People vs.

Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

Subject Matter: Applicability of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code

FACTS:
The appellant, on behalf of the Attorney General, filed an appeal urging the revocation of a demurrer
sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manila presented by the defendant. The defendant is accused of
illegally smoking opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while the vessel was
anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from the city's shores. The defendant argued in the demurrer
that the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the crime, which resulted in the case being dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels
anchored in Philippine territorial waters.

HELD:
Yes. Because the crime in this case was committed in our territorial waters, the Philippine courts have
jurisdiction over it. The Court ruled that smoking opium within our territorial waters, even while aboard a
foreign merchant ship, is a violation of public order because it causes such drugs to produce pernicious
effects within our territory. As a result, the demurrer is overruled, and the Court orders further proceedings.
US v. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

FACTS:

On August 12, 1901, the defendants were charged with stealing 16 champagne bottles worth $20
while aboard the "Lawton." The defendants' counsel claimed to the Manila Court of First Instance that they
lacked jurisdiction over the crime charged. They requested that the case be dismissed because it occurred on
the high seas and not in the city of Manila or the territory over which the court has jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the criminal case involving theft
that occurred on board when a ship that isn't registered in the Philippines was cruising the high seas

HELD:
No. Theft perpetrated on a ship that is not registered or licensed in the Philippines is a felony that can be
prosecuted in a Philippine court. According to the English Rule, when crimes are committed aboard a
foreign vessel leaving from a foreign port and entering Philippine waters, our country has the right to trial
them. In the present case, the offense was committed while the ship Lawton was cruising the open seas.
Such an act cannot be tried under our jurisdiction because of the vessel's location at the time.
Us vs. Ah Chong, (1910)
G.R. No. L-5272 | March 19, 1910

FACTS:
While the dead Pascual Gilberto was a house boy, the defendant Ah Chong worked as a cook. They shared a
room together that had a door without a permanent lock. A chair was pushed up against the door to secure it.
Ah Chong was awakened from his slumber at around 10 o'clock in the evening when someone pounded on
the door. He attempted to call twice, but got no answer. Ah Chong grabbed his knife and stabbed the
intruder as it entered the room out of fear that it might be a burglar. It came out that Pascual, his roommate,
was the intruder in question. The Court of First Instance found the defendant guilty of homicide
notwithstanding his self-defense justification.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant by reason of mistake of facts criminally liable.

HELD:
The Court ruled that there is no criminal liability when an offense or act is committed due to ignorance of
facts, as long as it is not due to negligence or bad faith. Such ignorance of the fact is sufficient to negate the
specific intent, which under the law is an essential element to the crime of murder charged, canceling the
presumption of intent and working for an acquittal. In this case, the defendant struck the fatal blow based on
his belief that the intruder was a robber, putting his life and property in danger. In exercising his right to
self-defense, he clearly acted in good faith, without negligence or criminal intent. There can be no crime, no
matter how big or small, without an evil mind. The author of the Penal Code believed that criminal intent or
malice was a necessary component of the various crimes and misdemeanors. It is a fundamental principle
that the essence of an offense is wrongful intent, without which the offense cannot exist. In other words,
punishment is the chain of evilness without which it cannot exist. And no one in any age, regardless of
philosophical speculation or religious or moral sentiment, would allow a man to be deemed guilty unless his
mind was so. This doctrine is supported by the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which states
that a man is not guilty unless he intends to be. As a result, the Court decided that the defendant should be
acquitted.
Quinto vs. Andres
GR No. 155791, March 16 2005

