ramos
G.R. No. 81567, Oct 3, 1991
Crimes against the fundamental law of the state –
FACTS:
While the accused was admitted in a hospital for a gunshot wound, he was arrested and detained.
Accused was suspected to be the sparrow man, a NPA member.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the detention of the accused was legal?
RULING:
No. The mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground
for the arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the validity of the questioned arrests
without warrant in these petitions, not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion, but on compliance with the
conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court.
48. People vs. Malmstedt

GR NO 91107; JUNE 19, 1991
FACTS: Accused is a Swedish national and a returning tourist. He stayed in Sagada. He was on board a bus when it
was stopped at a checkpoint wc was established due to an information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
prohibited drugs in his possession. He was approached by CIC Galutan who noticed a bulge on his waist. When
Malmstedt failed to furnish his documents, he was ordered to bring out the bulging object. It turned out to be hashish,
a derivative marijuana. He was brought to the headquarters where it was revealed that the teddy bear he brought
contained hashish too.
ISSUE: WON THE SEARCH IS VALID?
RULING: YES. In fact, the commanding officer received an information on the said day that a Caucasian coming from
Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession. Hence, there was no time to obtain a warrant. Accused also refused
to furnish his identification documents, wc is not a regular norm of an innocent man. These create a probable cause
wc justifies a warrantless search on Malmstedt’s personal effects.
55. Villavicencio vs. Lukban

G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919
Facts:
Mayor Lukban of Manila transported women of ill-repute to Davao with the intention of exterminating
vice in Manila. These women were deprived of their liberty and unknown to them were exiled to a place
without their consent, leaving their life behind. The relatives of these women file a petition for habeas
corpus directly to the SC.
Issue: WON Mayor Lukban has the authority to deport the women to a distant locality?
Ruling:
No. There was no law authorizing the Mayor of Manila to transport these women to a distant place. On
the contrary, Philippine penal law specifically punishes any public officer who, not being expressly
authorized by law or regulation, compels any person to change his residence.
56. PEOPLE vs. DORIA

G.R. No. 125299 January 22, 1999
FACTS: PNP Narcotics Command conducted a buy-bust operation to arrest Doria. When PNP
did not find the marked bills on him, Doria led them to Gaddao’s house, his associate. Standing
by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table, he entered the house
and took hold of the box and saw dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 Badua recovered the marked
bills from “Gaddao ” and they arrested her.
ISSUE: WON the warrantless seizure was valid?
HELD: No. Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, the search of her person and
home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as
an incident to her arrest.
58. Reyes vs Bagatsing

G.R. No. L-65366, Nov 9, 1983
Crimes against the fundamental law of the state
FACTS:
The filing of this suit for mandamus with alternative prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
was due to the fact that petitioner had not been informed of any action taken on his request on behalf
of the organization to hold a rally. It turned out that such permit was denied. Petitioner was unaware of
such a fact as the denial was sent by ordinary mail. The reason for refusing a permit was due to police
intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit at this time
and at the place applied for.
ISSUE:
WON the denial of the permit was valid?
RULING:
No. There was no showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could
justify the denial of a permit.
66. LEONILA BATULANON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

G.R. No. 139857 September 15, 2006
Facts:
Batulanon was charged of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. She allegedly forged the
signatures of members and released the proceeds of loans which the members did not undertake. She
denied the accusations.
Issue: WON Batulanon is guilty of the crimes charged?
Ruling:
Yes. Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through falsification of commercial
document, appellant could be convicted of falsification of private document under the well-settled rule
that it is the allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and not the
technical name given in the preamble of the information.
67. PEOPLE vs. DE VERA, SR.

G.R. Nos. 121462-63. June 9, 1999
FACTS: Gerardo and Perlita, was shot by De Vera, Sr., using a long-barreled gun, causing their
deaths. The accused denied the allegations.
ISSUE: WON the preliminary investigation was properly conducted?
HELD: The right to preliminary investigation, may be waived, and it will be deemed to have
been waived by failing to invoke it prior to the arraignment. The question of whether there has
been a preliminary investigation, or whether it has been properly conducted, should be
interposed prior to the plea of the accused. The OSG is correct in contending that it would now
be late in the day for appellant to raise the issue for the first time in this appeal before the Court.
69. People vs Asuncion
GR Nos 83837-42, Apr 22, 1992
Crimes against public order
FACTS:
Private respondents were apprehended in separate operations. Various ammunitions, firearms, and
explosives were found in their possession, while subsequent searches in their respective hide-outs
resulted in the confiscation of several subversive materials, including documents showing that they are
ranking members of the NPA.
ISSUE:
Whether the crime of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives, punishable under P.D.
1866, is absorbed by the crime of subversion?
RULING:
Yes. The possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives to which all the accused are charged before
this Court is a constitutive ingredient of the crime of subversion and, hence, absorbed by the same and
cannot be punished separately.
77. Roque vs. de Villa

G.R. No. 84581-82 July 9, 1990
Facts:
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that their detention is unlawful. Respondents
countered that the privilege of the writ is not available to the respondents because they were lawfully
arrested.
Issue: WON petitioners are unlawfully deprived of their liberty?
Rulung:
No. The record of the instant cases would show that the persons in whose behalf these petitions for
habeas corpus have been filed, had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense, when
apprehended, so that their arrests without a warrant were clearly justified, and that they are, further,
detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court.
78. Anonuevo vs. Ramos

G.R. No. 81567 July 9, 1990
Facts: Military agents were dispatched to verify a confidential information about an NPA

member who had been admitted to the St. Agnes Hospital and who murdered two (2) Capcom
mobile patrols. In view of this verification, the NPA was transferred to the Regional Medical
Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons.
Issue: WON accused was lawfully arrested?
Held: Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization.
Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said
that he was committing as offense when arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy
or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore
in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of
continuing crimes.
80. People vs Burgos
G.R. No. L-68955, Sep 4, 1986
FACTS:
The defendant-appellant was charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of
subversion.
ISSUE:
WON the evidence sustaining the crime charged meet the test of proving guilt beyond reasonable
doubt?
RULING:
No. the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The records of the case disclose that when the police authorities went to the house of
Ruben Burgos for the purpose of arresting him upon information given by Cesar Masamlok that the
accused allegedly recruited him to join the New People's Army (NPA), they did not have any warrant of
arrest or search warrant with them.
88. People vs Ompad

G.R. No. 93730-31 June 10, 1994
Facts:
Ompad was known as a member of the liquidation squad of the NPA. He killed 2 individuals, one of
which was his comrade who was suspected as military informer. He was then arrested and his
companions testified against him.
Issue: WON Ompad is guilty of murder?
Ruling:
Yes. . It is settled that the testimony of one witness if credible and positive is sufficient to convict. In the
instant case, accused-appellant was positively identified by two witnesses as the assailant of the young
Barlaan. Accordingly, we give great weight and credence to the clear and positive identification of the
accused.
89.PEOPLE vs. SANDOVAL

G.R. Nos. 95353-54 March 7, 1996
FACTS: Accused Sandoval and Pat robbed the victims while the latter were walking on their
way home. Sandoval stabbed Baguio causing his death.
ISSUE: WON the accused should be held liable for highway robbery?
HELD: No. Erroneous advertence is nevertheless made by the court below to the fact that the
crime of robbery committed by appellants should be covered by the amendatory decree just
because it was committed on a highway. Appellant may only be held liable for simple robbery as
defined in Article 293 considering that it alleges facts which correspond to the elements of the
latter crime.
91. PEOPLE VS CAHINDO

GR NO.
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER – OFF TOPIC
FACTS:
The killing of Militon Lagilles, Romeo Cahindo was charged with murder. Accused-appellant has
interposed the instant appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in giving more weight to the prosecution’s
evidence instead of believing his protestations of self-defense.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Accused-appellant’s version is adulterated with evident falsehoods. Such manifest falsehood and
discrepancy in accused-appellant’s testimony seriously impair its probative value and cast serious doubts
on his credibility. Another circumstance which glaringly points to the guilt of accused-appellant is his
flight from the scene of the killing. Flight of an accused from the scene of the crime removes any
remaining shred of doubt on his guilt.
99. JOSE M. NAVA v. MAGNO GATMAITAN

GR No. L-4855, Oct 11, 1951
Facts:
The accused is charged with rebellion complexed with other offenses. He was detained while the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. He was indicted.
Issue: WON a person who was detained while a proclamation for the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is in force, shall be entitled to bail?
Ruling:
Yes. If it be contended that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus includes the
suspension of the distinct right to bail or to be provisionally at liberty, it would a fortiori imply the
suspension of all his other rights (even the rights to be tried by a court) that may win for him ultimate
acquittal and, hence, absolute freedom.
100. HERNANDEZ vs. HON. MONTESA
G.R. No. L-4964, October 11, 1951
FACTS: On October 22, 1950, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was
decreed when cases of rebellion, sedition and other subversive acts surged.
ISSUE: WON the accused may be entitled to bail despite the suspension of the writ of HC?
HELD: Yes. The filing of the information implies that the prosecution holds sufficient evidence
for conviction, and it is fair to suppose that the court will duly exercise its judgment when called
upon to pass on the question of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. At any rate, on
admission to bail, the accused is delivered to the custody of his sureties as a continuance of the
original detention.
102. People vs Hernandez
GR No. L-6025-26, Jul 18, 1956
FACTS:
Hernandez is charged with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and
robberies,. The defense contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not defense’s contention is correct?
RULING:
Yes. It is true that treason and rebellion are distinct and different from each other. This does not
detract, however, from the rule that the ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and, hence,
are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately therefrom or by the application of
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Besides there is more reason to apply said rule in the crime of
rebellion than in that of treason.
110. FRANCISCO R. CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, (1st Division), respondents
G.R. No. L-14752 April 30, 1963
Facts:
Cariño was charged for being an accomplice in the crime of rebellion. He allegedly give supplies to Dr.
Lava, his compadre who is a top communist.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty of the crime of rebellion?
Ruling:
No. In the crime of treason any act of giving comfort or moral aid may be criminal, but such is not the
case with rebellion or insurrection where the Code expressly declares that there must be a public
uprising and the taking up of arms in rebellion or insurrection. The act of sending or furnishing cigarettes
and food supplies to a famous Huk does not prove intention to help him in committing rebellion or
insurrection.
111. PEOPLE vs. HERNANDEZ

G.R. No. L-6025, May 30, 1964
FACTS: Accused and their other co-conspirators, high ranking officers or otherwise affiliated
with the Communist Party of the Philippines is actively engaged in an armed rebellion against
the Government thru act committed and planned to be further committed in Manila and other
places in the Philippines.
ISSUE: WON Defendant is guilty of the crimes in relation to Rebellion?
HELD: No. The mere fact of his giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would
not make him guilty of conspiracy, because there was no evidence that the hearers of his
speeches of propaganda then and there agreed to rise up in arms for the purpose of obtaining
the overthrow of the democratic government as envisaged by the principles of Communism.
113. People vs Ferrer
GR No. L-32613-14. Dec 27, 1972
FACTS:
The accused was charged for violation of section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act. He moved to quash on the
ground that the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder.
ISSUE:
WON Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder?
RULING:
Yes. The Anti-Subversion Act was condemned by the court a quo as a bill of attainder because it "tars
and feathers" the Communist Party of the Philippines as a "continuing menace to the freedom and
security of the country; its existence, a 'clear, present and grave danger to the security of the
Philippines.
121. People vs. Dasig

G.R. No. 100231. April 28, 1993
Facts:
Dasig was a member of sparrow unit of the NPA. He and his companion killed Manatad, a police officer,
while the latter was manning the traffic. He was convicted of murder with direct assault upon a person
in authority.
Issue: WON the crime charged is correct?
Ruling:
No. Appellant confessed voluntarily his membership with the sparrow unit and his participation and that
of his group in the killing of Pfc. Manatad. It is therefore not hard to comprehend that the killing of Pfc.
Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA.
Consequently, appellant is liable for the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a person
in authority.
124. People vs Del Rosario
GR NO. L-16806, Dec 22, 1961
Crimes against public interest
FACTS:
Accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury notes, Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto
del Pilar were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao of illegal possession of said forged
treasury notes
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused were guilty as charged?
RULING:
Yes. It is clear that the possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of "the figures,
letters, words or signs contained" in which had been erased and or altered, with knowledge of such
notes, as they were used by petitioner herein and his co-defendants in the manner adverted to above, is
punishable under said Article 168, in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code
132. People vs. Samason

GR No. L-14110, Mar 29, 196
Facts:
Josefina Samson was charged of parricide for killing her husband. In her defense, she contended that
they had a fight and that they were grappling for the carbine which accidentally went off, hitting his
husband in the neck and killing him.
Issue: WON Josefina is guilty of the crime charged?
Ruling:
Yes. The absence of any powder burns at the entrance of the. wounds found in the body of the
deceased is convincing proof that the victim was shot from a distance- and not with the muzzle of the
gun almost resting on his shoulder or the back of the neck.
135. RECEBIDO VS PEOPLE
GR NO. 141931, DEC 4, 2000
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
FACTS:
Dorol filed her complaint against petitioner Recebido for falsification of Public Document. The petitioner
contends that the land in question was mortgage to him by Juan Dorol, the father of Caridad, and was
subsequently sold to him on August 13, 1983 although it was made to appear that the deed of sale was
executed on August 13, 1979.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of falsification of public document?
RULING:
Yes. The petitioner was in possession of the forged deed of sale which purports to sell the subject
land from the private complainant to him. Given this factual backdrop, the petitioner is presumed
to be the author of the forged deed of sale, despite the absence of any direct evidence of his
authorship of the forgery. Since the petitioner is the only person who stood to benefit by the
falsification of the document found in his possession, it is presumed that he is the material author of the
falsification.
G.R. No. 2189, Nov 3, 1906
FACTS:
ISSUE:

