WILMA TABANIAG vs. PEOPLE (G.R. No.
165411 – 2009)
CRIMINAL LAW CASES
GEMMA JACINTO vs. PEOPLE (G.R. No. 162540 – 2009)
DOCTRINE: Impossible Crimes can be classified into two kinds:
1. The offender must be performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
2. When the offender was performing an act, which would be an offense against
persons or property on account of the employment of adequate or ineffectual
means.
FACTS: Jacinto et. al. were charged with qualified theft for appropriating for
themselves a check which was paid to cash that was issued by Baby Aquino
which was meant to be paid to Mega Foam International Inc. Jacinto et. Al.
were able to deposit the BDO check to their personal account. The check
however bounced and they informed Ricablanca, an employee of Mega
Foam, that the check issued by Aquino bounced.
Jacinto et. al. asked Ricablanca to inform Aquino to issue a new check and
that they will take the proceeds from the check and partition it among
themselves. Ricablanca informed Mega Foam about the plan of Jacinto et. al.
and the Company investigated. They found out that Jacinto et. al. Did not turn
over the check.
ISSUE: WON there was an impossible crime? YES.
In this case, there was an impossible crime. In this case there was an
impossible crime because had the check not bounced, a crime would have
been committed. The elements of an impossible crime are also present:
(1) The act would have constituted the crime of qualified theft, a crime
against property.
(2) The accused had evil intent.
(3) Qualified theft is inherently impossible to perform in this case, since
the check was worthless.
(4) The resulting act was not otherwise punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.
DOCTRINE: The mere fact that the sub-agent failed to return the pieces of
jewelry upon demand is not proof of conspiracy, nor is it proof of
misappropriation or conversion on the part of the agent.
FACTS: Tabaniag et al received in trust from Victoria Espiritu assorted
jewelries under the express obligation on the part of the accused to sell the
same and thereafter to remit the proceeds of the sale and/or return said
jewelries if not sold to said complainant. Tabaniag (agent) sold and entrusted
the jewelries to Bisquera (sub-agent) who issued checks as payment.
Tabaniag gave the checks to Victoria but the checks bounced. Tabaniag was
not able to return to Victoria the jewleries and thus, Victoria filed a case
against Tabaniag for estafa through misappropriation or conversion and by
conspiring with Bisquera.
ISSUE: WON Tabaniag is guilty of estafa? NO.
In cases of estafa, the profit or gain must be obtained by the accused
personally, through his own acts, and his mere negligence in permitting
another to take advantage or benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot
constitute estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1-b, of the Revised Penal Code;
unless of course the evidence should disclose that the agent acted in
conspiracy or connivance with the one who carried out the actual
misappropriation, then the accused would be answerable for the acts of his
co-conspirators.
Although it cannot be denied that Tabaniag received the pieces of jewelry
from Victoria, evidence is wanting in proving that she misappropriated or
converted the amount of the pieces of jewelry for her own personal use. The
mere fact that Tabaniag failed to return the pieces of jewelry, already in the
hands of Bisquera, upon demand is not proof of conspiracy, nor is it proof of
misappropriation or conversion.
The inability to return the personal property entrusted for sale was solely due
to malfeasance of a sub-agent to whom the first agent had actually entrusted
the property in good faith. Thus, the first agent cannot be held guilty of estafa
by either misappropriation or conversion. The abuse of confidence that is
characteristic of this offense is missing under the circumstances.
PEOPLE vs. WENCESLAO NELMIDA (G.R. No. 184500 – 2012)
DOCTRINES: When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts
constitute separate and distinct crimes.
FACTS: Nelmida and Ajok were accused with the ambush of Mayor Tawan-
tawan of Salvador. Through their lookout, Samuel, Nelimida and Ajok were
able to identify Mayor’s car which was about to pass them. When it did, they
opened fore and rained bullets thereon resulting in the deaths of 2 security
escorts and the injury of seven others. The RTC and CA ruled the the crime
committed was the complex crime of double murder with multiple frustrated
murder and double attempted murder.
ISSUE: WON the crime committed was a complex crime? NO.
The SC ruled thet Nelmida and Ajok should be convicted not of a complex
crime but of separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts
of attempted murder as the killing and wounding of the victims in this case
were not the result of a single act but of several acts of the appellants, thus,
making Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code inapplicable.
