Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Section 11-22 Case Digests
Section 11-22 Case Digests
Section 11-22 Case Digests
4. People of the Philippines vs. Mahinay, G.R. 6. People of the Philippines vs. Loveria, G.R.
No. 122485, February 1, 1999. No. 79138, July 2, 1990.
FACTS: Larry Mahinay works as a houseboy for Maria 7. People of the Philippines vs. Obrero, G.R. No.
122142, May 17, 2000.
Isip. His task was to take care of Isip’s house which was
under construction adjacent to her old residence. The DOCTRINE: Under the Constitution, an uncounseled
victim, Ma. Victoria Chan, 12 years old, was Isip’s statement, such as it is called in the United States from
neighbor in Dian Street. Elvira Chan. The victim’s which Article III, Section 12 (2) was derived, is presumed
mother, noticed that her daughter was missing. Isip to be psychologically coerced.
testified that the appellant failed to show up for supper
that night and that on the following day, boarded a FACTS: Jimmy Obrero was arrested in Pangasinan for
passenger jeepney and disappeared. On that same the crime of robbery with homicide. While he was in
morning, the victim’s dead body was fpund in a septic custodial investigation, Atty. Bienvenido Reyes, a police
tank. With the help of the Valenzuela Police, the lifeless captain of the WPD Headquarters, introduced himself
body of the victim was retrieved from the septic tank. as a legal counsel, and assisted Jimmy in giving an
She was searing a printed blouse without underwaer extrajudicial confession, which was the basis of his
and her face bore bruises. After a series of follow-up prosecution in the lower court.
operations appellant was finally arrested. He was
brought to the Valenzuela Police Station. With the ISSUE: Is Jimmy Obrero’s extrajudicial confession
assistance of an attorney he executed an extra-judicial admissible in Court?
confession when he narrated in detail how he raped
and killed the victim. Appellant was charged with rape RULING: NO, Obrero’s confession is inadmissible in
with homicide to which he pleaded not guilty. After court because he was not given the Miranda warning
trial, the lower court rendered a decision convicting effectively. Atty Reyes, despite being a lawyer, was not
appellant of the crime charged, sentenced him to suffer the accused’s counsel of choice. There was thus only a
the penalty of death. perfunctory reading of the Miranda Rights to accused-
appelant without any effort to find out from him
Appellant now claims that the extra-judicial confession whether he wanted to have a counself, and, if so,
that he executed was executed in violation of his whether he had his own counsel, or wanted the police
to appoint one for him. Here, Atty. Reyes, who though
constitutional right to counsel.
presumably competent, cannot be considered an enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule. In
independent counsel. any case, the allegation of his having been "pressured"
to sign the Examination Report prepared by Dulguime
8. Gamboa vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291, June 27,
1988. appears to be belied by his own testimony.
The provincial fiscal filed with the Court of First Instance 8. People of the Philippines vs. Quitlong, G.R.
a case of multiple frustrated murder and multiple No. 121562, July 10, 1998.
murder in the other against the petitioner.
9. Conde vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 21741, January 25,
The petitioner filed bail, although he maintained his 1924.
innocence. The respondent Judge granted him the bail FACTS: Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in
but, requiring him to post P1,195,200.00 for his Lucena, Tayabas, has been forced to respond to no less
temporary release. This incident went to the attention the five information for various crimes and
of the then DOJ Secretary Vicente Abad Santos. By then,
misdemeanors, has appeared with her witnesses
the Secretary told through a telegram that the bail was
and counsel at hearings no less than on eight different
so excessive and he even suggested that a reasonable
occasions only to see the cause postponed, has twice
bail shall be P40,000.00 only. The respondent became been required to come to the Supreme Court for
adamant, so this petition. protection, and now, after the passage of more than
Issue: Whether or not the bail is excessive one year from the time when the first information was
filed, seems as far away from a definite resolution of
Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the case for moot her troubles as she was when originally charged.
and academic since the petitioner escaped from the
penal detention facility. Nevertheless, according to the Issue: Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her
Court, the bail was too excessive. By being excessive right to a speedy and impartial trial.
means it is as though the accused is never given the
chance to post bail. If the only purpose of the bail is to Held: Philippine organic and statutory law expressly
let the accused be present during the hearing, it is a guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused
violation of his right if the same is excessive. shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial.
Aurelia Conde, like all other accused persons, has a right
to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go
7. Comendador vs. de Villa, G.R. No. 93177,
August 2, 1991. free, and she has been deprived of that right in defiance
of law.
SECTION 19
SECTION 17
1. U.S. vs. Navarro, G.R. No. 1272, January 11, 1. R.A. No. 9346
1904.
2. People of the Philippines vs. Estoista, G.R.
2. Isabela Sugar Co. vs. Macadaeg, G.R. No. L- No. L-5793, August 27, 1953.
5924, October 28, 1953.
3. People of the Philippines vs. Puda, G.R. No.
3. U.S. vs. Tan Teng, G.R. No.7081, September 7, L-33841, October 31, 1984.
1912.