RULING:
143. PEOPLE v. DIONISIO LIDRES

GR No. L-12495, Jul 26, 1960
Facts:
Diotay and Lidres applied as substitute teachers in a public school. Diotay was recommended to fill up
the position and was requested to sign an agreement to share the duty with Lidres on a 50-50 basis.
Lidres tried to enforce said agreement and claimed his share in the period of teaching. Diotay refused to
give in but Lidres continued to teach the class.
Issue: WON Lidres is guilty of usurpation of authority?
Ruling:
No. Pretense of official position is an essential element of the crime of usurpation of official functions.
But the information specifically charges that defendant committed the offense "without pretense of
official position". Under the circumstances, the facts alleged in the information fail to constitute an
offense.
Neither can defendant be convicted of usurpation of authority, as distinguished from usurpation of

official functions, under the first paragraph of Article 177, as amended by said Republic Act No. 379,
namely, that of representing to be an officer, agent, or representative of any department or agency of
the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, inasmuch as the information does not charge
the same.
154. LOUIS VUITTON S.A., complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO DIAZ VILLANUEVA, presiding Judge,
Branch 36, The Metropolitan Trial Court at Quezon City, Metro Manila, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-92-643 November 27, 1992
Facts:
Judge Villanueva was administratively charged by Vuitton for allegedly rendering a manifestly unjust
judgment.
Issue: WON respondent judge is guilty of knowingly rendering a manifestly unjust judgment?
Ruling:
No.In order to hold a judge liable, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is
unjust and that it was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. A judge cannot be
subjected to liability –– civil, criminal, or administrative — for any his official acts, not matter how
erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith.
157. US VS ROSALES – cant be found, changed
PEOPLE VS SENDAYDIEGO
81 SCRA 120
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICER
FACTS:
Sendaydiego, the provincial treasurer of Pangasinan, in conspiracy with Samson, an employee of a
lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City, used six forged provincial vouchers to evidence fictitious
sales of construction materials in order to embezzled from the road and bridge fund the total sum of
P57,048.23. samson hand-carried the vouchers and followed-up their processing in the offices of the
provincial government and received the cash payments.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Samson, a private person, is guilty of malversation?
RULING:
Samson is a co-principal in the six crimes of malversation because he conspired with the provincial
treasurer in committing those offenses. The trial court correctly ruled that a private person conspiring
with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation.
165. People vs. Francisco

G.R. No. 21390. March 26, 1924.
Facts:
Francisco demanded P2 from Sy ham threatening that he will report to the
authorities the black substance in the lard sold by the latter. Sy Ham, for fear
of being arrested assented to the demand.
Issue: What crime was committed?
Ruling:
Robbery. In bribery, the transaction is mutual and voluntary; in the case of robbery the
transaction is neither voluntary nor mutual, but is consummated by the use of force or
intimidation. If the offended party in the present case had voluntarily offered to pay the
defendant the P2 the transaction would have constituted bribery. The defendant
demanded the payment of the P2, accompanying the demand with threats of
prosecution and arrest and is therefore guilty of robbery.
168. SORIANO VS SANDIGANBAYAN

GR NO. L-65952, JUL 31, 1984
FACTS:
Thomas N. Tan was accused of qualified theft. In the course of the investigation the petitioner demanded
P4,000.00 from Tan as the price for dismissing the case. Tan reported the demand to the NBI which set
up an entrapment. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan
ISSUE:
Whether or not the preliminary investigation by a Fiscal is a "contract or transaction" thus violative of
Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019?
RULING:
No. It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Neither was it a
transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the term which precedes it. A
transaction, like a contract, is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions and this
element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.
176. Dumagat vs Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992
Facts:
Dumagat is the Disbursing Officer of different stations of NFA. Upon cash examination by the Auditor, a
shortage was established. Despite payment, Dumagat was prosecuted for malversation of public funds.
Issue: WON Dumagat is guilty of malevrsation of public funds?
Ruling:
No. The audit examination conducted by Auditor Eway failed to establish that the funds were indeed
missing since she did not follow standard auditing procedures by not including in her examination the
funds petitioner kept in the vaults located in Tampilisan and Sindangan.
Thus, the ruling in Tianga that "[t]he prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code arises if there is no issue as to the accuracy, correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if
the fact that funds are missing is indubitably established," has no application in the instant case in the
light of the haphazard examination of the cash accountability of petitioner in violation of the Manual of
Instructions to Treasurers and Auditors and the credible explanation of petitioner that the "missing"
funds would have been "discovered" if only the auditor took into consideration the contents of the two
vaults in Sindangan and Tampilisan and the fact that her collection in Dipolog City were deposited with
the NFA Cashier.
179. QUIZO VS SANDIGANBAYAN

GR NO. 77120, APR 6, 1987
FACTS:
The Money Order Teller was found to have incurred a shortage in his cash and other accounts of
P17,421.74. Notwithstanding full restitution, an information for malversation of public funds against
petitioner was filed by the Tanodbayan before the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there exist a sufficient evidence to show a prima facie case against petitioner?
RULING:
No. Petitioner successfully overthrew the presumption of guilt. He satisfactorily proved that not a single
centavo of the missing funds was used by him for his own personal interest, a fact conceded by the
Tanodbayan 'the bulk of the reported shortage actually referred to the items disallowed by the Audit Team
representing cash advances extended to co-employees.
187. People vs. Angco

GR No. L-9550, Feb 28, 195
Facts:
Angco was the travelling sales agent of PCSO entrusted to sell tickets and remit the proceeds afterwards.
The accused did not fully remit the proceeds of the tickets sold and has failed to account for the
unremitted balance despite demand. Consequently, he was charged with malversation of public funds.
Issue: WON Angco is guilty of the crime charged?
Ruling:
Yes. Angco failed to give account of the missing funds and has misappropriated and converted to his
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.
190. PEOPLE VS MORAL

GR NO. L-31139, OCT 12, 1984
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICER – OFF TOPIC
FACTS:
State charged Moral,et. Al. for the crime of murder. The accused Moral denied having inflicted the
wounds on Casa which resulted in the latter's death. While, the accused Antonio invoked defense of
stranger.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution which are allegedly biased and
inherently weak?
RULING:
No. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the participation of the accused in the
commission of the crime are clear, precise, positive and straightforward and included details consistent
with human nature and experience. There was also no doubt as to their ability to Identify the assailants as
the place was illuminated and the deceased, as well as the accused, are well known to them. While it may
be true that there were flaws or discrepancies in their statements, concerning the incident, the said flaws
or discrepancies refer to minor details and are not of such magnitude as to destroy their credibility or the
veracity of their declaration.
198. US v. LINO DE CASTRO

GR No. 1136, Oct 28, 1903
Facts:
De Castro, the municipal president, was charged of bribery for allegedly accepting bribe and allowing
opium joints and gambling houses to operate in the town.
Issue: WON Castro is guilty of bribery?
Ruling:
No. It is not stated in the complaint what act the municipal president should have performed in the
exercise of his office with reference to the keeping of houses for the smoking of opium and the keeping
of houses for prohibited games. The complaint fails to make these necessary allegations. It is not even
charged in the complaint in direct terms that the defendant was president of the municipality of
Fagbilao.
201. Nava vs People
G.R. No. 130509-12, Jun 19, 2000
Crimes against public officer – off topic
FACTS:
The accused-appellant Nava was charged with four counts of rape filed by his daughter. The latter
offered the defense of alibi and denial.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. We have consistently held that rape is committed when intimidation is used on the victim, which
includes the moral kind of intimidation or coercion. In incestuous rape, actual force and intimidation is
not even necessary. The reason is that in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the
moral ascendancy of the former over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation. Thus, no
young woman would accuse her own father, or anybody else for that matter, of so grave a crime as
rape unless she truly has been aggrieved. "And, "no one would undergo the ordeals of a public trial for
rape against her own father if she was not motivated by her own desire to seek justice."
212. People vs Abarca
G.R. No. 74433, Sep 14, 1987
Crimes against person
FACTS:
Koh and the wife of accused Abarca, Jenny, had illicit relationship. The accused found his wife and Koh
in the act of sexual intercourse. The accused jumped and ran away. Later, the accused armed with
firearm proceeded to the mahjong session where he fired at Koh three times with his rifle. Koh, Arnold
and Lina were hit. Subsequently, Abarca was charged for the complex crime of murder with double
frustrated murder.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is guilty for the crime of murder?
RULING:
No. the accused-appellant was not committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased.
Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. We cannot therefore hold the appellant
liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados.
223. US VS NAVARRO
GR NO. L-6254, Feb 7, 1911
CRIMES AGAINST PERSON
FACTS:
Lopez, Navarro, Osorio, and Alban entered the store of Dy-Yong. Thereafter they pretended that they
found a small quantity of opium concealed in one of the boxes. The Chinaman denied the ownership of
this opium. Lopez proposed to release the Chinaman and not report this charge against him if he would
give them P400. Subsequent to the commission of these acts, Lopez, Navarro and Osorio were tried by
the CFI for the crime of robbery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused were guilty of robbery?
RULING:
Yes. It has been established beyond any question of doubt that this robbery was committed in the manner
above set forth. The judgment appealed from being in accordance with the law and the merits of the case,
same is hereby affirmed.
234. People vs Portugueza
GR NO. L-22604, Jul 31, 1967
FACTS:
Indicted for murder, with an allegation of conspiracy, accused Gapole pleaded guilty to the charge. His
co-accused, Lorenzo Portugueza alias Ensoy, entered a plea of not guilty and trial proceeded against
him.
ISSUE:
whether or not appellant was a co-principal in the crime charged?
RULING:
No. It is not enough that appellant had participated in the assault made by his co-defendant in order to
consider him a co-principal in the crime charged. He must have also made the criminal resolution of his
co-accused his own. As this was not proven, appellant's liability is separate and individual - that for less
serious physical injuries - considering that the injury inflicted by him would incapacitate the deceased,
had he survived, or would have required medical attendance, for only ten days
245. BAUTISTA VS CA
GR NO. L-43527, JUL 3, 1990
FACTS:
Araneta, Jr. and Bautista were charged with murder for the death of Manuel Esteban, Jr. due to multiple
gunshot wounds. All the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an accused is criminally liable for slight physical injuries only?
RULING:
No. The gunshot wound inflicted by petitioner Araneta, Jr. was a slight wound which did not cause the
death of the victim nor materially contributed to it in order that he may be held liable for homicide. His
liability should therefore be limited to the slight injury he caused. However, the fact that petitioner
Araneta Jr. inflicted a gunshot wound on the victim shows the intent to kill. The use of a gun fired at
another certainly leads to no other conclusion than that there is intent to kill. He is therefore liable for the
crime of attempted homicide and not merely for slight physical injury.
256. PEOPLE VS MAHINAY

GR NO. 122485, Feb 1, 1999
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with rape with homicide of Ma. Victoria Chan,12 years old, to which he pleaded
not guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mahinay is guilty?
RULING:
Yes. From the wounds, contusions and abrasions suffered by the victim, force was indeed employed upon
her to satisfy carnal lust. Moreover, from appellant's own account, he pushed the victim causing the latter
to hit her head on the table and fell unconscious. It was at that instance that he ravished her and satisfied
his salacious and prurient desires. Considering that the victim, at the time of her penile invasion, was
unconscious, it could safely be concluded that she had not given free and voluntary consent to her
defilement, whether before or during the sexual act.
267. PEOPLE VS ROMUA

