People VS Gonzales

Facts:
Salvacion resides in her house where part is rented by boarders and part is a small
convenience store. Gonzales shouted and threatened Salvacion of burning down her house and
killing her. Salvacion requested the assistance of policemen who stationed only 5 meters away
from her house. At around 3:30 A.M. of the ff day, Gonzales inserted something in the napalm of
the roof of Salvacions house causing fire to it. Salvacion quickly evacuated her boarders and the
policemen captured Gonzales after he fled the crime scene. The RTC found Gonzales guilty w/a
sentence of reclusion perpetua. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The Supreme Court
now reviews the case.

Issue:
WON corpus delicti was established by prosecution.

HELD: Yes. Corpus Delicti means the substance of the crime. In arson, corpus delicti is finely
established by the occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. Even the
uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness is enough to warrant conviction.

People VS Notarion
Facts:
Case involves a special complex crime of rape with homicide committed by Notarion.
Cabague and wife, a witness testified that he saw Notarion with a knife and a motionless AAA
on the floor. Notarion threatened to kill them if they say anything about what they saw. Cabague
and wife ran away and stayed at Cabagues brother for the night. BBB, husband of AAA could
not locate his wife the whole day. The corpse of AAA was found a few meters from Cabagues
house the following day. Dr. Galindez examined the corpse and conducted that she was strangled
and raped. The corroborated testimonies of Cabague, BBB, and Dr. Galindez gave strong
defense for the prosecution. RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The CA
reviewed the case and affirmed the decision with modifications. Sentence was reduced from
death penalty to reclusion perpetua and increased awards to the family. The motion for
reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for review. Appellant claims that all evidences
submitted were circumstantial and not enough to prove guilt and warrant conviction.

Issue:
WON circumstantial evidences are sufficient to prove guilt and warrant conviction.

HELD:YES. In rope w/ homicide the evidence presented is usually circumstantial. The nature of
the crime makes prosecution of the offense more difficult since the victim can no longer testify
against the perpetrator. Thus, resorting to circumstantial evidence is almost always inevitable.

Analysis: Sec.4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) inference is based on
proven facts; (3) combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the accused.

Tan et. al VS Ballena, et. al
Facts:
Tan, Domingo, and Lim are the owners and officers of Footjoy Corp., a domestic
corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing shoes and other kinds of footwear, prior to
the cessation of its operations sometime in February 2011. Ballena, along with the employees of
Footjoy Corp. filed a complaint before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Stating that the
Corp. regularly report the respondent employees for membership at the SSS and that it likewise
failed to remit their SSS contributions and payment for their SSS loans w/c were already
deducted from their wages. PP ordered payment of benefit and employed respondents claim that
petitioners were in violation of the Social Security Law. Provincial Prosecutor filed the
complaints and counter claims w/ the RTC while petitioners filed a petition for review w/ the
DOJ, RTC case suspended due to Crim Law Proceedings. DOJ revised the decision of provincial
prosecutor. Motion for Reconsideration was denied as well. Thus the respondents filed w/ the
CA petition for certiorari which was dismissed outright by CA. Petitioner sought a motion for
reconsideration claiming that they acted w/ good faith and there is absence of criminal intent.
Motion was denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue: WON the violations of Footjoy officers are Mala Prohibita?

HELD: YES. The fact that the Social Security Law is a special law, they purview of the case
falls under culpade acts of mala prohibita where in the mere act or inaction already constitutes
guilt upon the offender. The criminal intent need not be proved.

People VS Dela Cruz et. al
Facts:
De la Cruz, Dona, Concepcion, Palacpac, Ranara, Delos Reyes, Recepcion, and Alfonso
robbed a 7-11 convenience store located at Mindanao cor. Tandang Sora Ave., Q.C. Their crime
also resulted to the death of Mayagma, the store security guard and Elmer Duque, a customer and
PTV cameraman. The accused appellants also hi-jacked a jeep as a getaway vehicle and robbed a
gasoline station in the process. Accused appellants rode a tricycle to their hideout location. The
personnel of 7-11, jeepney driver, and tricycle driver testified for the defense. Accused
appellants were charged with the complex crime of robbery w/ homicide and robbery in band
under two separate information. RTC convicted the appellants of the crimes charged w/ penalty
of death, payment for damages and costs. While on the crime of robbery in band, the appellant
were convicted w/ a sentence of Prison Correctional, as minimum and Prison mayos, as
maximum, payment of damages and costs. RTC denied appellants motion for reconsideration.
The case was brought to the CA on automatic appeal. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Hence, this petition for review.

Issue: WON there was conspiracy.

HELD: YES. Indeed the appellants acted in conspiracy in committing the crimes charged. The
appellants were together from 7-11 Convenience store to the Petron Gas Station until they
reached Tarlac. Conspiracy is present when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred by
the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. For conspiracy to
exist, it is not required that there be an arrangement for an appreciable period prior to the
concurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had
the same purpose and were united in its execution.