The Court already recognized the doctrines; that when various victims expire
from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes,
(People vs. Hon. Pineda) and each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of
their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons
constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex
crime. (People vs. Valdez)
NOTE: Article 48 would apply if there was conspiracy, but there is none in this
case. Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose
their individual acts in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single
act, the act of execution, giving rise to a complex offense. The Lawas doctrine
is premised on the impossibility of determining who killed whom. Each
accused could not be held liable for separate crimes because of lack of clear
evidence showing the number of persons actually killed by each of them.
(People vs. Lawas)
PEOPLE vs. RICHARD DILLATAN (G.R. No. 212191 – 2019)
DOCTRINES: All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the
robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with
homicide.
FACTS: Henry and Violeta Acob, along with their son Homer, were on the way
home one evening from their market stall in Isabela. While riding on their
motorcycle, they were tailed by Dillatan and Garcia. When the latter caught
up, they held the former at gunpoint and took their money. Garcia then fired
his gun at the family, hitting Violeta and Homer with one bullet, and Henry
with another. Homer died due to the gunshot wound, and Dillatan and Garcia
were subsequently caught and identified by Violeta. The two were charged
with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294
of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE: WON the crime committed was a special complex crime? YES.
On the occasion of the robbery, aside from Homer being killed, the Spouses
Acob also sustained injuries by reason of the gunshots fired by Garcia. It bears
to reiterate at this point that the component crimes in a special complex
crime have no attempted or frustrated stages because the intention of the
offender/s is to ·commit the principal crime which is to rob but in the process
of committing the said crime, another crime is committed.
"Homicide," in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, is
understood in its generic sense and forms part of the essential element of
robbery, which is the use of violence or the use of force upon anything.
Thus, as in the present case where, aside from the killing of Homer, the
Spouses Acob, on the occasion of the same robbery, also sustained injuries,
regardless of the severity, the crime committed is still robbery with homicide
as the injuries sustained by the Spouses Acob are subsumed under the
generic term "homicide" and, thus, become part and parcel of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide.
EFFECTS OF PROBATION
1. Application of probation prevents an appeal
2. If an appeal is filed, it is considered to be filed out of time because
the application of probation makes the judgment final.
 Upon application for probation, offender is deemed to have admitted
the crime, and is thus not allowed to file an appeal.
 Judgment is final when convict has
(1) Not appealed from the judgment
(2) Waived the right to appeal
(3) Served his sentence and,
(4) Applied for probation.
 Legal basis for Criminal Law: Section 4, P.D. 968
 Legal basis for Remedial Law: Section 7, Rule 120
GR NO. 231989 | PEOPLE v. ROMY LIM y MIRANDA |2018 | J. Peralta
FACTS: Police officers conducted a buy bust operation, and caught Lim and Gorres
in their house for possession and sale of shabu. No witnesses arrived to witness
inventory-taking. Aside from the absence of signatures of the witnesses (NO elected
public official, DOJ representatives, and media) in the Inventory Receipt, the
prosecution was able to prove the chain of custody of the seized items.
ISSUE: Whether there was proper inventory taking
HELD: NO. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence
admissible, in a criminal case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence
from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is what
the government claims it to be.
Aside from the importance of the links in the chain of custody, it must be
noted that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the
confiscated items is made at the place of arrest.
However, this may be excused in instances when the safety and security of
the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items
seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory
action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-
assault. The present case is not one of those.
There is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the
DOJ and the media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the
seized items. In fact, their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt.
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to
the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not
obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote
area;
 Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary
witnesses must be proven.
(2) safety was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the
accused for and in .his/her behalf;
(3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts
sought to be apprehended;
(4) earnest efforts prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers,
who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or
(5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which
often rely on tips of confidential assets
The justifications for the absence of witnesses are unacceptable as there was
no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.
In order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any
orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should
henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending officers must
state their compliance with the requirements of R.A. No. 9165.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending officers
must state the justification or explanation as well as the steps they
have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items.
3. If there is no justification or explanation, the investigating fiscal must
not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she
must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to
determine the (non) existence of probable cause.
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the
court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a warrant
of arrest or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause.
WHEREFORE, accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from
detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.