GR NO. 126175, MAY 29, 1997
FACTS:
A complaint was initiated by Jovita Jaban against Armando Romua for raping her retarded daughter,
Lolita. Romua pleaded ‘not guilty’ upon arraignment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Romua is guilty of rape?
RULING:
Yes. Jovita gave a credible account of the events that evening. She was steadfast in her testimony that she
saw the appellant without his pants on, inside her house. She also found her daughter naked. There were
traces of sperm in her daughter’s vaginal canal. Her story deserves full faith and credit. A mother would
not expose her daughter’s misfortune to the public if she was not motivated by an honest desire to have
the culprit punished.
3. People vs Abad
G.R. No. L-430, Jul 30, 1947
FACTS:
Appellant was charged of the crime of treason as defined and penalized under article 114 of the Revised
Penal Code by giving aid and comfort to the Empire of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces during
the period comprised between December 24, 1943, and September 26, 1944,
ISSUE:
WON the accused is guilty notwithstanding the fact that only one witness testified to the overt act?
RULING:
No. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and everyone of all the external
manifestations of the overt act in issue. Appellant's going to the Ibarra house, in search of the
revolver, is a single overt act, distinct and independent from appellant's overt act in requiring Magno
Ibarra, when the latter went to the garrison, to produce his revolver. Although both overt acts are
inter-related, it would be too much to strain the imagination if they should be identified as a single act
or even as different manifestations, phases, or stages of the same overt act. The searching of the
revolver in the Ibarra house is one thing and the requiring to produce the revolver in the garrison,
another. Although both acts may logically be presumed to have answered the same purpose, that of
confiscating Ibarra's revolver, the singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of two acts.
14. US vs Magtibay
G.R. No. 1317, Nov 23, 1903
FACTS:
The defendant has been convicted of the crime of treason as defined in Act No. 292, section 1, and
sentenced to death
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty as charged?
RULING:
No. Under the act of Congress there can be no conviction, unless two witnesses testify to the same overt
act of treason. There is no such testimony in this case. The evidence of the Government related
exclusively to the desertion of the defendant and his capture.
G.R. No. 2189, Nov 3, 1906
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
47. Umil vs Ramos
G.R. No. 81567, Oct 3, 1991
Crimes against the fundamental law of the state –
FACTS:
While the accused was admitted in a hospital for a gunshot wound, he was arrested and detained.
Accused was suspected to be the sparrow man, a NPA member.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the detention of the accused was legal?
RULING:
No. The mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground
for the arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the validity of the questioned arrests
without warrant in these petitions, not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion, but on compliance with the
conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court.
58. Reyes vs Bagatsing
G.R. No. L-65366, Nov 9, 1983
Crimes against the fundamental law of the state
FACTS:
The filing of this suit for mandamus with alternative prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
was due to the fact that petitioner had not been informed of any action taken on his request on behalf
of the organization to hold a rally. It turned out that such permit was denied. Petitioner was unaware of
such a fact as the denial was sent by ordinary mail. The reason for refusing a permit was due to police
intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit at this time
and at the place applied for.
ISSUE:
WON the denial of the permit was valid?
RULING:
No. There was no showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could
justify the denial of a permit.
69. People vs Asuncion
GR Nos 83837-42, Apr 22, 1992
FACTS:
Private respondents were apprehended in separate operations. Various ammunitions, firearms, and
explosives were found in their possession, while subsequent searches in their respective hide-outs
resulted in the confiscation of several subversive materials, including documents showing that they are
ranking members of the NPA.
ISSUE:
Whether the crime of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives, punishable under P.D.
1866, is absorbed by the crime of subversion?
RULING:
Yes. The possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives to which all the accused are charged before
this Court is a constitutive ingredient of the crime of subversion and, hence, absorbed by the same and
cannot be punished separately.
80. People vs Burgos
G.R. No. L-68955, Sep 4, 1986
FACTS:
The defendant-appellant was charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of
subversion.
ISSUE:
WON the evidence sustaining the crime charged meet the test of proving guilt beyond reasonable
doubt?
RULING:
No. the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The records of the case disclose that when the police authorities went to the house of
Ruben Burgos for the purpose of arresting him upon information given by Cesar Masamlok that the
accused allegedly recruited him to join the New People's Army (NPA), they did not have any warrant of
arrest or search warrant with them.
102. People vs Hernandez
GR No. L-6025-26, Jul 18, 1956
FACTS:
Hernandez is charged with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and
robberies,. The defense contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not defense’s contention is correct?
RULING:
Yes. It is true that treason and rebellion are distinct and different from each other. This does not
detract, however, from the rule that the ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and, hence,
are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately therefrom or by the application of
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Besides there is more reason to apply said rule in the crime of
rebellion than in that of treason.
113. People vs Ferrer
GR No. L-32613-14. Dec 27, 1972
FACTS:
The accused was charged for violation of section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act. He moved to quash on the
ground that the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder.
ISSUE:
WON Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder?
RULING:
Yes. The Anti-Subversion Act was condemned by the court a quo as a bill of attainder because it "tars
and feathers" the Communist Party of the Philippines as a "continuing menace to the freedom and
security of the country; its existence, a 'clear, present and grave danger to the security of the
Philippines.
124. People vs Del Rosario
GR NO. L-16806, Dec 22, 1961
FACTS:
Accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury notes, Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto
del Pilar were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao of illegal possession of said forged
treasury notes
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused were guilty as charged?
RULING:
Yes. It is clear that the possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of "the figures,
letters, words or signs contained" in which had been erased and or altered, with knowledge of such
notes, as they were used by petitioner herein and his co-defendants in the manner adverted to above, is
punishable under said Article 168, in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code
G.R. No. 2189, Nov 3, 1906
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
201. Nava vs People
G.R. No. 130509-12, Jun 19, 2000
Crimes against public officer – off topic
FACTS:
The accused-appellant Nava was charged with four counts of rape filed by his daughter. The latter
offered the defense of alibi and denial.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. We have consistently held that rape is committed when intimidation is used on the victim, which
includes the moral kind of intimidation or coercion. In incestuous rape, actual force and intimidation is
not even necessary. The reason is that in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the
moral ascendancy of the former over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation. Thus, no
young woman would accuse her own father, or anybody else for that matter, of so grave a crime as
rape unless she truly has been aggrieved. "And, "no one would undergo the ordeals of a public trial for
rape against her own father if she was not motivated by her own desire to seek justice."
212. People vs Abarca
G.R. No. 74433, Sep 14, 1987
FACTS:
Koh and the wife of accused Abarca, Jenny, had illicit relationship. The accused found his wife and Koh
in the act of sexual intercourse. The accused jumped and ran away. Later, the accused armed with
firearm proceeded to the mahjong session where he fired at Koh three times with his rifle. Koh, Arnold
and Lina were hit. Subsequently, Abarca was charged for the complex crime of murder with double
frustrated murder.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is guilty for the crime of murder?
RULING:
No. the accused-appellant was not committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased.
Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. We cannot therefore hold the appellant
liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados.
234. People vs Portugueza
GR NO. L-22604, Jul 31, 1967
FACTS:
Indicted for murder, with an allegation of conspiracy, accused Gapole pleaded guilty to the charge. His
co-accused, Lorenzo Portugueza alias Ensoy, entered a plea of not guilty and trial proceeded against
him.
ISSUE:
whether or not appellant was a co-principal in the crime charged?
RULING:
No. It is not enough that appellant had participated in the assault made by his co-defendant in order to
consider him a co-principal in the crime charged. He must have also made the criminal resolution of his
co-accused his own. As this was not proven, appellant's liability is separate and individual - that for less
serious physical injuries - considering that the injury inflicted by him would incapacitate the deceased,
had he survived, or would have required medical attendance, for only ten days
4. US VS LAGNASON
GR NO 1582; MAR 28, 1904
FACTS: Lagnason formed a band of men in arms against the US Govt with the purpose of establishing an
independent govt. They made an attack upon Pueblo of Murcia in Negros. Lagnason was captured and was charged
with treason.
ISSUE: WON he is guilty of treason?
RULING: YES. Whatever differences there may have been among the early judges as to whether an armed
resistance to the enforcement of a public law constituted a levying of war or not, and was or was not treason, they
are all unanimous in holding that acts of violence committed by an armed body of men with the purpose of
overthrowing the govt “was levying war against the US” and is therefore treason.
15. PEOPLE VS TULIN
GR NO 111709; AUG 30, 2001
FACTS: M/T Tabangao was off-coast Mindanao directed to sail to Singapore when it was boarded by 7 fully armed
pirates who took over the vessel. When the vessel arrived at Singapore, the cargoes that it was supposed to receive,
was rather received by another vessel, Navi, under the supervision of Hiong. When Tabango returned to the
Philippines, they were charged with qualified piracy or piracy in Philippine waters (PD 532).
ISSUE: WON Hiong is guilty of piracy? (considering that he took part only when the ship was already in Singapore)
RULING: YES. Altho PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in the
Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy,
hence, it need not be committed in the Philippines.
26. US v. Caballeros, 4 P 350

GR NO. 8606; SEPT 26, 1913
FACTS: Macario is Caballero’s tenant. He allegedly passed by the house of Caballero, the municipal president. He
carried a cow to have the same branded when the Caballero asked him to buy it for only half the interest. Macario
refused. When the certificate for the cow was issued, Caballero took the same and ordered that his name be entered
therein. It is however established that the cow was the offspring of Caballero’s cow.
ISSUE: WON Caballero is liable for robbery?
RULING: NO. Under Art 355 of the CC, it is presumed that Caballero owned the cow. Further, when Macario had the
cow registered, he could not present a document of origin or acquisition. Pursuant to Act 1147, the presumption juris
tantum is that the animal in question belongs to the person designated in the certificate.
37. People vs. Cruz, Feb. 21, 1961;

(CASE NOT FOUND)
PEOPLE VS CRUZ;
GR NO L-52; FEB 21, 1946
FACTS: Four armed men robbed Gregorio’s drugstore. Cruz was one of the suspects. He however denies having
participated therein. Two eye-witnesses and Gregorio however recognized him.
ISSUE: WON Cruz is guilty of robbery in band?
RULING: YES. The analysis of the given testimonies in this case convinces us that appellant was conclusively
identified as the robber who kept watch of the people inside the drug store while lying down.
48. People vs. Malmstedt

GR NO 91107; JUNE 19, 1991
FACTS: Accused is a Swedish national and a returning tourist. He stayed in Sagada. He was on board a bus when it
was stopped at a checkpoint wc was established due to an information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
prohibited drugs in his possession. He was approached by CIC Galutan who noticed a bulge on his waist. When
Malmstedt failed to furnish his documents, he was ordered to bring out the bulging object. It turned out to be hashish,
a derivative marijuana. He was brought to the headquarters where it was revealed that the teddy bear he brought
contained hashish too.
ISSUE: WON THE SEARCH IS VALID?
RULING: YES. In fact, the commanding officer received an information on the said day that a Caucasian coming from
Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession. Hence, there was no time to obtain a warrant. Accused also refused
to furnish his identification documents, wc is not a regular norm of an innocent man. These create a probable cause
wc justifies a warrantless search on Malmstedt’s personal effects.
36. DAVID VS MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

GR NO. 171396, MAY 3, 2006
CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE
FACTS:
These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing PP 1017 and
G.O. No. 5, PGMA committed grave abuse of discretion. Hence, such issuances are void for being
unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest of petitioners David and Llamas is valid?
RULING:
No. The warrantless arrest of David and Llamas in the absence of proof that these petitioners were
committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition
of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the
Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
91. PEOPLE VS CAHINDO
GR NO.
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER – OFF TOPIC
FACTS:
The killing of Militon Lagilles, Romeo Cahindo was charged with murder. Accused-appellant has
interposed the instant appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in giving more weight to the prosecution’s
evidence instead of believing his protestations of self-defense.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Accused-appellant’s version is adulterated with evident falsehoods. Such manifest falsehood and
discrepancy in accused-appellant’s testimony seriously impair its probative value and cast serious doubts
on his credibility. Another circumstance which glaringly points to the guilt of accused-appellant is his
flight from the scene of the killing. Flight of an accused from the scene of the crime removes any
remaining shred of doubt on his guilt.
135. RECEBIDO VS PEOPLE
GR NO. 141931, DEC 4, 2000
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
FACTS:
Dorol filed her complaint against petitioner Recebido for falsification of Public Document. The petitioner
contends that the land in question was mortgage to him by Juan Dorol, the father of Caridad, and was
subsequently sold to him on August 13, 1983 although it was made to appear that the deed of sale was
executed on August 13, 1979.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of falsification of public document?
RULING:
Yes. The petitioner was in possession of the forged deed of sale which purports to sell the subject
land from the private complainant to him. Given this factual backdrop, the petitioner is presumed
to be the author of the forged deed of sale, despite the absence of any direct evidence of his
authorship of the forgery. Since the petitioner is the only person who stood to benefit by the
falsification of the document found in his possession, it is presumed that he is the material author of the
falsification.
157. US VS ROSALES – cant be found, changed
PEOPLE VS SENDAYDIEGO
81 SCRA 120
FACTS:
Sendaydiego, the provincial treasurer of Pangasinan, in conspiracy with Samson, an employee of a
lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City, used six forged provincial vouchers to evidence fictitious
sales of construction materials in order to embezzled from the road and bridge fund the total sum of
P57,048.23. samson hand-carried the vouchers and followed-up their processing in the offices of the
provincial government and received the cash payments.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Samson, a private person, is guilty of malversation?
RULING:
Samson is a co-principal in the six crimes of malversation because he conspired with the provincial
treasurer in committing those offenses. The trial court correctly ruled that a private person conspiring
with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation.
168. SORIANO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
GR NO. L-65952, JUL 31, 1984
FACTS:
Thomas N. Tan was accused of qualified theft. In the course of the investigation the petitioner demanded
P4,000.00 from Tan as the price for dismissing the case. Tan reported the demand to the NBI which set
up an entrapment. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan
ISSUE:
Whether or not the preliminary investigation by a Fiscal is a "contract or transaction" thus violative of
Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019?
RULING:
No. It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Neither was it a
transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the term which precedes it. A
transaction, like a contract, is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions and this
element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.
179. QUIZO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
GR NO. 77120, APR 6, 1987
FACTS:
The Money Order Teller was found to have incurred a shortage in his cash and other accounts of
P17,421.74. Notwithstanding full restitution, an information for malversation of public funds against
petitioner was filed by the Tanodbayan before the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there exist a sufficient evidence to show a prima facie case against petitioner?
RULING:
No. Petitioner successfully overthrew the presumption of guilt. He satisfactorily proved that not a single
centavo of the missing funds was used by him for his own personal interest, a fact conceded by the
Tanodbayan 'the bulk of the reported shortage actually referred to the items disallowed by the Audit Team
representing cash advances extended to co-employees.
190. PEOPLE VS MORAL
GR NO. L-31139, OCT 12, 1984
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICER – OFF TOPIC
FACTS:
State charged Moral,et. Al. for the crime of murder. The accused Moral denied having inflicted the
wounds on Casa which resulted in the latter's death. While, the accused Antonio invoked defense of
stranger.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution which are allegedly biased and
inherently weak?
RULING:
No. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the participation of the accused in the
commission of the crime are clear, precise, positive and straightforward and included details consistent
with human nature and experience. There was also no doubt as to their ability to Identify the assailants as
the place was illuminated and the deceased, as well as the accused, are well known to them. While it may
be true that there were flaws or discrepancies in their statements, concerning the incident, the said flaws
or discrepancies refer to minor details and are not of such magnitude as to destroy their credibility or the
veracity of their declaration.
223. US VS NAVARRO
GR NO. L-6254, Feb 7, 1911
FACTS:
Lopez, Navarro, Osorio, and Alban entered the store of Dy-Yong. Thereafter they pretended that they
found a small quantity of opium concealed in one of the boxes. The Chinaman denied the ownership of
this opium. Lopez proposed to release the Chinaman and not report this charge against him if he would
give them P400. Subsequent to the commission of these acts, Lopez, Navarro and Osorio were tried by
the CFI for the crime of robbery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused were guilty of robbery?
RULING:
Yes. It has been established beyond any question of doubt that this robbery was committed in the manner
above set forth. The judgment appealed from being in accordance with the law and the merits of the case,
same is hereby affirmed.
245. BAUTISTA VS CA
GR NO. L-43527, JUL 3, 1990
FACTS:
Araneta, Jr. and Bautista were charged with murder for the death of Manuel Esteban, Jr. due to multiple
gunshot wounds. All the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an accused is criminally liable for slight physical injuries only?
RULING:
No. The gunshot wound inflicted by petitioner Araneta, Jr. was a slight wound which did not cause the
death of the victim nor materially contributed to it in order that he may be held liable for homicide. His
liability should therefore be limited to the slight injury he caused. However, the fact that petitioner
Araneta Jr. inflicted a gunshot wound on the victim shows the intent to kill. The use of a gun fired at
another certainly leads to no other conclusion than that there is intent to kill. He is therefore liable for the
crime of attempted homicide and not merely for slight physical injury.
256. PEOPLE VS MAHINAY
GR NO. 122485, Feb 1, 1999
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with rape with homicide of Ma. Victoria Chan,12 years old, to which he pleaded
not guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mahinay is guilty?
RULING:
Yes. From the wounds, contusions and abrasions suffered by the victim, force was indeed employed upon
her to satisfy carnal lust. Moreover, from appellant's own account, he pushed the victim causing the latter
to hit her head on the table and fell unconscious. It was at that instance that he ravished her and satisfied
his salacious and prurient desires. Considering that the victim, at the time of her penile invasion, was
unconscious, it could safely be concluded that she had not given free and voluntary consent to her
defilement, whether before or during the sexual act.
267. PEOPLE VS ROMUA
GR NO. 126175, MAY 29, 1997
FACTS:
A complaint was initiated by Jovita Jaban against Armando Romua for raping her retarded daughter,
Lolita. Romua pleaded ‘not guilty’ upon arraignment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Romua is guilty of rape?
RULING:
Yes. Jovita gave a credible account of the events that evening. She was steadfast in her testimony that she
saw the appellant without his pants on, inside her house. She also found her daughter naked. There were
traces of sperm in her daughter’s vaginal canal. Her story deserves full faith and credit. A mother would
not expose her daughter’s misfortune to the public if she was not motivated by an honest desire to have
the culprit punished.
11. People vs. Fernando