FACTS:
On November 13, 1995, at 7:30 am, Edison Garcia, then in fourth grade, and Wilson Quinto, a playmate,
noticed Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco standing by the entrance to a drainage culvert. Wilson was
invited to go fishing with Andres and Pacheco inside the drainage tunnel. Wilson nodded, but Garcia
decided to stay sitting on a grassy area about two meters from the drainage system's entrance because it was
dark inside. Pacheco was the only one with a flashlight. Pacheco, who was holding a fish, exited the
drainage system without saying anything. Then Andres appeared, went back inside, and reappeared carrying
Wilson, who was already dead. He sat down in the grassy area. Garcia fled the scene, shocked. Andres went
to Wilson's mother, Melba Quinto's, house and informed her that her son had died. They made their way to
the drainage culvert. Wilson was buried with no charges filed against him. On November 28, 1995, Pacheco,
Garcia, and Quinto provided sworn statements to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Pacheco
claimed he had never gone fishing with Andres and Wilson in the drainage system. The NBI's autopsy
performed by Dr. Dominic Aguda revealed that the victim drowned, with traumatic head injuries
contributing to the cause of death. Andres and Pacheco were the subjects of a homicide complaint from the
NBI to the RTC. Dr. Dominic Aguda testified that Wilson could have fallen and hit his head on a blunt
object, and that the 14x7-centimeter hematoma at the back of his head could have rendered him
unconscious, causing him to drown. The 4x3-centimeter abrasion on Wilson's right cheek could have been
caused by rubbing against a concrete wall or pavement, or by contact with a rough surface. He also stated
that the trachea region was muddy, but there was no evidence of strangulation. The RTC granted demurrer
to evidence on the grounds of inadequacy of evidence. CA: RTC confirmed.

ISSUE:
W/N Acquittal in criminal case bars a civil action where the judgment of acquittal holds that the accused did
not commit the criminal acts imputed to them

HELD:
Yes. petition is denied. Every person who is criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The civil
liability of such a person is established in Articles 100, 102, and 103 of the Revised Penal Code and includes
restitution, reparation for the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages.
People vs. Lizada
GR No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003

FACTS:
In August 1998, the petitioner willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assaulted Analia Orillosa, his
stepdaughter, by embracing, kissing, and touching her private parts, using force, violence, and intimidation.
He then proceeded to remove her skirt and panty, place himself on top of her, and attempt to insert his penis
into her vagina. This allegation was made four times on separate occasions. Nevertheless, a medical checkup
confirmed that Analia's hymen was unharmed and that the other areas of her vagina were unharmed despite
the entrance of a typical adult Filipino male organ that was fully erection. Analia's sister Rossel's testimony
further demonstrated that the petitioner did not insert his penis since he stopped when he noticed her. At
spite of this, a medical examination showed that Analia's hymen was unharmed and that the rest of her
vagina had not been damaged by the insertion of a typical adult Filipino male organ in full erection. The
testimony of Rossel, Analia's sister, also supported the claim that the petitioner did not insert his penis
because he stopped when he noticed her. As a result, the petitioner was accused of four counts of qualified
rape in four different information. According to the provisions of the seventh paragraph, no. 1, of Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code, RTC was found guilty of the crime for which he was accused beyond a
reasonable doubt and received the death sentence in each and every instance. But the petitioner claimed in
his brief that the prosecution had not established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury had
not taken into account Rossel's testimony.

ISSUE:
WON Lizada is guilty of acts of lasciviousness only.
HELD:
No. Accused-appellant is guilty of attempted rape and not of acts of lasciviousness. There is an attempt
when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all
the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
People vs. Fallorina
GR. No. 137347, March 4, 2004

FACTS:
On September 26, 1998, around 2:30 p.m., Vincent asked his mother Felicisima if he could play outside.
Vincent and his playmate Whilcon "Buddha" Rodriguez flew their kites from the roof of an abandoned
carinderia beside the road in Sitio Militar, Barangay Bahay Toro. A basketball court was adjacent to this
carinderia, where fourteen-year-old Ricardo Salvo and his three friends, nicknamed L.A., Nono, and Puti,
were playing backan, a basketball game. Ricardo was aware that the appellant despised children playing on
the carinderia's roof and chastised them for it. The appellant had previously chastised his friend Ong-ong for
playing on the roof. Ricardo summoned Vincent and Whilcon down from the roof. When the appellant saw
Vincent and Whilcon, he stopped his motorcycle and yelled at them, "Putang inang mga batang ito, hindi
kayo magsibaba d'yan!" Whilcon immediately jumped down from the roof after hearing the appellant's
shouts. Meanwhile, Vincent was lying on his stomach on the roof, flying his kite. Vincent stood up and
looked at the appellant when he heard the latter's yells. Vincent turned around, ready to descend from the
roof. Suddenly, the appellant fired a shot from his.45 caliber pistol in the direction of Vincent. Vincent was
struck in the left parietal lobe. He had fallen from the roof and was lying prostrate near the canal, next to the
abandoned carinderia and basketball court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant is exempt from criminal liability with his affirmative defense that the victim's
death was caused by his gun accidentally going off, the bullet hitting the victim without his fault or intention
of causing it.

