OPHELIA HERNAN VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN
 Designated as collection officer
 Deposit slips did not bear a stamp of receipt by the LBP nor was it machine
validated
 Petitioner went to LBP and personally deposited 11,300.00 with
accomplished deposit slips – No acknowledgement receipts marked on it
– not remitted to the amount of LBP
 Filed a complaint to bank teller – it was dismissed
 Filed MR – counsel failed to present witnesses and documents – SB denied
MR
 COA filed a complaint for malversation of public funds against petitioner –
refused to pay the said amount
 RTC found petitioner guilty – Malversation – accountable officer had
received public funds, that she did not have them in her possession when
demand was made, and that she could not satisfactorily explain her failure to
do so.

ALONTE VS. PP – WAIVER OF RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

 Alonte (Mayor) was accused of raping Juvie with accomplice Concepcion –
befriended Juvie and lured her to Alonte’s house
 Case – moved for a change of venue due to intimidation regardless of
opposition from Alonte
 RTC Manila – arrest of Alonte and Concepcion – reclusion perpetua
 RTC Judge – Alonte waived his right to due process when he did not cross
examine Juvie
 Ruling:
o Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding on the case due
to animosity between him and the parties
o No showing that Alonte waived his right – “not only must be
voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent and done with sufficient
awareness…”
o Mere silence should not be so construed as a waiver of right
o Savellano – not showing impartiality
o Case is remanded and previous decision was nullified

PP VS SIMON – DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT

 Simon – caught in flagrante delicto – illegal sale of prohibited drugs – 2 tea
bags of marijuana
  2 tea bags sold and 2 tea bags confiscated
 Penalty of life imprisonment, 20,000
 Ruling:
o The lower court erred in convicting Simon for selling 4 tea bags
o Simon should be charged of selling for the 2 tea bags of marijuana
only
o Min. sentence at 6 months of arresto mayor instead of 6 months and 1
day of prision correccional.

PP VS LUCAS
 Chanda Lucas – 17 years old – charged her natural father – attempted rape
 First rape – 9 years old
 SolGen – cannot be convicted of consummated rape
 Ruling:
o Accused should be convicted of attempted rape only – 2 degrees
lower than that provided by law for rape
o Accordingly, the time included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua
(twenty [20] years and one [1] days to forty [40] years) can be divided
into three equal portions, with each composing a period. The periods
of reclusion perpetua would then be as follows:
o minimum - 20 years and 1 day to 26 years and 8 months
o medium - 26 years, 8 months and 1 day to 33 years and 4 months
o maximum - 34 years, 4 months and 1 day to 40 years

PP VS DE GUZMAN
 Appellant – 2 counts of rape – reclusion perpetua for each count
 Motion – he be absolved of his conviction and be released from
imprisonment
 Ruling:
o Motion should be granted
o The marriage of the offender with the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action

PP VS JUMAWAN – IMPLIED CONSENT THEORY

 KKK alleged that her husband-appellant raped her
 Sponteneous testimonies of prosecution’s witnesses – daughters
 The presence of force, threat or intimidation is negated by:
 a) KKK’s voluntary act of going with him to the conjugal bedroom
b) KKK’s failure to seek help from police authorities
c) The absence of medical certificate
PP VS LAGRAN
 Lagran – 3 counts of violation of the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law
 1 year of imprisonment for each count.
 Lagran argus that if penalties imposed are identical – shall serve
simultaneously
 Ruling:
o Article 70 – allows simultaneous service of two or more penalties
only if the nature of the penalties so permit.

PP VS SILVEDERIO
 Armed with .38 revolver, Silvederio shoot several times one Lasafin
 Accused is found guilty – murder
 Accused knew fully that victim was already injured and in no position to
defend himself – treachery
 The minor inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do
not acct the credibility of a witness, as well as his positive identification of
accused. Bontillo’s eyewitness account on the killing is credible because
it is a categorical, clear and positive assertion of a fact
 Reclusion Perpetua – cannot avail parole
 “When there are neither mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.”

MAQUILAN VS MAQUILAN
 Petitioner and respondent – SPOUSES
 Petitioner discovered – having illicit sexual affair with her paramour – filed
adultery against respondent and paramour
 Filed petition – nullity of marriage – psychological incapacity
 COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
 Adultery – does not disqualify her from sharing in the conjugal property,
considering that she had only been sentenced with prission correccional – a
penalty hat does not carry accessory penalty of civil interdiction which
deprives the person of the rights to manage her property

PP VS ALAPAN
 Sps. Alapan – charged with 8 counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 after
borrowing 400,000and issued 8 postdated checks
  Subsidiary imprisonment shall not be executed in any other form than that
prescribed by law, not with any other circumstances or incidents than those
expressly authorized thereby.
 Subsidiary imprisonment may not be imposed.

YU VS PP
 Yu issued 19 checks – 19 counts of violation of BP Blg 22
 Yes. An accused found guilty of violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 may
be made to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case he fails to pay the fines
imposed by the court. The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment is
expressly provided under Articles 38 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code.
 “there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code
provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.”

PP VS LANTAYAN
 Lantayan – found guilty – Rape
 Accused had already died
 The criminal action is extinguished – there is no longer a defendant to
stand as the accused
 AAA may file a separate civil action against the estate of the accused

PP VS BRODETTE AND JORGE

 Respondents – caught selling methamphetamine HCl
 A property not found to be used in an unlawful act and taken as
evidence can be returned to its rightful owner but only when the case is
finally terminated.

SEA LION VS PP
 The crew of Sea Lion did not assent to the illegal acts of said 17 Chinese
fishermen who were rescued by the crew from a distressed Chinese vessel
 The crew – acted only out of uncontrollable fear of imminent danger –
hindered from asserting their authority over they Chinese
 17 Chinese – guilty as principals
 Confiscation of Sea Lion is valid – absence of evidence showing that the
vessel is owned by a third party.

HUBILLA VS PP
 Hubilla – homicide – stabbing Espinola causing his death
 Considering that Hubilla was then a minor at the time of the commission of
the crime, being 17 years of age when he committed the homicide, such
minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance that lowered the penalty
to prision mayor.
 If said child reached 18 years of age while under suspended sentence, the
court shall determine whether to discharge the child, to order execution of
sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a specified period or until the
child reaches the maximum age of 21 years.
 Hubilla – 23y/o - the suspension of his sentence was no longer legally
feasible or permissible