GR No. L-1138, Dec 17, 1947
Facts:
Jose Fernando was charged of treason. He allegedly aid and give comfort to the military forces of Japan
during its occupation. In his defense, Fernando purported that he was forced into the service of the
kempei-tai by the enemy.
Issue: WON Fernando is guilty of treason?
Ruling:
Yes. If appellant's claim of unwillingness was true and he was helping the underground resistance
movement at heart, he offered no explanation for his failure to take advantage of the freedom granted
him during the long months of service in the Kempei-tai by fleeing from the enemy to join the guerrilla
forces or by sabotaging the military efforts of the Japanese.
To place appellant in such a responsible position, full of opportunity and means either of helping the
Japanese or sabotaging their military efforts, appellant must beforehand have shown them strong
evidence of adherence and loyalty for the Japanese to trust him.
22. People v. Adlawan
G.R. No. L-456
Facts:
Adlawan was charged and convicted of the complex crime of treason with murder, rape and robbery.
The alleged acts were committed on various occasions with the intention of giving aid and comfort to
the Japanes military.
Issue: WON the crime committed is a complex crime of treason with murder, rape and robbery?
Ruling:
No." The killings, robbery, and raping mentioned in the information are therein alleged not as specific
offenses but as mere elements of the crime of treason for which the accused is being prosecuted. Being
merged in and identified with the general charge, they cannot be used in combination with treason to
increase the penalty under article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
33. JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO and J. BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES, INC. vs.
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, THE CHIEF, PC THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, PSC, JAGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984;
(Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State)
Facts:
Respondents, pursuant to 2 search warrants, seized articles belonging to petitioners which were
allegedly used as a means of committing the offense of subversion. The latter invoking their
constitutional right, sought the return of said articles and prayed to enjoin respondents from using the
same as evidence against them.
Issue: WON the search warrants are valid?
Ruling:
No. The statement in Col. Abadilla's application that petitioner is in possession or has in his control
printing equipment and other paraphernalia, which were used and are all continuously being used as a
means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under PD 885, as amended ..." is a mere
conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause.
44. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., in his capacity as
Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC, Manila, and LAWRENCE WANG Y CHEN, Respondents
G.R. No. 128587 March 16, 2007
Facts:
Respondent was charged with 3 informations implicating him for violations of dangerous drugs act,
illegal possession of firearms and comelec gun ban. He assailed the validity of his arrest and the
inadmissibility of the prosecution’s evidence against him. Petitioner on the other hand, alleging that the
warrantless search was legal as an incident to the lawful arrest and that it has proven its case.
Issue: WON the warrantless search and the seizure is unlawful?
Ruling:
Yes. Section 5, Rule 113 of the New Rules of Court laid down the instances where a peace officer may
arrest a person without a warrant. None of the circumstances were present when the accused was
arrested.
55. Villavicencio vs. Lukban
G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919
Facts:
Mayor Lukban of Manila transported women of ill-repute to Davao with the intention of exterminating
vice in Manila. These women were deprived of their liberty and unknown to them were exiled to a place
without their consent, leaving their life behind. The relatives of these women file a petition for habeas
corpus directly to the SC.
Issue: WON Mayor Lukban has the authority to deport the women to a distant locality?
Ruling:
No. There was no law authorizing the Mayor of Manila to transport these women to a distant place. On
the contrary, Philippine penal law specifically punishes any public officer who, not being expressly
authorized by law or regulation, compels any person to change his residence.
66. LEONILA BATULANON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
G.R. No. 139857 September 15, 2006
Facts:
Batulanon was charged of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. She allegedly forged the
signatures of members and released the proceeds of loans which the members did not undertake. She
denied the accusations.
Issue: WON Batulanon is guilty of the crimes charged?
Ruling:
Yes. Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through falsification of commercial
document, appellant could be convicted of falsification of private document under the well-settled rule
that it is the allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and not the
technical name given in the preamble of the information.
77. Roque vs. de Villa
G.R. No. 84581-82 July 9, 1990
Facts:
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that their detention is unlawful. Respondents
countered that the privilege of the writ is not available to the respondents because they were lawfully
arrested.
Issue: WON petitioners are unlawfully deprived of their liberty?
Rulung:
No. The record of the instant cases would show that the persons in whose behalf these petitions for
habeas corpus have been filed, had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense, when
apprehended, so that their arrests without a warrant were clearly justified, and that they are, further,
detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court.
88. People vs Ompad
G.R. No. 93730-31 June 10, 1994
Facts:
Ompad was known as a member of the liquidation squad of the NPA. He killed 2 individuals, one of
which was his comrade who was suspected as military informer. He was then arrested and his
companions testified against him.
Issue: WON Ompad is guilty of murder?
Ruling:
Yes. . It is settled that the testimony of one witness if credible and positive is sufficient to convict. In the
instant case, accused-appellant was positively identified by two witnesses as the assailant of the young
Barlaan. Accordingly, we give great weight and credence to the clear and positive identification of the
accused.
99. JOSE M. NAVA v. MAGNO GATMAITAN
GR No. L-4855, Oct 11, 1951
Facts:
The accused is charged with rebellion complexed with other offenses. He was detained while the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. He was indicted.
Issue: WON a person who was detained while a proclamation for the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is in force, shall be entitled to bail?
Ruling:
Yes. If it be contended that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus includes the
suspension of the distinct right to bail or to be provisionally at liberty, it would a fortiori imply the
suspension of all his other rights (even the rights to be tried by a court) that may win for him ultimate
acquittal and, hence, absolute freedom.
110. FRANCISCO R. CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, (1st Division), respondents
G.R. No. L-14752 April 30, 1963
Facts:
Cariño was charged for being an accomplice in the crime of rebellion. He allegedly give supplies to Dr.
Lava, his compadre who is a top communist.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty of the crime of rebellion?
Ruling:
No. In the crime of treason any act of giving comfort or moral aid may be criminal, but such is not the
case with rebellion or insurrection where the Code expressly declares that there must be a public
uprising and the taking up of arms in rebellion or insurrection. The act of sending or furnishing cigarettes
and food supplies to a famous Huk does not prove intention to help him in committing rebellion or
insurrection.
121. People vs. Dasig
G.R. No. 100231. April 28, 1993
Facts:
Dasig was a member of sparrow unit of the NPA. He and his companion killed Manatad, a police officer,
while the latter was manning the traffic. He was convicted of murder with direct assault upon a person
in authority.
Issue: WON the crime charged is correct?
Ruling:
No. Appellant confessed voluntarily his membership with the sparrow unit and his participation and that
of his group in the killing of Pfc. Manatad. It is therefore not hard to comprehend that the killing of Pfc.
Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA.
Consequently, appellant is liable for the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a person
in authority.
132. People vs. Samason
GR No. L-14110, Mar 29, 196
Facts:
Josefina Samson was charged of parricide for killing her husband. In her defense, she contended that
they had a fight and that they were grappling for the carbine which accidentally went off, hitting his
husband in the neck and killing him.
Issue: WON Josefina is guilty of the crime charged?
Ruling:
Yes. The absence of any powder burns at the entrance of the. wounds found in the body of the
deceased is convincing proof that the victim was shot from a distance- and not with the muzzle of the
gun almost resting on his shoulder or the back of the neck.
143. PEOPLE v. DIONISIO LIDRES
GR No. L-12495, Jul 26, 1960
Facts:
Diotay and Lidres applied as substitute teachers in a public school. Diotay was recommended to fill up
the position and was requested to sign an agreement to share the duty with Lidres on a 50-50 basis.
Lidres tried to enforce said agreement and claimed his share in the period of teaching. Diotay refused to
give in but Lidres continued to teach the class.
Issue: WON Lidres is guilty of usurpation of authority?
Ruling:
No. Pretense of official position is an essential element of the crime of usurpation of official functions.
But the information specifically charges that defendant committed the offense "without pretense of
official position". Under the circumstances, the facts alleged in the information fail to constitute an
offense.
Neither can defendant be convicted of usurpation of authority, as distinguished from usurpation of

official functions, under the first paragraph of Article 177, as amended by said Republic Act No. 379,
namely, that of representing to be an officer, agent, or representative of any department or agency of
the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, inasmuch as the information does not charge
the same.
154. LOUIS VUITTON S.A., complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO DIAZ VILLANUEVA, presiding Judge,
Branch 36, The Metropolitan Trial Court at Quezon City, Metro Manila, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-92-643 November 27, 1992
Facts:
Judge Villanueva was administratively charged by Vuitton for allegedly rendering a manifestly unjust
judgment.
Issue: WON respondent judge is guilty of knowingly rendering a manifestly unjust judgment?
Ruling:
No.In order to hold a judge liable, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is
unjust and that it was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. A judge cannot be
subjected to liability –– civil, criminal, or administrative — for any his official acts, not matter how
erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith.
165. People vs. Francisco
G.R. No. 21390. March 26, 1924.
Facts:
Francisco demanded P2 from Sy ham threatening that he will report to the
authorities the black substance in the lard sold by the latter. Sy Ham, for fear
of being arrested assented to the demand.
Issue: What crime was committed?
Ruling:
Robbery. In bribery, the transaction is mutual and voluntary; in the case of robbery the
transaction is neither voluntary nor mutual, but is consummated by the use of force or
intimidation. If the offended party in the present case had voluntarily offered to pay the
defendant the P2 the transaction would have constituted bribery. The defendant
demanded the payment of the P2, accompanying the demand with threats of
prosecution and arrest and is therefore guilty of robbery.
176. Dumagat vs Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992
Facts:
Dumagat is the Disbursing Officer of different stations of NFA. Upon cash examination by the Auditor, a
shortage was established. Despite payment, Dumagat was prosecuted for malversation of public funds.
Issue: WON Dumagat is guilty of malevrsation of public funds?
Ruling:
No. The audit examination conducted by Auditor Eway failed to establish that the funds were indeed
missing since she did not follow standard auditing procedures by not including in her examination the
funds petitioner kept in the vaults located in Tampilisan and Sindangan.
Thus, the ruling in Tianga that "[t]he prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code arises if there is no issue as to the accuracy, correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if
the fact that funds are missing is indubitably established," has no application in the instant case in the
light of the haphazard examination of the cash accountability of petitioner in violation of the Manual of
Instructions to Treasurers and Auditors and the credible explanation of petitioner that the "missing"
funds would have been "discovered" if only the auditor took into consideration the contents of the two
vaults in Sindangan and Tampilisan and the fact that her collection in Dipolog City were deposited with
the NFA Cashier.
187. People vs. Angco
GR No. L-9550, Feb 28, 195
Facts:
Angco was the travelling sales agent of PCSO entrusted to sell tickets and remit the proceeds afterwards.
The accused did not fully remit the proceeds of the tickets sold and has failed to account for the
unremitted balance despite demand. Consequently, he was charged with malversation of public funds.
Issue: WON Angco is guilty of the crime charged?
Ruling:
Yes. Angco failed to give account of the missing funds and has misappropriated and converted to his
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.
198. US v. LINO DE CASTRO
GR No. 1136, Oct 28, 1903
Facts:
De Castro, the municipal president, was charged of bribery for allegedly accepting bribe and allowing
opium joints and gambling houses to operate in the town.
Issue: WON Castro is guilty of bribery?
Ruling:
No. It is not stated in the complaint what act the municipal president should have performed in the
exercise of his office with reference to the keeping of houses for the smoking of opium and the keeping
of houses for prohibited games. The complaint fails to make these necessary allegations. It is not even
charged in the complaint in direct terms that the defendant was president of the municipality of
Fagbilao.
59. Tanada vs. Bagatsing, August 1984
(case not found)
REYES VS BAGATSING
GR NO 65366; OCT 25, 1983
FACTS: Reyes sought a permit from City Mayor of Manila to hold a peaceful march from Luneta to US
Embassy. This was denied on the ground that there is a persistent intelligent report affirming plans of
subversive or criminal elements to infiltrate assembly where a number of people are expected to attend
and that Ordinance 7925 prohibited the holding of rallies within a 500ft radius from any foreign mission.
ISSUE: WON the denial of the permit is valid?
RULING: NO. While the Philippines is a signatory of the Vienna Conventions wc requires it to take
appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion, the denial of the permit is
justified only in the presence of clear and present danger to life or property of the embassy. Here, there
was none.
70. PEOPLE VS LIWANAG
GR NO L-27683; OCT 19, 1976

FACTS: Liwanag was found guilty with violation of RA 1700 or Anti-subversion act for having joined the
HUKBALAHAP, an organization wc purpose is to resist Japanese occupation in the Philippines and the
CPP. He however bewails his conviction on the ground that he already had been found guilty of
rebellion, and therefore cannot be convicted of subversion.
ISSUE: WON Liwanag is guilty?
RULING: YES. Subversion is a crime distinct from actual rebellion. Unlike rebellion, subversion punishes
affiliation or membership in a subversive organization as defined in RA 1700.
81. PEOPLE VS MOLINA
GR NO 115835-36; JULY 22, 1998
FACTS: Accused were found guilty of murder after shooting incident occurred between two political
factions, in wc they were involved, resulted to 4 deaths. Accused were also found guilty of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions.
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in convicting them of illegal possession of firearms?
RULING: YES. RA 8294 now considers the use of an unlicensed firearm simply an aggravating
circumstance in murder or homicide, and not as a separate offense.
92. PEOPLE VS FELOTEO
GR NO 124212; SEPT 17, 1998
FACTS: Feloteo shot Sotto with an armalite rifle as the latter was playing with his companions. The said
firearm was stolen from SPO2 Adion. Feloteo was found guilty of murder qualified by treachery and
illegal possession of firearm.
ISSUE: WON the conviction is proper?

RULING: NO. Section 1 of RA 8294 provides that where a murder is committed with the use of
unlicensed firearm, the same is considered as an aggravating circumstance. It is no longer considered as
a separate offense
103. PEOPLE VS FEDERICO GERONIMO
G.R. No. L-8936. October 23, 1956
FACTS: Geronimo is a member of the CPP and the HUKBALAHAP. He was charged with the complex
crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping. He pleaded guilty.
ISSUE: WON Geronimo is guilty as charged?
RULING: NO. He is liable for simple rebellion and murder with the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty. Not every act of violence is absorbed in the crime of rebellion simply because it was committed
simultaneously with rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc were done for private purpose or profit, the
same is not absorbed in rebellion, and is separately punishable.
81. Philtranco Services Enterprises vs. BLR, 174 S 388
GR NO 85343; JUNE 28, 1989
(ONE UNION-ONE COMPANY POLICY)
FACTS: Philtranco’s employees include both field and office employees. KASAMA KO filed a petition for
certification election praying to represent all professional, technical, admin, and confidential employees
of Philtranco. NAMAWU-WIF moved to intervene, alleging that it is the present bargaining agent of the
Philtranco employees. DOLE dismissed KASAMA’S petition and held that if there be individual members
of KASAMA who are eligible to join unions, they must be incorporated/included in NAMAWU-WIF
instead.
ISSUE: WON the dismissal is proper?
RULING: YES. First, the aforementioned employees are managerial and confidential employees who
cannot form a union. Those who are rank-and-file workers may join the existing bargaining unit instead
of organizing one and be consistent with the one-union, one-company policy, ie, proliferation of unions
in an employer unit is discouraged unless compelling reasons would deny a certain class of employees
the right to self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining. There are no compelling reasons in
this case.
NB: underlined the writeable parts
92. People’s Bank & Trust Co. vs. PBTCU 69 S 10
GR NO L-39598; JAN 13, 1976
ULP
FACTS: PBTC allegedly refused to collectively bargain for the increase of employees’ wages as provided
for in the CBA. Instead, it dismissed 65 employees, 51 of whom are union officers in the guise of
retrenchment.
ISSUE: WON PBTC is guilty of unfair labor practice?
RULING: YES. Retrenchment can only be availed of if the company is losing or meeting financial reverses
in its operations. Here, it is undisputed that PBTC has at no time incurred losses. It had an annual net
earnings of 2million for 9years. Dismissal in the guise of retrenchment policy to bust union is unfair labor
practice.
103. George & Peter Lines vs. ALU 134 S 82
GR NO L-51602; JAN 17, 1985
CERTIFICATION ELECTION
FACTS: ALU filed a petition for direct certification praying that it be certified as G&PL’s sole and exclusive
bargaining agent (SEBA). G&PL opposed thereto stating that ALU does not represent majority of its
employees, in view of the claim of more than 80% of said employees are not members and do not want
to be members of a union.
ISSUE: WON ALU must be directly certified as G&PL’s SEBA?