HELD:
No. The basis for the exemption, according to Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, is the
accused's complete lack of intent and negligence. A felony must be committed with criminal intent or with
fault or negligence for the accused to be found guilty. The appellant failed to prove his defense in this case.

\
People vs. Butiong
GR No. 168932, October 19, 2011

FACTS:
This case involves a man who had sexual relations with a woman who, despite being 29 years old, had the
mentality of a six- to seven-year-old. AAA, a 29-year-old mentally retarded woman, was invited to
Butiong's house on the evening of October 7, 1998, because he would give her something. AAA agreed to
help. As soon as she stepped inside, he locked the door and removed his and AAA's shorts. He led her to the
sofa, where he possessed carnal knowledge of her. As soon as AAA got home, she immediately told her
older sister what had happened. She brought AAA to the police station and then to the National Bureau of
Investigation with her sister. Following a battery of psychological tests, AAA's findings revealed that she
had a mild form of mental retardation and that her mental age was that of a child between the ages of six and
seven. Butiong was found guilty of rape by the RTC in its judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape.

HELD:
Yes. Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or intimidation, that is, against the female's will. It
is also committed without the use of force or intimidation when carnal knowledge of a female is alleged and
proven to be without her consent. This understanding of rape commission has been prevalent in both the
common law and statutory law systems. Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, because a mental retardate
is incapable of consenting to a sexual act. Proof of force or intimidation is not required, as the State can
establish, one, the sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and, two, the victim's mental
retardation. It should no longer be debatable whether rape of a mental retardate falls under paragraph 1, b),
of Article 266-A, supra, because the provision refers to rape of a female "deprived of reason," a phrase that
refers to mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation.
People vs. Bartolome
GR No. 191726, February 6 2013

FACTS:
An informant went to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Unit (ADSOU) in Caloocan City on August
10, 2003, around 1:00 a.m., to report the accused's illicit drug dealings on Reparo Street, Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City. In response to the report, ADSOU Police Inspector Cesar Cruz immediately directed some of
his men to conduct a buy-bust operation against the accused. During the pre-operation briefing, the buy-bust
team designated PO1 Borban Paras as the poseur-buyer. Paras was given a P100.00 bill, which he marked
with his initials BP. It was agreed that the informant would drop a cigarette butt in front of the suspect to
identify him to Paras, and that Paras would scratch his head to signal to the buy-bust team that the
transaction with the suspect had been completed. The operation was co-ordinated with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency. Around 2:00 a.m., they reached the intended location. The team members took up
position on August 10, 2003, close to a store. The informant then walked up to a customer who was waiting
outside the shop and dropped a cigarette butt in front of the customer. Paras observed the cigarette butt fall
while standing two meters from the informant. Pre pa-iskor nga, said Paras as he moved toward the suspect.
Pre, piso na lang tong hawak magkano ba kukunin mo? Paras responded, "Ayos na yan, piso lang talaga ang
kukunin ko," and then handed the marked P100.00 bill to the suspect, who drew a plastic sachet containing
white substances from his pocket and handed it to Paras. Paras scratched his head, signaling the sale's
completion. Paras grabbed the suspect as the rest of the team approached. PO3 Rodrigo Antonio, another
team member, took the marked P100.00 bill from the suspect, Noel Bartolome y Bajo. At the crime scene,
Paras immediately labeled the sachet with Bartolomes' initials NBB. Insp. Cruz later wrote to the PNP
Crime Laboratory in Caloocan City, requesting that the contents of the plastic sachet seized from Bartolome
be tested in a laboratory. PO2 Rolando De Ocampo, a member of the buy-bust team, delivered the request as
well as the sachet and its contents to the laboratory. In due course, PNP Crime Laboratory Forensic
Chemical Officer Jesse Abadilla Dela Rosa confirmed in Physical Science Report No. The plastic sachet
contained 0.06 gram of methamphetamine hydrocholoride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug.