RULING: NO. Certification election is still the most appropriate means of ascertaining the employee’s
choice as to their exclusive bargaining representative. That there are no competing unions are involved
does not alter such principle, since the employees may still choose between ALU and No Union.
114. B.F. Goodrich Phil. Vs. B.F. Goodrich Employees Union 107 S 596
GR NO 34069-70; FEB 28, 1973
FACTS: The respondent-unions representing Makati and Marikina Offices sent a letter to BF Goodrich
seeking recognition as bargaining agent. This was countered by the latter thru filing a petition for
certification election. Prior the hearing on the petition, the unions staged a strike. Consequently, a case
for ULP was filed by BF against the union. BF then moved that the petition for certification election be
held in abeyance in view of the the ULP case.
ISSUE: WON the election may be held in abeyance?
RULING: NO. Such a suit should not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not, to
prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the organization that will represent it.
87.
PEOPLE vs LOVEDIORO
G.R. No. 112235
November 29, 1995
Facts:
SPO3 Lucilo was shot by a man with three other companions, one of whom shot the fallen
policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the latter's gun, the man and his
companions boarded a tricycle and fled. The man who fired at the deceased Lucilo was
identified as Lovedioro who was identified by the witness as a member of the NPA.
Isuue:
WON accused-appellant be charged of rebellion?
Ruling:
No. From the foregoing, it is plainly obvious that it is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion
are duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime. With
either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist.
98.
SABIO vs GORDON
G.R. No. 174340
October 17, 2006
Facts:
Due to the anomalous losses incurred by the POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC, an inquiry in aid of
legislation was introduced by Sen Miriam Santiago. One of the petitioners, Sabio, chairman of
PCGG was invited to be one of the resource persons. He refused invoking Executive Order No 1
Section 4 (b).
Issue:
Whether or not legislative power of inquiry is superseded by EO No 1?
Ruling:
No. Let it be stressed at this point that so long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like
Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners, will be respected by respondent Senate Committees, it
their duty to cooperate with them in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent
legislative action. The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to subpoenae, to
respect the dignity of the Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respect to
matters within the realm of proper investigation.
108.
POMEROY vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
GR Nos L-14284-14285
February 24, 1960
120.
LADLAD vs GONZALEZ
G.R. Nos. 172070-72
June 1, 2007
Facts:
Following the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 by Pres Gloria Arroyo, police
officers arrested Beltran without a warrant and was charged with Inciting to Sedition.
Thereafter, he was also charged for rebellion. The RTC indicted Beltran as leader/promoter of
Rebellion.
Issue:
Whether or not there is probable cause to indict Beltran for rebellion?
Ruling:
No. None of the affidavits stated that Beltran committed specific acts of promoting,
maintaining, or heading a rebellion as found in the DOJ Resolution of 27 February 2006. None
of the affidavits alleged that Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. Beltran’s alleged presence during
the 1992 CPP Plenum does not automatically make him a leader of a rebellion.
131.
PEOPLE vs QUASHA
G.R. No. L-6055
June 12, 1953
Facts:
William H. Quasha, a member of the Philippine bar, was charged with the crime of falsification
of a public and commercial document for causing it to appear that Arsenio Baylon, a Filipino
citizen, was the owner of 60.005 % of the subscribed capital stock of Pacific Airways Corp. when
in reality the money paid belongs to an American citizen whose name did not appear in the
article of incorporation.
Issue:
WON Quasha is guilty of the crime charged?
Ruling:
No. The untruthful statement will not constitute the crime of falsification if there is no legal
obligation on the part of the narrator to disclose the truth. Wrongful intent to injure a third
person and obligation on the part of the narrator to disclose the truth are thus essential to a
conviction for a crime of falsification under the above article of the Revised Penal Code.
142.
US vs HERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 9405
December 24, 1914
Facts:
Adel Hernandez, in order to enjoy a girl of 15 years had a talk with the other defendant, Juan
Bautista. The latter, under a fictitious name, made out that he was a Protestant minister and
simulated the performance of a marriage ceremony. They were charged with the complex
crime of seduction by means of usurpation of functions.
Issue:
WON Bautista is guilty as charged?
Ruling:
Yes. Without legal right Juan Bautista performed an act properly pertaining to a person in
authority, assuming the official character of a minister of a religious sect in order to legalize a
marriage, and issuing a certificate, signed moreover, with a false name under the predication, in
an additional signature, of being a Protestant minister.
153.
PEOPLE vs PUDOL
GR No 45618
October 18, 1938
Facts:
An information had been filed charging Esminia Pudol and Alberto Reyes with
having committed the crime of perjury, the former by subscribing a false affidavit by induction
and with the further cooperation of the latter.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of subornation of perjury?
Ruling:
Yes. The fact that subornation of perjury is not expressly penalized in the RPC does not mean
that the direct induction of a person by another to commit perjury has ceased to be a crime,
because said crime is fully within the scope of that defined in article 17,subsection 2, of the
Revised Penal Code. Furthermore, Alberto Reyes, as already stated, is charged in the present
case not only as sub owner of the perjury committed by his co-accused but also as principal by
cooperation and participation in the preparation of the false affidavit subscribed by Esminia
Pudol.
91. BASECO VS NLRC

G.R. No. 102876, Mar 4, 1997
ULP – off topic
FACTS:
Petitioner BASECO filed with respondent NLRC an application for the retrenchment of 285 of its
employees on the ground that the company had been incurring heavy losses since the end of 1979. The
retrenchment was declared legal and valid, petitioner was ordered to pay monetary awards to retrenched
employees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the monetary awards granted to retrenched employees are proper?
RULING:
Yes. It should not be at all misplaced to note that the retrenched workers of petitioner have waited long
enough for benefits which they rightly deserve. This court will not hesitate to tilt the scales of justice to
the working class in its ruling for no less than the Constitution dictates that "the State... shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare. Consequently, no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed
to respondent NLRC.
102. Warren Manufacturing Workers Union vs BLR
G.R. No. 76185, Mar 30, 1988
Certification Election
FACTS:
PACIWU filed a petition for certification election followed by the filing of a petition for the same
purposes by the Anglo which petitions were both opposed by Warren Manufacturing Corporation on the
grounds that neither petition has 30% support; that both are barred by the one-year no certification
election law and the existence of a duly ratified CBA. It prayed that the petitions for certification election
be dismissed.
ISSUE:
WON the statutory 30% support requirement was complied with?
RULING:
Yes. The Med-Arbiter found that the petition and intervention were supported by more than 30% of the
members of the bargaining unit. In the light of these facts, Article 258 of the Labor Code makes it
mandatory for the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election.
113. Barrera vs CIR
G.R. No. L-32853, Sep 25, 1981
FACTS:
Barrera filed an unfair labor practice case for illegal strike engaged in by some of its employees
concluded, before it would agree to the holding of a certification election.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a certification election may be stayed at the instance of the employer, pending the
determination of an ULP case filed by it against certain employees affiliated with respondent-unions?
RULING:
No. If under the circumstances disclosed, management is allowed to have its way, the result might be to
dilute or fritter away the strength of an organization bent on a more zealous defense of labor’s
prerogatives. The difficulties and obstacles that must be then hurdled would not be lost on the rest of the
personnel, who had not as yet made up their minds one way or the other.
124. CIA Maritima vs CIA Maritima Labor Union changed to
Allied Free Workers’ Union vs Compania Maritima
G.R. No. L-22951 and L-22952
FACTS:
MARITIMA admits that it did not answer AFWU's proposal for a collective bargaining agreement. The
question in this case is: under the CONTRACT, was MARITIMA the "employer" and AFWU and/or its
members the "employees" with respect to one another?
ISSUE:
Whether or not certification election is necessary in this case?
RULING:
No. There being no employer-employee relationship between the parties disputants, there is neither a
"duty to bargain collectively" to speak of. And there being no such duty, to hold certification elections
would be pointless.
135. Guijarno vs CIR
G.R. No. L-28791-93, Aug 27, 1973
Collective Bargaining
FACTS:
The failure of respondent CIR to order the reinstatement of petitioners to their employment gave rise to
this appeal by way of certiorari. The need for resort to this Court could have been obviated had there been
no such marked inattention to the authoritative principle that a closed-shop provision of a collective
bargaining contract is not to be applied retroactively for.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the closed-shop provision of a collective bargaining contract shall also apply to existing
employees?
RULING:
No. The closed-shop agreement apply to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of
any labor organization. It is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another
union. To hold otherwise would render nugatory the right of all employees to self-organization and to
form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing.
146. Gonzales vs CATLU
Wara case na mailiwan – pauro nala sa case # 135 ko dinhi

FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
157. Davao Integrated Port Services vs Abarques
G.R. No. 102132, Mar 19, 1993
FACTS:
Petitioner and private respondent ATU-TUCP entered into a CBA which provide for sick leave with pay
benefits each year to its employees who have rendered at least one (1) year of service with the company.
However, the commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits was discontinued
or withdrawn under a new assistant manager.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the discontinuance of commutation or conversion to cash of unenjoyed sick leave is valid?
RULING:
No. Well-settled is it that the said privilege of commutation or conversion to cash, being an existing
benefit, the petitioner-company may not unilaterally withdraw, or diminish such benefits.
168. Citibank Employees Union vs MOLE
G.R. No. L-50184, April 11, 1980
FACTS:
Petitioner filed the case for payment of regular holiday pay pursuant to Article 208 (a) of the Labor Code.
Upon failure of conciliation efforts to settle the case, the parties agreed to submit their dispute to
voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered an award in favor of the petitioner. However,
upon the promulgation of the Integrated Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, the respondent stopped
such payment. Hence, petitioner filed the subject motion for execution to enforce the award of the
Voluntary Arbitrator.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the arbitrator’s award binding?
RULING:
Yes. The arbitrator's award when stipulated by the parties to be conclusive becomes part and parcel of the
CBA. To do otherwise would violate the proscription of the Constitution against impairment of the
obligation of contracts.
125. M. Y. Son Biscuits vs. Ferrer Calleja 196 S 256
CERTIFICATION ELECTION (case not found)
M.Y. SAN BISCUITS VS LAGUESMA
GR NO 95011; APRIL 22, 1991
FACTS: Phil Transport (union) filed a petition for certification election as bargaining agent of
delivery drivers of MY San before the Med-Arbiter. Meanwhile, the said union also filed a
complaint for underpayment of wages with the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint holding that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the said drivers and MY San. This decision was appealed to NLRC. The
Med-Arbiter also dismissed the petition for certification election on the same ground. This
decision was appealed to the SOLE.
The SOLE reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter and held there was an er-ee relationship
between MY and the drivers. MY San however moved that the action on certification election be
held in abeyance in view of the appeal before the NLRC on the issue that no er-ee relationship
exists between it and the drivers. The SOLE denied the same.
FACTS: (SHORTENED) Phil Transport filed a petition for certification election before the Med-Arbiter as
bargaining agent of the drivers of MY San. MY San moved that the petition be held in abeyance, in view
of the pending case before the NLRC on the determination of the existence of er-ee relationship between
it and the said drivers. The Med-Arbiter denied the same.
ISSUE: WON the denial is proper?
RULING: YES. The Med-Arbiter can determine the er-ee relationship between the parties. Once the
relationship is determined, the Med-Arbiter can now decide on the certification election case. His finding
is appealable only to the SOLE. They need not rely and wait for such a determination by the NLRC or
labor-arbiter. To hold that they don’t have such authority would be to create a situation wherein they
can never decide a certification election case without a separate complaint filed with the labor arbiter.
136. Juat vs. CIR 15 S 395
GR NO L-20764; NOV 29, 1965
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
FACTS: Juat was an employee of Bulaklak. Juat is not a member of any union when Bulaklak and
BUSOCOPE entered into a CBA containing a closed-shop proviso. He was suspended and was eventually
dismissed from work pursuant to the CBA’s closed-shop agreement when he refused to be a member of
BUSOCOPE.
ISSUE: WON the closed-shop proviso applies to him?
RULING: YES. The closed-shop proviso in the CBA applies not only to the employees that are employed
after the CBA had been entered into but also to old employees who are not members of any labor union
at the time the CBA was entered into.
147. Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City vs. Ferrer Calleja 165 S 725
GR NO 77951; SEPTEMBER 26, 1988

FACTS: Petitioner is a cooperative banking corporation. It has 16 employees. Federation of Free Workers
filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE, praying that they represent the said employees
for collective bargaining.
ISSUE: WON the employees of Cooperative are qualified to form labor organizations?
RULING: YES. While the members or co-owners of cooperatives cannot form labor unions since they
cannot bargain with themselves, employees of cooperatives who are not members or co-owners thereof
are entitled to exercise their right to organization and collective bargaining.
158. National Brewery & Allied Industries Labor Union vs. San Miguel Brewery
GR NO L- 19017; DEC 27, 1963
FACTS: The CBA between San Miguel and National Brewery contained a provision wherein the former
promised to give its employees their daily basic rate should they attend the Labor Day parade. 600
members of National Brewery attended. However, San Miguel did not pay as promised. Consequently,
National filed a complaint for actual damages. San Miguel sought to dismiss the complaint alleging that
it is the individual members, and not the union, who is the real party-in-interest.
ISSUE: WON San Miguel’s contention is correct?
RULING: NO. The complaint is based on the CBA. Before the same was concluded, no such benefit was
accorded to the employees, even if they attend the parade. It was only recognized since the CBA was
concluded. Section 3 of Rule 3 of ROC provides that a party with whom a contract was made for the
benefit of another may sue without joining the party for whose benefit the action is presented.
169. Ranises vs. NLRC 262 S 371
GR NO 111914; SEPT 24, 1996
FACTS: Ranises is a seaman employed with Sinkai and a member of ITF/JSU. Under his POEA approved
contract, his supposed salary is US$1, 571 per month. However, he received only US$1,378. When
Ranises was repatriated, he filed a complaint for underpayment of wages. Sinkai countered alleging that
it entered into a CBA with ITF/JSU under wc the salary for Ranises’ position was reduced to US$1,378.
The said CBA was approved by the POEA and provided for retroactive effect, hence, Ranises is under its
coverage.
ISSUE: Whether wc between the contract and the CBA prevails?
RULING: The CBA. It provided for a provision that in case of conflict between the individual employment
contracts and the CBA, the CBA prevails. This CBA amended Ranises’ contract and was signed by his
union, Sinkai, and the NLRC.
7. PEOPLE V MORALES; G.R. No. L-4533; May 28, 1952.

TOPIC: TITLE 1
Morales was charged with the crime of treason. He contends that his mere presence in the place
where he was captured was not sufficient to constitute treason.
ISSUE:
WON his contention is correct.
RULING:
NO. The contention is untenable because he was carrying a firearm and was seen behaving as a
guard; and during the Japanese occupation nobody could carry a gun freely in the presence of
Japanese soldiers unless he was an agent of or in cahoots with the enemy.
18. PEOPLE vs. LOL-LO and SARAW; G.R. No. 17958; February 27, 1922.
TOPIC: TITLE 1
The accused were charged with piracy which the committed in the Dutch East Indies.
ISSUE:
WON Philippine court has jurisdiction over the crime.
RULING:
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.
29. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS and THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY vs. KIO; G.R.
No. L-30001; June 23, 1970. (wara p v kio, also offtopic ini kay wara discussion about crim
mismo)
TOPIC: TITLE 1
Kio was granted conditional pardon. Subsequently, he was ordered to be recommitted to prison
for having violated the conditions of his pardon when he attempted to leave the country.
ISSUE:
WON an alien who violated the laws in this country may remain or be deported.
RULING:
The matter of whether an alien who violated the laws in this country may remain or be deported
is a political question that should be left entirely to the Chief Executive to decide. Under the
principle of separation of powers, it is not within the province of the judiciary to express an
opinion, or express a suggestion, that would reflect on the wisdom or propriety of the action of
the Chief Executive on matters purely political in nature.
40. PEOPLE V UY; G.R. No. 157399; NOV.17,2005.
TOPIC: TITLE 2
Appellant insists that he could not be convicted of Malversation through Falsification of
Commercial Documents because the information alleges willful and intentional commission of
the acts complained of while the judgment found him guilty of inexcusable negligence
amounting to malice.
ISSUE:
WON appellant’s contention is correct.
RULING:
NO. To sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be criminal intent or criminal
negligence and while the prevailing facts of a case may not show that deceit attended the
commission of the offense, it will not preclude the reception of evidence to prove the existence
of negligence because both are equally punishable in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
51. MACARIO GUNABE, et al. vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS; G.R. No. L-1231;
January 30, 1947. (offtopic again, wara discussion about crim mismo, more on poli law)
TOPIC: TITLE 2
The petitioners were charged with the crime of murder and frustrated murder. They then filed a
petition for the writ of habeas corpus, contending, among others, that they should be released on
amnesty, because the offenses for which they were prosecuted are political in nature, perpetrated
by guerrilla men in the furtherance of their resistance movement during the enemy occupation.
ISSUE:
WON the petition should be granted.
RULING:
As to whether the petitioners were or are entitled to amnesty, is a question that should be
ventilated in the trial court, or before the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission created pursuant to
Proclamation No. 8 dated September 7, 1946, by the President of the Republic of the Philippines.
62. FULLERO vs. PEOPLE; G.R. No. 170583; September 12, 2007.
TOPIC: TITLE 2
Petitioner was found guilty of falsification of public document as defined and penalized in
paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner should be acquitted because the false statement caused no prejudice to any
private person.
RULING:
(pwede an naka bold nala iyo igcopy)
NO. In the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officers or private
persons, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third
person for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished
is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. In
falsification of public documents, therefore, the controlling consideration is the public
character of a document; and the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at
least, the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial.
73. PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ; G.R. No. L-13981; April 25, 1960.
TOPIC: TITLE 3
The accused was separately charged with rebellion and illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition. The information for rebellion contains no allegation that the firearm in question in
the latter case is one of those used in carrying on the rebellion.
ISSUE:
WON illegal possession of firearm and ammunition cab be charged separately from rebellion.
RULING:
NO. The information would not make the present charge of illegal possession of firearm
different from the one included in the crime of rebellion, where it appears that one of the
firearms used in furtherance thereof is the same pistol with which the accused is now charged.
84. PEOPLE vs.TIOZON; G.R. No. 89823; June 19, 1991.
TOPIC: TITLE 3
Appellant was charged with illegal possession with murder as defined under Section 1 OF P.D.
1866.
ISSUE:
WON murder is absorbed in the offense.
RULING:
NO. Otherwise, an anomalous absurdity results whereby a more serious crime defined and
penalized in the Revised Penal Code is absorbed by a statutory offense, which is just a malum
prohibitum. Thus, the killing of a person with the use of an unlicensed firearm may give rise to
separate prosecutions for (a) violation of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 and (b) violation of either
Article 248 (Murder) or Article 249 (Homicide) of the Revised Penal Code.
95. AGOTE vs. LORENZO; G.R. No. 142675; July 22, 2005.
TOPIC: TITLE 3
Petitioner was convicted by the trial court for (1) illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No.
1866 and (2) violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 on gun ban, were both committed by
the petitioner on April 27, 1996.
ISSUE:
WON the two crimes should be charged separately.
RULING:
NO. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms,
provided that ‘no other crime was committed by the person arrested’.
106. PEOPLE vs. JAIME SANTOS, alias "La Perla", alias "Velasco", alias "Santos" ET
AL.; G.R. No. L-11813; September 17, 1958.
TOPIC: TITLE 3
A total of 10 separate informations were filed before the CFI of Pangasinan, charging the
defendants therein with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, etc.
ISSUE:
WON there exists a complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, etc., defined and
punished under the Revised Penal Code.
RULING:
NO. Rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes, because the latter are either
absorbed by the crime of rebellion if committed in pursuance of the aims, purposes and
objectives of the rebels and in furtherance of their intention to overthrow the duly constituted
government by force, or are independent common crimes which had no connection with the
rebellion and must be separately prosecuted in the proper court within the territorial jurisdiction
of which the same had been committed.
117. PABLO MARGAREJO, MARTIN PAGADUAN, BERNARD ZAMBALES, VICTOR
DULAP, and LOLITO ALMOITE vs. ESCOSES; G.R. Nos. 137250-51; September 13,
2001.
TOPIC: TITLE 3
Petitioners were charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866. In the motion to quash
filed by them, petitioners asserted that, "the facts charged in the Information did not constitute an
offense, there being no allegation that `no other crime was committed,' which is an essential
element of the offense penalized by PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294".
ISSUE:
WON petitioners’ contention is correct.
RULING:
NO. Contrary to what they point out, the amendatory law (Republic Act No. 8294) does not add
to the existing elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. What it does is merely to
excuse the accused from prosecution of the same in case another crime is committed.
128. PEOPLE v. ABDUGAFAR ABUBAKAR; G.R. No. L-24157; September 28, 1979.
(offtopic)
TOPIC: TITLE 4
Accused was charged with violation of Article 171, paragraph 2 of the RPC. The court a quo
then granted his motion to quash ruling that the offense charged constitutes an election offense
punishable under the Revised Election Code, and therefore not one to be punished under another
law, such as the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE:
WON the trial court erred in dismissing the case.
RULING:
YES. The information charges the accused with an act clearly and expressly punishable under
Article 171, paragraph 2 of the RPC, but not punished with similar clarity and explicitness, as is
legally required in all criminal prosecutions, under the Revised Election Code.
139. CABIGAS v. PEOPLE; G.R. No. L-67472; July 3, 1987.
TOPIC: TITLE 4
Petitioner was charged with with Falsification of Official Documents. Petitioner argues that the
Daily Report on Securities/Documents under Custody is a form purely devised and adopted by
him. This form was never required, neither was it introduced nor prescribed by the Land Bank.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner is guilty as charged.
RULING:
NO. Petitioner was not under "legal obligation" to disclose in the DR SDUC or SDR, the correct
number and total maturity value of the securities under their official custody as of a given date. It
is purely optional on the part of petitioner to use the said forms.
150. PEOPLE v. RIVERA; G.R. Nos. 38215 & 38216; December 22, 1933. (offtopic)
TOPIC: TITLE 4
Rivera was charged with an offense of incriminating an innocent person under article 363 of the
RPC. Rivera moved to dismiss the case contending that the facts alleged did not fall under article
363 of the RPC. Solicitor-General, on the other hand, contends that article 363 of the RPC
should be construed to embrace the crime of false accusation or complaint as formerly penalized
under article 326 of the Codigo Penal.
ISSUE:
WON the contention of the Solicitor General is correct.
RULING:
NO. Article 326 of the old Penal Code punishes false prosecutions whereas article 363 of the
Revised Penal Code punishes any act which may tend directly to cause a false prosecution.
161. STA. MARIA v. HON. UBAY; A.M. No. 595-CFI; December 11, 1978. (in lieu of P vs.
Quing Lee, kay wara ko kahanap)
TOPIC: TITLE 7
A complaint against Judge Ubay was filed in the SC for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment.
ISSUE:
WON Judge Ubay should be held liable.
RULING:
NO. In order that a judge may be held liable for knowingly rendering an adjust judgment it must
be shown beyond doubt that the judgment is unjust in the sense that it is contrary to law or is not
supported by the evidence, and that the same was made with conscious and deliberate intent to
do an injustice. In the case at bar, the complainant failed to show any unmistakable indication
that bad faith motivated the alleged unjust actuations of the respondent judge.
172. AYTONA vs. CASTILLO, ET AL; G.R. No. L-19313; January 19, 1962. (wara
discussion about crim mismo)
TOPIC: TITLE 7
Aytona instituted a quo warranto proceeding challenging Castillo's right to exercise the powers
of Governor of the Central Bank. Castillo replies that the appointment of Aytona had been
revoked by Administrative Order No. 2 of Macapagal.
ISSUE:
WON the new President had power to issue the order of cancellation of the ad
interim appointments made by the past President, even after the appointees had already qualified.
RULING:
YES. In signing 350 appointments in one night there seems to be force to the contention that
these appointments fall beyond the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision granting to the
Executive authority to issue ad interim appointments.
183. MERENCILLO vs. PEOPLE; G.R. Nos. 142369-70; April 13, 2007.
TOPIC: TITLE 7
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 and direct bribery under
Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE:
WON Petitioner was placed twice in jeopardy when he was prosecuted for violation of Section
3(b) of RA 3019 and for direct bribery.
RULING:
NO. A reading of Section 3 of RA 3019 reveals that one may be charged with violation of RA
3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is,
either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the Revised Penal Code.
194. US v. BANDINO; G.R. No. 9964; February 11, 1915.
TOPIC: TITLE 7
Bandino was accused of faithlessness in the custody of prisoners committed with reckless
negligence when Lescano, a prisoner under his custody, managed to escape from prison.
ISSUE:
WON Bandino is guilty as charged.
RULING:
YES. Connivance in the escape of a prisoner on the part of the person in charge is an essential
condition in the commission of the crime of faithlessness in the custody of prisoners. It may
perhaps be true that the accused had no knowledge that the prisoner Lescano would escape, and
that he did not permit him to do so, but it is unquestionable that he did permit him to go out of
the municipal jail, thus affording him an opportunity to get away with ease. Therefore, the
prisoner’s escape was effected through the tolerance of his custodian, and is deemed also to have
been by connivance with the latter.
205. FAJELGA vs. HON. ESCAREAL G.R. Nos. L-61017-18; November 14, 1988.
TOPIC: TITLE 7
Petitioner was convicted of falsification of public document under paragraph (4), Art. 171 of the
Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE:
WON the trial court erred in convicting the accused.
RULING:
YES. The information filed against the petitioner alleged that the petitioner, although a public
officer, acted in his private and personal capacity. Hence, there was no abuse of official position.
Besides, the petitioner Fajelga could not have abused his position, as driver, in falsifying the
document adverted to.
216. PEOPLE vs. CASTILLO, ET AL.; C.A. No. 227; February 1, 1946.
TOPIC: TITLE 8
Defendant, a pharmacy clerk, was found guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide through
reckless imprudence when she allegedly issued a poisonous substance instead of the proper
prescription.
ISSUE:
WON the conviction of the defendant of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence is
proper.
RULING:
NO. The offense of frustrated homicide requires the concurrence of the essential requisite of
intent to kill, which is incompatible with the charge of reckless imprudence; although a charge
for physical injuries, serious or less serious, through reckless imprudence, is legally proper under
the law; as in the case that act sought to be punished is the material damage or injury actually
done.
227. PEOPLE v. PLACIDO LUNA; G.R. No. 135241; January 22, 2003.
TOPIC: TITLE 8
Luna was accused of raping her 10-year old step-granddaughter. In his defense, he claims that
the inconsistencies and material contradictions in private complainant’s testimony renders her
testimony improbable and questionable.
ISSUE:
WON the contention of the accused is correct.
RULING:
NO. Jurisprudence holds that the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature
deserves full credence and full probative weight. In this case, Accused-appellant even
unabashedly admitted that private complainant had no ill or devious motive for charging him
with rape.
238. PEOPLE vs. BANZALES and DIALOLA; G.R. No. L-63260; March 20, 1987.
TOPIC: TITLE 8
Rosalina filed a complaint for rape against Murphy Banzales as principal by direct participation
and Josephine Dialola as principal by indispensable cooperation.
ISSUE:
WON Dialola, a woman, may be held equally culpable as a principal together with Banzales for
the crime of rape.
RULING:
YES. Appellants' combined actions easily induce the belief that everything had been prearranged
between them in order that Banzales might carry out his bestial designs upon the victim. Dialola
cooperated in the perpetration of the rape by Banzales by acts without which the crime could not
have been consummated. She paved the way by luring the unsuspecting victim into a secluded
wooded area, delivering her to Banzales and then covering the girl's mouth so that she could not
summon for help. The criminal responsibility of Dialola has been established.
249. PEOPLE vs. CLAVERIA; G.R. No. 94786; April 6, 1993.
TOPIC: TITLE 8
The trial court convicted the accused of murder. On appeal, accused interposed the defense of
alibi and presented evidence to the effect that he was not present when the incident took place.
ISSUE:
WON accused is criminally liable.
RULING:
YES. Alibi, in order to prosper, must he so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused
could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of the
commission. The defense of alibi cannot stand against the positive identification of a credible
witness. In the case at bar, there was every possibility that accused-appellant was present at the
scene of the crime during the shooting incident.
260. PEOPLE vs. LAYOSO; G.R. Nos. 141773-76; January 22, 2003.
TOPIC: TITLE 8
Layoso was charged with four counts of rape under four separate Informations. In his defense,
accused makes issue of the fact that Marlene failed to offer adequate resistance against her
alleged perpetrator in all the four occasions of rape considering that they all occurred near an
inhabited place.
ISSUE:
WON failure to offer adequate resistance is material in the prosecution of rape cases.
RULING:
NO. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the
victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist’s lust out of fear for her life and
personal safety.
271. PEOPLE vs. AMPO-AN, ET AL.; G.R. No. 75366; July 4, 1990.
TOPIC: TITLE 8
Appellants were accused of Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide. All the appellants
interposed alibi as their common defense.
ISSUE:
WON their defense is tenable.
RULING:
NO. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the
crime. To sustain the defense of alibi, the accused must not only prove satisfactorily that he was
at another place at the time the crime happened, but more important, that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed.
PEOPLE v. ELEUTERIO ICARO
GR No. L-2956, May 23, 1951
Facts: This is an appeal by the defendant, from a judgment of tile CFI of