ISSUE:
Whether the transaction resulting to the arrest of Bartolome is an instigation.
HELD:
No. Instigation is the process of luring the accused into committing the charged offense in order to prosecute
him. Entrapment, on the other hand, is the use of such methods and means for the purpose of trapping or
capturing a lawbreaker. Instigation occurs when law enforcement officers or their agents incite, induce,
instigate, or lure an accused into committing an offense that he or she would not otherwise commit and has
no intention of committing. However, in entrapment, the accused's criminal intent or design to commit the
offense charged originates in his or her mind, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the criminal's
capture by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her behavior. In cases of
instigation, where law enforcement officers act as coprincipals, the accused must be acquitted. However,
entrapment cannot prevent prosecution and conviction. Instigation, as previously stated, is a "trap for the
unwary innocent," whereas entrapment is a "trap for the unwary criminal
People vs. Salvador
GR No. 201443, April 10 2013 (Conspiracy)

FACTS:
Around 7:30 p.m. on April 7, 2002, Albert sped his Toyota Prado with Plate No. UTJ-112 and left the
parking lot of the Coliseum. A white Honda Civic was driving in front, and a Toyota Hi-Ace van was
following. The Civic was passed by the Hi-Ace as they approached Imelda Avenue. The Hi-Ace abruptly
halted and blocked the Civic just as Albert was about to do the same. Six men got off the Hi-Ace with long
guns. Pinky, the Civic's driver, was motioned to exit the vehicle and board the Hi-Ace as Jubert and Morey
approached the vehicle, which was only a distance of two to two and a half meters away from Albert. Two
men chased the "watch-your-car" boy down in a nearby parking lot, but Albert had lost track of whether or
not the two ever returned to the Hi-Ace. Roger and Robert approached the Prado and motioned for Albert to
alight and ride the Hi-Ace as well. Albert and Pinky were both handcuffed and forced to wear dark
sunglasses. The men stole Albert's wallet, which contained Php9,000.00, as well as his driver's license and
other documents. They also stole his Php400,000.00 Patek Philippe watch. Albert and Pinky remained in the
house and were fed mostly Jollibee food until they were rescued on April 12, 2002. Albert and Pinky arrived
at Camp Crame around 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. 12th of April, 2002 A police line-up of about 15 men was
presented shortly after lunch. Albert identified seven people as his abductors: Marcelo, Ricky, Jubert,
Morey, Jose, Robert, and Roger. Betty arrived about an hour later and introduced herself as the house's
owner. She wondered why the cops were shooting at her house. The police summoned her to Camp Crame
to answer questions about why a crime was committed in her home. Albert and Pinky recognized her as the
person who brought them food while they were detained in the safehouse at Camp Crame. As a result, Betty
was arrested.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellants conspired in the commission of the crime.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court believes that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the essential elements
of kidnapping for ransom were present and that the accused-appellants conspired to commit the crime. In the
case at bar, Monico's assistance to Albert when he descended the basement stairs and Betty's visit to the
safehouse to bring food could not be interpreted as principals and conspirators in the crime of kidnapping for
ransom. The location of the victim's detention is logically a primary consideration in a plot to commit the
crime of kidnapping for ransom. Betty and Monico's home on Lumbang Street in Amparo Subdivision has a
basement. It is reasonable to assume that the house served the kidnappers' purpose. Albert's detention was
accomplished not only by the restraint exerted on him by the presence of guards in the safehouse, but also by
the circumstance of being placed in a location where escape became highly improbable. In other words,
Betty and Monico were crucial to Albert's abduction because they knowingly and deliberately provided the
location for Albert to be held captive. Ownership of the safehouse by the spouses, Monico's presence there
during Albert's arrival on the evening of April 7, 2002, and Betty's visits to deliver food all reasonably
suggest that they were among those who initially planned, later concurred with, and participated in carrying
out the criminal design.
People vs. Gambao
GR No. 172707, October 1 2013 (Conspiracy)

FACTS:
Halil Gambao Esmail, along with ten others, was found guilty of kidnapping for ransom beyond a
reasonable doubt. Esmail and his group kidnapped businesswoman Lucia Chan Lee in order to demand a
ransom of Php 400,000.00. Some of the members kept returning to the victim's house and taking turns
guarding her. The group illegally barged into the victim's house armed with high-powered firearms and took
her away in a Tamaraw FX van. The victim's son immediately reported the incident to police, who launched
an investigation and rescue operation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is liable for the crime of conspiracy.