Laguna, finding him guilty of treason and sentencing him to life
imprisonment, with the accessory penalties.
Issue: WON CFI judgment is affirmed?
Ruling: Yes. The trial court found that there is no direct and conclusive
proof that the appellant was a Makapili, and this finding is assailed by the
Solicitor General on the ground that while there is no documentary
evidence to show that appellant had joined the Makapili organization, the
witnesses for the prosecution are unanimous in alleging that appellant was
in fact a Makapili.
20.
GR No. 113470, Mar 26, 1997
PEOPLE v. DANILO CORBES Y OLAZO
Facts: Appellants contend in this appeal that conspiracy was not sufficiently proved since it cannot be
inferred solely from their mere presence at the crime scene.
Issue: WON there is conspiracy?
Ruling : No. We sustain the claim of appellants that the evidence failed to meet the quantum of proof
required by law to establish conspiracy which jurisprudence dictates must be shown to exist as clearly
and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. No less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is
required.
31.
PEOPLE vs. EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG

G.R. No. 118075 September 5, 1997
FACTS: Accused Catantan et. al. boarded the pumpboat of the Pilapils and Catantan leveled his gun on
the Pilapils brother. As the pumpboat of the Pilapil breaks down, Catantan boarded another pumpboat and
ordered the operator Juanito to take them to Mungaz, Cebu.
ISSUE: Whether accused-appellant committed Piracy?

Ruling: Yes. Under the definition of piracy as "any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, xxx by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, xxx in
Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished
as hereinafter provided."
42.
PEOPLE V. MOLLEDA
G. R. No. L-34248, November 21, 1978
Facts: Appellants were convicted as principals in the crime of murder, qualified by taking advantage of
superior strength and with the aggravating circumstance of deceit. They contend that the trial court
erred in considering evidence comprising the fruits of an illegal arrest without a warrant.
Issue: Is the contention of the appellants correct?
Ruling: No. Appellants were apprehended by the Anti-Hoodlum Unit of the Manila Police Department
while in hiding, pursuant to an alarm flashed after they were identified and verified to be the
perpetrators of the killing. Upon being discovered in their hideouts, they were invited by the Anti-
Hoodlum Unit for investigation on well-grounded suspicions for their part in the killing The police are
not guilty of arbitrary detention since they acted in the performance of their duty.
53.
MEDINA VS. OROZCO GR NO. L26723 December 22, 1966

FACTS: Petitioner was arrested and incarcerated in Jail. Only after three days that an information was
filed against them in the Caloocan of the CFI of Rizal. The court promptly ordered them to be committed
to jail.
ISSUE: WON Orozco committed arbitrary detention?
HELD: No, Orozco didn’t violate article 125. Considering that November 7 was a Sunday, November 8
was declared an official holiday and November 9 was an election day. It wouldn’t not be an easy task for
a fiscal to look for personnels of the court and the judge likewise to properly file the complaint. These
considerations were taken into by the Supreme Court in holding that Orozco can't be liable for arbitrary
detention under article 125.
64.
ALFONSO C. CHOA vs. JUDGE ROBERTO
S. CHIONGSON
A.M. No. MTJ-95-1063. February 9, 1996
FACTS:
Judge Chiongson rendered judgment and found Alfonso Chua to be guilty of p
erjury upon material matters required by the Revised Naturalization Law.
ISSUE: What are the elements of perjury?
RULING: The elements of perjury under Article 183 are:(a) That the accused made a
statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) That the statement or
affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c)
That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood;(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or
made for a legal purpose.
75.
PEOPLE v GERONIMO
October 23, 1956 G.R. L-8936
Facts: About one hundred armed HUKS with intent to gain robbed the Cashier of the Provincial -Treasury, Mr.
Vicente Reventar from his house to the Provincial Capitol and at the point of guns forced him to open the Treasury
Vault and took therefrom P80,000. The accused-appellant charged with complex crime as rebellion with murders,
robberies, and kidnapping.
ISSUE: W/N rebellion can be complexed with murder, kidnapping, or robbery?
Ruling: Not every act of violence is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it was committed
simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. The individual crime would not be a means necessary for
committing the rebellion, as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter.
86.
People vs Lovedioro
G.R. No. 112235
November 29, 1995
Facts: In his appeal, appellant cites the testimony of the prosecution’s principal witness,
Nestor Armenta, as supporting his claim that he should have been charged with the crime of
rebellion, not murder. In his Brief, he asseverates that Armenta, a police informer, identified
him as a member of the New People’s Army.
Issue:
WON accused-appellant committed Rebellion under Art. 134 and 135 or Murder under Article
248 of the RPC?
HELD.: The court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal, acting in
conspiracy with his co-accused who are still at large, of the crime of murder. The appellant’s
claim regarding the political color attending the commission of the crime being a matter of
defense, its viability depends on his sole and unsupported testimony. The killing having been
qualified by treachery, the crime committed is murder.
97. Camilo Sabio vs. Gordon Case – an issue legislative inquiry palitan natin
People vs Lovedioro
G.R. No. 112235
November 29, 1995
Facts: In his appeal, appellant cites the testimony of the prosecution’s principal witness, Nestor
Armenta, as supporting his claim that he should have been charged with the crime of rebellion, not
murder. In his Brief, he asseverates that Armenta, a police informer, identified him as a member of the
New People’s Army.
Issue: WON accused-appellant committed Rebellion under Art. 134 and 135 or Murder under Article 248
of the RPC?
HELD.: The court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal, acting in conspiracy with
his co-accused who are still at large, of the crime of murder. The appellant’s claim regarding the political
color attending the commission of the crime being a matter of defense, its viability depends on his sole
and unsupported testimony. The killing having been qualified by treachery, the crime committed is
murder.
108.
GR No. L-9483, Jan 30, 1960
PEOPLE v. ELIAS NANA
Facts: This is an appeal taken by Alejandro Briones, Delfin Bumanlag, Elias Nana, Crescencia Pabiling and
Victoriano Tabliga from a decision of the Court of First Instance of La Union convicting them, together
with other seven (7) defendants, of the crime of rebellion.
Issue: WON the defendants are guilty?
Ruling: Yes. The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against
the government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the
territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed
forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.
119.
LADLAD vs. VELASCO
G.R. No. 172070
June 1, 2007
FACTS: Beltran was subjected to an (first) inquest for Inciting to

Sedition based on a speech Beltran allegedly gave during a rally in Quezon City
on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the EDSA Revolution.
A second inquest was conducted by the DOJ, this time for Rebellion. The

inquest was based on being members of the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP).
ISSUE: WON there is probable cause to indict Beltran for rebellion?
HELD: No. There is no probable cause to indict Beltran for rebellion.

Rebellion defines under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, by its
nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses or multitudes involving crowd
action done in furtherance of a political end. A mere membership in the
CPP does not constitute rebellion.
130.
People v. Quasha (1953)
G.R. No. L-6055
June 12, 1953

FACTS: To circumvent the constitutional mandate that no corp. shall be
authorize to operate as a public utility in the Philippines unless 60% of its
capital stock is owned by Filipinos.
Issue: WON Quasha is guilty?
Ruling: Yes. William H. Quasha, a member of the Philippine bar, committed a

crime of falsification of a public and commercial document for causing it to
appear that Arsenio Baylon, a Filipino citizen, had subscribed to and was the
owner of 60.005 % of the subscribed capital stock of Pacific Airways Corp.
(Pacific) when in reality the money paid belongs to an American citizen whose
name did not appear in the article of incorporation,
141.
United States v. Hernandez
G.R. No. 9405. December 24, 1914
Facts. An At trial, the prosecution elicited testimony, over the defendant’s objection, from the DEA
agent, that an investigation had been opened as a result of a tip from another federal agency that
defendant was a drug smuggler.
Issue. Whether the statements by the agent that another agency had tipped off the DEA that the
defendant was drug smuggler constituted reversible error?
Held. Yes. The statements were made out of court by someone other than the declarant, and they were
offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. They were not offered to prove state of mind, which
was irrelevant, but rather to show that the defendant was, in fact, a drug smuggler. These statements
were inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence.
152.
PEOPLE vs. ALCONGA
G.R. No. L-162 April 30, 1947
Facts: A second blow was given by Barion but failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench instead.
Alconga managed to go out of the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While Barion was about to
deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his revolver, causing him to stagger and hit the ground.
Issue: WON self-defense can be used as a defense by ALCONGA?
Held: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide The deceased ran and fled w/o
having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other hand, having been wounded
with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury upon him has ceased
absolutely/ Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure.
163.
P vs. Abesamis – wala itong case na ito.
PEOPLE vs. ALCONGA
G.R. No. L-162 April 30, 1947
Facts: A second blow was given by Barion but failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench instead.
Alconga managed to go out of the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While Barion was about to
deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his revolver, causing him to stagger and hit the ground.
Issue: WON self-defense can be used as a defense by ALCONGA?
Held: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide The deceased ran and fled w/o
having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other hand, having been wounded
with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury upon him has ceased
absolutely/ Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure.
174.
[ GR No. 94955, Aug 18, 1993 ]
JUAN CORONADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: The Sandiganbayan convicted the appellant, for violation of the

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Issue: WON appellant is liable?

Ruling: No. The elements of the offense are:
a) The offender is a public officer;
b) The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient
justification after due demand or request has been made on him;
c) Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the
public officer having acted on the matter pending before him; and
d) Such failure to so act is "for the purpose of obtaining, directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or
material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or
discriminating against another.
The attendance of the first three elements in this case can hardly be
disputed. The controversy, however, lies on the fourth element.
185.
People vs Sendaydiego, et. Al.
G.R. No. L-33254 and 33253 January 20, 1978
Facts: In these three cases of malversation through falsification, the prosecution’s theory is that in 1969
Licerio P. Sendaydiego, the provincial treasurer of Pangasinan, in conspiracy with Juan Samson y Galvan,
an employee of a lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City, and with Anastacio Quirimit, the
provincial auditor, as an accomplice, used six (6) forged provincial vouchers in order to embezzle from
the road and bridge fund the total sum of P57,048.23.
Issue: WON private individual like Samson can be liable for malversation?
Ruling: Yes. Private individual can be a principal in malversation since his acts were indispensable to
allow sendaydiego to steal the money.
196.
GR No. 19676, Feb 07, 1923
PEOPLE v. GERARDO AGNIS
Facts: The rules of the post-office as to correspondence of such a nature are to the effect that if
a C. 0. D. matter is not claimed and paid for by the sendee within sixty days from receipt, it
must be returned to the sender. If the pamphlets in question can be considered as the
documents or papers contemplated in article 360 of the Penal Code.
Issue: WON act complained, within the sanction of article 360 of RPC?
Ruling: Yes. The pamphlets in question cannot be said to evidence a fact, agreement or
disposition. They are rather merchandise as any other article usually sent by C. O. D. mail. For
this reason we think that the act complained of does not come within the sanction of said
article 360 of the Penal Code.
207. Walang case na naka designate here. So palitan natin. Hahaha
People vs. Pugay
G. R. No. L-74324 17November1988

FACTS: Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they
used to sleep together. One midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several companions making fun
of Bayani Miranda. Pugay took a can of gasoline and poured its contents to Bayani, A principal witness
told Pugay not to do the deed.
ISSUE: Is conspiracy present in this case?
Ruling: None. Conspiracy determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to
commit it. It is proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused had the same
purpose and were united in its executed.
218.
People vs. Pugay

No. L-74324 17November1988
FACTS: Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and
they used to sleep together. One midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several
companions making fun of Bayani Miranda. Pugay took a can of gasoline and poured its
contents to Bayani, A principal witness told Pugay not to do the deed.
ISSUE: Is conspiracy present in this case?