HELD:
Yes, accused, along with the others, are liable for the crime of conspiracy. Article 8 of the Revised Penal
Code expressed that there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a
felony and decide to commit it.
Risos-Vidal vs. Lim
GR No. 206666, January 21, 2015

FACTS:
Former President Estrada has been impeached and removed from office. He was found guilty of the crime of
plunder. During President Gloria Macapagal-tenure, Arroyo's she granted the private respondent an absolute
pardon. Estrada filed a certificate of candidacy for the office of City Mayor of Manila, which petitioner Atty.
Risos-Vidal claimed his conviction barred him from running for public office. Estrada's pardon was given
discretionary judicial notice by the COMELEC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court properly took judicial notice on the pardon of former President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada.

HELD:
Yes. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for public respondent COMELEC, on the other hand,
maintains that "the issue of whether or not the pardon extended to [former President Estrada] restored his
right to run for public office had already been passed upon by public respondent COMELEC way back in
2010 via its rulings in SPA Nos. 09-024, 09-028 and 09-104, and there is no cogent reason for it to reverse
its standing pronouncement and declare
People vs. Escares
GR No. L-11128-33, December 23, 1957

FACTS:
On September 13, 1950, six separate robbery complaints were filed in the Rizal Court of First Instance
against Salvador Poblador, Armando Gustillo, and Rene Escares. Rene Escares was still at large when these
cases were called for hearing on March 2, 1951, and the parties agreed that they would be tried jointly
against Salvador Poblador and Armando Gustillo. Following that, a decision was rendered against them,
finding them guilty of the crimes charged and convicting them accordingly. On April 21, 1954, Rene
Escares was arraigned and pleaded not guilty in each of the six above-mentioned cases but later he asked
permission to withdraw his former plea of not guilty and substitute it for a plea of guilty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals, the latter certified it to us on the ground that the only issue involved is
one of law.

HELD:
He contends that since he pleaded guilty to all the crimes charged and there is no aggravating circumstance
to offset it, the penalty to be imposed on him should be reduced to the minimum. It should be noted that the
imposable penalty in each of the six cases where the appellant pleaded guilty in accordance with paragraph
5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is prison correctional in its maximum period to prison mayor in its
medium period, which should be applied in its minimum period in light of the mitigating circumstance of
guilty plea, not offset by any aggravating circumstance, or from 4 years 2 months and 1 day to 6 years one
month and 10 days. Using the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant should be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty for each crime, with the minimum being 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor and the
maximum being 4 years 2 months and 1 day of prison correctional and the minimum being 4 years 2 months
and 1 day of prison correctional and the maximum being 6 years 1 month and 10 days of prison mayor.
However, in determining the appropriate penalty, the trial court applied the three-part rule outlined in
paragraph 4 of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code to appellant. This is an error for said article can only be taken
into account, not in the imposition of the penalty, but in connection with the service of the sentence imposed. The penalty
imposed by the trial court on appellant should thus be modified in the sense that he should suffer an indeterminate penalty
of not less than 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor and not more than 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prison correctional,
plus the corresponding accessory penalties provided by law, in each of the six cases. These penalties must be served within
the time limit specified in Article 70, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Modified in the sense above indicated, we
affirm the decision of the trial court, with costs against Appellant.
People vs. Bayotas
GR No. 102007, September 2 1994

FACTS:
Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was accused of rape and ultimately found guilty in a criminal case brought
before the RTC Roxas City. Bayotas passed away at the National Bilibid Hospital from cardio respiratory
arrest brought on by hepatic encephalopathy brought on by hipato carcinoma gastric malingering while he
was still appealing his conviction. As a result, the criminal component of the appeal was rejected by the
Supreme Court in its Resolution. However, it mandated that the Solicitor General provide a statement
regarding Bayotas' civil liability resulting from the alleged crime that he committed. The Solicitor General
stated in his response that in his opinion, the accused-death appellants did not absolve him of his civil
liability as a result of his commission of the alleged crime. The Solicitor General maintains that the appeal
should still be decided in order to evaluate the lower court's judgment that led to the civil culpability, citing
the case of People v. Sendaydiego.