Ruling: None. Conspiracy determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and
decide to commit it. It is proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, by
proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the
accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.
229.
People Vs. Jalosjos

G.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000
FACTS: Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is now confined at the
national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts lascivious
Ness.
ISSUE: WON being a Congressman is a substantial differentiation which removes the accused-
appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under law.
HELD: No. While the Constitution guarantees: " nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of laws.", this simply means that all persons similarly situated shall be treated
alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The Court cannot validate badges of
inequality. Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in
criminal law enforcement.
240.
PEOPLE vs. MOLINA

G.R. No. 229712, February 28, 2018
Facts: Appellant was charged for the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, alleges that
the accused, mutually helping and aiding one another, feloniously recruit for a fee, promise
employment/job placement abroad to five (5) persons.
Issue: WON appellant is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Ruling: Yes. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by
a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more
persons individually or as a group.
251.
GR Nos. 111009-12, Dec 08, 1994

PEOPLE v. SPO1 JOSE FLORES Y SALINAS
Facts: Jose Flores y Salinas, Manuel Corpuz y Lacuata, Romeo Artienda y Galvez, Jr., Amado
Merca y Lopez, Edwin “Eden” Tubiera y Detabli, Leonito Macapagal and one other unknown
person who remains at-large, were charged before the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad,
Benguet, with the crimes of Murder with Unintentional Abortion.
Issue: What are the elements of Unintentional Abortion?
Ruling: The elements of Unintentional Abortion are as follows: 1. That there is a pregnant
woman. 2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion. 3.
That the violence is intentionally exerted. 4. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either
in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
262
GR No. 174473, Aug 17, 2007

PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA
Facts: AAA is a child of appellant. The latter raped AAA. The rape incident occurred at around
1:30 in the morning of 14 March 1999.
Issue: WON appellant is guilty of qualified rape?
Ruling: Yes. The elements of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3)
done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen [18] years of age at the time
of the rape; (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of
the victim.
273..
People Vs. Alfredo Bon

G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006
Facts: 8 informations were filed against Alfredo Bon charging him with rape of AAA and BBB,
the daughters of his brother. The rape allegedly happened many times in the span of 6 years
starting in 1994 were the victims were still minors.
Issues: What is the proper penalty for the crimes convicted?
Ruling: Court affirms. The Court thus affirms the conclusions of the Court of Appeals that it has
been established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of six (6) counts of rape and
two (2) counts of attempted rape. However, in light of Rep. Act No. 9346, the appropriate
penalties for both crimes should be amended.
3. Juat vs CIR
G.R. No. L-20764, Nov 29, 1965
Labor Organization
FACTS:
A CBA was entered into between the Bulaklak Publications and the BUSOCOPE LABOR UNION which
contains a closed shop proviso. Pursuant to closed shop provision Santos Juat was required to become a
member of the union. Because of the refusal of Santos Juat, he was suspended for 15 days and eventually
dropped from the company.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the closed shop proviso is valid?
RULING:
Yes. A closed-shop agreement has been considered as one form of union security whereby only union
members can be hired and workers must remain union members as a condition of continued employment.
The requirement for employees or workers to become members of a union as a condition for employment
redounds to the benefit and advantage of said employees because by holding out to loyal members a
promise of employment in the closed-shop the union wields group solidarity.
14. Cebu Seamen Assn vs Calleja
G.R. No. 83190, Aug 4, 1992
Labor Organization
FACTS:
a group of deck officers organized the Cebu Seamen’s Association, Inc. (CSAI) and registered it with the
SEC. The same group registered the organization with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) as Seamen’s
Association of the Philippines (SAPI).
ISSUE:
Who is entitled to the collection and custody of the union dues?
RULING:
SAPI. It is the registration of the organization with the BLR and not with the SEC which made it a
legitimate labor organization with rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.
25. Progressive Devt Corp vs Laguesma
G.R. No. 96425, Feb 4, 1992
Labor Organization
FACTS:
Respondent KILUSAN filed with the DOLE a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file
employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter. Petitioner
PDC filed its motion to dismiss contending that the local union failed to comply with Rule II, Section 3,
Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor organization absent compliance
with the mandatory requirements?
RULING:
Yes. We observe that, as borne out by the facts in this case, the formation of a local or chapter becomes a
handy tool for the circumvention of union registration requirements. Absent the institution of safeguards,
it becomes a convenient device for a small group of employees to foist a not-so-desirable federation or
union on unsuspecting co-workers and pare the need for wholehearted voluntariness which is basic to free
unionism.
36. Atlas vs Laguesma
G.R. No. 96566, January 6, 1992
Labor Organization
FACTS:
Private respondent Kampil-Katipunan filed on behalf of the "supervisors" union a petition for certification
election. The petitioners opposed the petition claiming that the private respondent cannot represent the
supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes because it also represents the rank-and-file
employees' union.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national
federation of labor organizations of rank-and-file ?
RULING:
No. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a
rank-and-file local union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors' local union applying for membership
in a national federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file employees. The intent
of the law is clear especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those
employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.
47. Cooperative Rural bank vs Calleja
G.R. No. 77951, Sep 26, 1988
Labor Organization
FACTS:
Private respondent, Federation of Free Workers, filed a petition for certification election among the rank-
and-file employees of the petitioner, which was granted by the public respondent. Petitioner then filed an
appeal and sought the reversal of the order on the ground that employees of cooperatives who are member
of the same cannot organize for purposes of collective bargaining.
ISSUE:
Whether or not employees of cooperatives who are members and co-owners of the same cannot form and
join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining?
RULING:
Yes. An employee of a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to
collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owner.
58. Pepsi Cola Products vs SOLE
G.R. No. 96663, Aug 10, 1999
Labor Organization
FACTS:
PEPSI filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to cancel Charter Affiliation of the Union,
entitled PCPPI v. PCEU-UOEF, on the grounds that (a) the members of the Union were managers and (b)
a supervisors union cannot affiliate with a federation whose members include the rank and file union of
the same company.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a supervisors union can affiliate with the same Federation of which two (2) rank and file
unions are likewise members?
RULING:
Yes. What is essential is the nature of the employees function and not the nomenclature or title given to
the job which determines whether the employee has rank and file or managerial status, or whether he is a
supervisory employee.
69. Tagaytay Highlands vs THEU-PGTWO
G.R. No. 142000, January 22, 2003
Labor Organization
FACTS:
THEU-PGTWO, a legitimate labor organization, filed a petition for certification election before DOLE
Mediation Arbitration Unit. THIGCI opposed the petition on the ground that the list of union members
submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors,
resigned, terminated and AWOL employees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the inclusion of supervisors in the union warrants the latter’s cancellation?
RULING:
No. The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless
such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in
Sections (a) and ( c ) of Article 239 of the Labor Code.
80. Cruzvale Inc. vs Calleja
G.R. No. 107610, Nov 25, 1994
Labor Organization
FACTS:
Private respondent, UFW, a labor union, filed with the DOLE a petition for certification election among
the regular rank-and-file workers of petitioner. Petitioner sought the denial of the petition. Respondent
Med-Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of private respondent.
ISSUE:
WON the certification election should have covered petitioner's employees at the garment factory and in
the cinema business?
RULING:
No. The employees at the Cinema operation and those at the garment manufacturing operation do not
share commonality of interest as the former clearly perform work entirely different from that of the latter.
Thus, their separation into two (2) distinct bargaining units is proper.
10. People vs Mangahas

Gr Nos L-5367 & L-5368
June 9, 1953
Facts:
The defendants were found guilty of the crime of treason. They were among the Makapilis who
apprehended the victims and brought them to garrison. They claim that there is no proof of
adherence to the enemy.
Issue:
WON defendants guilty of treason?
Ruling:
Yes. The acts of arresting guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in
the plaza, going around the town carrying firearms, and the fact that before the outbreak of the
war they were members of the Ganap Party and in the latter period of the Japanese occupation
of the Makapili organization, are more than sufficient proofs of adherence to the enemy.
21. PEOPLE vs. TULIN

G.R. No. 111709
August 30, 2001
Facts:
Accused-appellants were charged with qualified piracy and were convicted as principals of the
crime charged, except for accused-appellant Hiong who was convicted as an accomplice. On
appeal, Hiong maintains that PD No. 532 shall only apply to offenders who are members of the
complement or to passengers of the vessel, whereas RA No. 7659 shall apply to offenders who
are neither members of the complement or passengers of the vessel, hence, excluding him
from the coverage of the law.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellant Hiong was guilty of piracy?
Ruling:
Yes. In the case at bar, accused-appellant Hiong had failed to overcome the legal presumption
that he knowingly abetted or aided in the commission of piracy, received property taken by
such pirates and derived benefit therefrom.
32. Milo vs Salanga

GR No L-37007
July 20, 1987
Facts:
Accused Juan Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain, with the aid of some other private
persons namely maltreated Armando Valdez by hitti ng him with butts of their guns
and fists blows .Thereafter, without legal grounds, they lock Armando Valdez inside the
municipal jail for about eleven hours.
Issue:
Whether a barrio captain can be held liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention?
Ruling:
Yes. One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. It is accepted
that other public officers like judges and mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, may be
guilty of this crime. A perusal of the powers and function vested in mayors would show that
they are similar to those of a barrio captain except that in the case of the latter, his territorial
jurisdiction is smaller. Having the same duty of maintaining peace and order, both must be and
are given the authority to detain or order detention.
43. Sayo vs COP

Gr no L-2128
May 12, 1948
Facts:
Petitioners Sayo and Mostero were apprehended on April 2, 1948, upon complaint of
Bernardino Malinao, for the crime of alleged robbery by Benjamin Dumlao, a policeman of the
City of Manila. Until April 7, 1948, when the petition for habeas corpus filed with this Court was
heard, the petitioners were still detained or under arrest, and the city fiscal had not yet
released or filed against them an information with the proper courts justice.
Issue:
W/N petitioners were illegally restrained of their liberty?
Ruling:
Yes. In view of all the foregoing, without making any pronouncement as to the responsibility of
the officers who intervened in the detention of the petitioners, for the policeman Dumlao may
have acted in good faith, in the absence of a clear cut ruling on the matter in believing that he
had complied with the mandate of article 125 by delivering the petitioners within six hours to
the office of the city fiscal, and the latter might have ignored the fact that the petitioners were
being actually detained when the said policeman filed a complaint against them with the city
fiscal, we hold that the petitioners are being illegally restrained of their liberty, and their
release is hereby ordered unless they are now detained by virtue of a process issued by a
competent court of justice.
54. Medina Vs Orozco

GR NO. L26723
December 22, 1966
Facts:
On November 7, 1965 at 12:00PM, petitioner Arthur Medina was arrested and incarcerated in
the Caloocan City Jail. He was allegedly one of those responsible for the death of one Marcelo
Sangalang. At around 9:00AM of that same day, the case against Medina and two others was
referred to a fiscal, who forthwith conducted preliminary investigation in petitioner's presence.
It was only on November 10, 1965 that an information was filed against them. The court
promptly ordered them to be committed to jail.
Issue:
Whether or not Orozco committed arbitrary detention?
HELD:
No. But, stock should be taken of the fact that November 7 was a Sunday; November 8 was
declared an official holiday; and November 9 (election day) was also an official holiday. In these
three no-office days, it was not an easy matter for a fiscal to look for his clerk and stenographer,
draft the information and search for the Judge to have him act thereon, and get the clerk of
court to open the courthouse, docket the case and have the order of commitment prepared.
And then, where to locate and the certainty of locating those officers and employees could very
well compound the fiscal's difficulties. These are considerations sufficient enough to deter us
from declaring that Arthur Medina was arbitrarily detained. For, he was brought to court on the
very first office day following arrest.
65. Choa vs People
GR No 142011
March 14, 2003
Facts:
Alfonso Chan Choa, petitioner, is a Chinese national. On April 25, 1989, he filed a verified
petition for naturalization. On 1990, he filed a motion to withdraw his petition for naturalization
which the trial court granted the motion . However, in 1992 upon the complaint of Leni
Ochoa, an informati on was fi led against him for perjury for his untruthful statements
or falsehoods upon material matters required by the Revised Naturalization Law in his
notarized and verifi ed peti ti on for naturalizati on.
Issue:
Whether petitioner may be convicted of perjury?
Ruling:
Yes. The elements of perjury are:
1. The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter;
2. The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive
and administer oath;
3. In that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood; and
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for
a legal purpose.
All these elements are present in the instant case. Petitioner willfully and deliberately alleged
false statements concerning his "residence" and "moral character" in his petition for
naturalization. This was sufficiently proven by the prosecution, as succinctly noted by the Court
of Appeals in its assailed Decision.
75. People vs Geronimo

GR No L-8936
October 27, 1956
Facts:
Federico Geronimo, et al. were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders,
robberies, and kidnapping. They are the ranking officers/ or members of CCP and Huks. The trial
court found him guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and
kidnappings. He appealed raising the sole question of whether the crime committed by him is
not the complex crime of rebellion, but simply rebellion, thus punishable only by prision mayor.
Issue:
W/N rebellion be complexed with murder, robbery or kidnapping?
Ruling:
No. Of course, not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion
solely because it happens to be committed simultaneously with or in the course of the
rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or profit, without any
political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and would not be absorbed by
the rebellion. But even then, the individual misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to
constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each
other; and the individual crime would not be a means necessary for committing the rebellion as
it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter. This appears with utmost
clarity in the case where an individual rebel should commit rape; certainly the latter felony
could not be said to have been done in furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated its
commission. in any way. The ravisher would then be liable for two separate crimes, rebellion
and rape, and the two could not be merged into a juridical whole.

Crim Law All Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Law All Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

ISSUE: WON THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PRAETER INTENTIONEM

41. People vs Del pilar 248

121. PEOPLE VS GANOHON

Whether or not treachery is present in the commission of the crime?

Whether or not treachery is present in the commission of the crime?

Whether or not treachery is present in the commission of the crime?

Whether or not treachery is present in the commission of the crime?

126. PEOPLE VS TORIBIO

Whether or not treachery is present in the commission of the crime?

Whether or not killing was attended by treachery?

Whether or not killing was attended by treachery?

Whether or not treachery is present in the commission of the crime?

Whether or not treachery is present?

Whether or not treachery is present in the commission of the crime?

141. People vs. Glino

Whether or not treachery is attendant in this case?

Yes. Treachery or alevosia’s presence is incontrovertible. The attack was executed in a

145. People vs Ellado

Appellant Roque Ellado and co-accused Rodolfo Bakunawa are brothers-in-law. On

WON treachery is attendant in this case?

PEOPLE VS BELGAR 369

In his defense, appellant denied the charges against him.

PEOPLE VS SIMON 267

198PEOPLE VS BALDERAMA 402

199PEOPLE VS AGAPINAY 403

200PEOPLE VS MADALI 404

202-PEOPLE VS CAGALINGAN 406

203-PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA 407

204-TAN VS PEOPLE 408

209-DELA TORRE VS COMELEC 413

210ENRILE VS AMIN 412

211-PEOPLE VS BILLONES 413

213-PEOPLE VS INOVERO 415

ISSUE: WON Laurel can be prosecuted for the crime of treason?

G.R. No. L-430, Jul 30, 1947

Crimes against national security

ISSUE: WON he is guilty of treason?

11. People vs. Fernando

Issue: WON Fernando is guilty of treason?

12. PEOPLE vs. DE LOS SANTOS

ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of treason?

G.R. No. 1317, Nov 23, 1903

Crimes against national security

15. PEOPLE VS TULIN

22. People v. Adlawan

23. PEOPLE vs. PRIETO

25. US vs Bautista, et. Al.

G.R. No. 2189, Nov 3, 1906

Crimes against national security

Whether or not de Guzman was guilty as charged?

26. US v. Caballeros, 4 P 350

ISSUE: WON Caballero is liable for robbery?

Issue: WON the search warrants are valid?

36. DAVID VS MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

37. People vs. Cruz, Feb. 21, 1961;

ISSUE: WON Cruz is guilty of robbery in band?

Issue: WON the warrantless search and the seizure is unlawful?

ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest of the petitioner is illegal?

47. Umil vs Ramos

G.R. No. 81567, Oct 3, 1991

Crimes against the fundamental law of the state –

48. People vs. Malmstedt

ISSUE: WON THE SEARCH IS VALID?