ISSUE:
WON the death of the accused Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and civil liability based solely on
the act complained.

HELD:
Yes, The Supreme Court held that the death of the accused Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and
civil liability based solely on the act complained of rape.
People vs. Reyes
GR No. 74226-27, July 27 1989

FACTS:
The above-mentioned property was purportedly transferred in the name of "Mizpah Reyes, single, of legal
age, Filipino, and inhabitant of the City of Lipa, Philippines" under TCT No. in June 1983, according to
records kept by the Register of Deeds of Lipa City. T-9885. They allegedly learned that the conveyance was
made possible by a notarized deed of sale that their parents Julio Rizare and Patricia Pampo executed and
signed on May 19, 1961. On May 26, 1961, the selling deed was submitted to Lipa City's Register of Deeds
for registration. When they examined the document, they discovered that their parents' signatures appeared
to have been forged, and that... Although she was married to Benjamin Reyes on May 2, 1950, the accused
also falsely claimed that she was single. The National Bureau of Investigation (N.B.I.) was tasked with
reviewing the document after the complainants... parents' signatures, and a report was produced that revealed
Patricia Pampo's signature was fake while Julio Rizare's was authentic. After receiving a complaint from the
accused's sisters and completing an investigation, On October 18, 1984, the fiscal filed two (2) information
for the fabrication of public records with the Regional Trial Court of Batangas, Branch XIII, Lipa City, the
first in Criminal Case No. V-1163, supposedly because... Falsifying Patricia Pampo's signature to make it
appear in the notarized deed of sale that Pampo, the accused's mother, took part in the sale of a plot of
property, and the second in Criminal Case No. V-1164, reportedly for making an untrue statement...
Specifically, the deed of sale's declaration that the accused was single constituted a statement of fact.

ISSUE:
The criminal action or liability has been extinguished by prescription of the crime

HELD:
In these two cases in question, prescriptive period of ten (10) years should have started from May 26, 1960
(sic). Considering the lapse of more than twenty (20) years before the two information were filed, the
crimes for... which the accused, Mizpah Reyes, are charged have already prescribed.
Aglibot vs. Santia
GR No. 185945, December 5, 2012

FACTS:
Private respondent complainant Engr. Ingersol L. Santia loaned P2,500,000 to Pacific Leading & Capital
Corporation (PLCC) through its manager petitioner Fideliza J. Aglibot. The loan was evidenced by a
promissory note dated July 1, 2003 issued by petitioner Aglibot on behalf of PLCC, payable in one year and
subject to interest at 24% per annum. Aglibot also issued and delivered to Santia eleven (11) post-dated
personal checks drawn from her own demand account at Metrobank, Camiling Branch. Aglibot is a major
stockholder of PLCC, with headquarters at 27 Casimiro Townhouse, Casimiro Avenue, Zapote, Las Pias,
Metro Manila, where the majority of the stockholders also reside. The checks were dishonored by the bank
when they were presented because they had been drawn against insufficient funds or a closed account. The
respondent, Ingersol Santia, demanded that PLCC and Aglibot pay him the full amount on the checks, but
neither of them complied with his request. Santia filed a Batas Pambansa bilang 22 (BP22) complaint
against the petitioner Aglibot as a result.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Aglibot is an accommodation party or a guaranteeing party?

HELD:
Aglibot is accountable to Santia since it is an accommodating party. Aglibot agreed to accommodate Santia's
loan by writing her own post-dated checks to cover it as the manager of Pacific Leading & Capital
Corporation (PLCC). So, without Santia having to first pursue PLCC for the repayment of its loan, Aglibot
became personally liable to the latter on her checks just by writing her own checks to her. It would have
been different if it had been established that Aglibot was only a guarantor, but because the check was
supposedly issued to pay back the loan, the law's rules must be applied first.