FACTS : Accused appellant Flavio Puda was sentenced to
4. Villaflor vs. Summers, G.R. No. 16444, suffer the penalty of death after finding him guilty
September 8, 1920. beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder after
killing one Ching Tian Un. Unfortunately, because of the
5. People of the Philippines vs. Gallarde, G.R.
No. 133025, February 17, 2000. negligence of some court personnel, the records of the
case were not forwarded by the court to the SC for
6. Beltran vs. Samson, G.R. No. 32025, automatic review. Eleven years after his conviction, the
September 23, 1923. accused wrote a letter to the SC inquiring about the
status of his case. The SC then inquired through a letter
FACTS: Petitioner herein complains the respondent
and found that due to the inadvertence of the then
judge for ordering him to appear before the provincial
clerk in charge of criminal cases, the records of his case
fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting for the
were placed in the archives sometimes in 1960 instead
purpose of comparing petitioner’s handwriting to a
of being forwarded to the SC. Hence, it was only then
falsified document in question on a separate case.
that the entire records were elevated. The accused
Petitioner refuses to do such act and seeks refuge in the raised alleged errors saying that the Trial Court erred in
constitutional provision contained in the Jones Law, imposing death penalty for being violative of the
“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a constitutional provision (1935 Constitution) against the
witness against himself.” imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, and he
should not be meted with the supreme penalty of death
ISSUE: Whether or not the writing constitutes evidence by the SC as he has fully paid his due to society for
against himself within the scope and meaning of the having suffered enough in staying in death row for more
constitutional provision. than 20 years.
ISSUE: Whether or not the death penalty is violative of As a consequence thereof, two informations were filed
the constitutional right against imposition of cruel and against petitioner: (a) an Information for reckless
unusual punishment imprudence resulting in damage to property with
multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the
RULING: No. the Supreme Court held that death penalty Revised Penal Code and (b) an Information for violation
is not cruel, unjust, or excessive. In the case of Kemmler
of paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code
(136 U.S. 436), the United States Supreme Court said
on Abandonment of one's victim.
that “punishments are cruel when they involve torture
or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is not In June 1987 the MTC of Pasig rendered its decision in
cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the finding the petitioner guilty of the crime of
Constitution. It implies there something inhuman and Abandonment of one's victim as defined and penalized
barbarous, something more than the mere
under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal
extinguishment of life”. The court, however, agrees with Code. Petitioner appealed from said Decision to the RTC
the accused’s contention that the penalty should not be of Pasig. In the meantime, on 27 April 1989, petitioner
imposed on him since he has been detained and was arraigned for violation of Article 365. He entered a
continues to be in the death row for about 24 years and plea of not guilty.
it took 11 years after his trial and conviction before the
records of his case were discovered and transmitted to
He filed a petition for review in the CA but which was
the SC for automatic review. The penalty of death is
denied. He raised before the SC that that he cannot be
reduced to reclusion perpetua. penalized twice for an “accident” and another for
“recklessness.” He maintained that since he is facing a
4. People of the Philippines vs. Mercado, G.R. criminal charge for reckless imprudence, which offense
No. 116239, November 29, 2000. carries heavier penalties under Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code, he could no longer be charged
5. People of the Philippines vs. Echegaray, G.R.
No. 117472, February 7, 1997. under Article 275, par. 2, for abandonment for failing to
render to the persons whom he has accidentally
injured.
SECTION 20
ISSUE:
1. Lozano vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419,
December 18, 1986. Whether or not prosecution for negligence under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to
prosecution for abandonment under Article 275 of the
SECTION 21 same Code because it constitutes double jeopardy.
1. People of the Philippines vs. Ylagan, G.R. No.
38443, November 25, 1933. RULING:
No, the SC affirmed that the Articles penalize different
2. Lamera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93475, and distinct offenses. The rule on double jeopardy,
June 5, 1991.
which petitioner has, in effect, invoked, does not,
FACTS: therefore, apply pursuant to existing jurisprudence.
At around 8:30 o'clock in the evening of 14 March 1985, Hence, the petition should be dismissed for lack of
along Urbano Street, Pasig, Metro Manila, an owner- merit.
type jeep, then driven by petitioner, allegedly "hit and
bumped" a tricycle then driven by Ernesto Reyes Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid
resulting in damage to the tricycle and injuries to indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after
Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal. arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered, and
(e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated 10. Lejano vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
without the express consent of the accused. No. 176389, January 18, 2011.
SECTION 22
He is charged for two separate offenses under the
Revised Penal Code. In People vs. Doriquez, the SC held 1. In Re Kay Villagas Kami Inc., G.R. No. 32485,
that it is a cardinal rule that the protection against Octobber 22, 1970.
double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same
2. People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan,
offense or identical offenses. Where two different laws G.R. No. 101724, July 3, 1992.
(or articles of the same code) defines two crimes, prior
jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a Facts: Two letter-complaints were filed on October 28,
prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise 1986 and December 9, 1986 with the Tanodbayan by
from the same facts, if each crime involves some Teofilo Gelacio to Ceferino Paredes. The petitioner was
important act which is not an essential element of the a public officer being then the Provincial Attorney of
other. Agusan del Sur.
The two information filed against petitioner are clearly The complaint was based on taking advantage of his
for separate offenses. The first, for reckless imprudence public position by influencing and inducing the Land
(Article 365), falls under the sole chapter (Criminal Inspector of the Bureau of Lands that the land subject
Negligence) of Title Fourteen (Quasi Offenses) of Book to this litigation filed by the accused with the Bureau of
Two of the Revised Penal Code. The second, for Lands is a disposable land with free patent where in
Abandonment of one's victim (par. 2, Art. 275), falls fact, the accused knew that the same had been
under Chapter Two (Crimes Against Security) of Title reserved for school site.
Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security) of He was arrested upon a warrant issued by the
Book Two of the same Code. Sandiganbayan. On April 5, 1991, he filed an urgent
Motion with the prayer that the charged against him be
Quasi offenses under Article 365 are committed by quashed since he is charged for an offense which has
means of culpa. Crimes against Security are committed prescribed. He further reiterated that since it was
by means of dolo. already prescribed, his constitutional rights has been
violated.
3. People of the Philippines vs. Relova, G.R. No.
L-45129, March 6, 1987. Issue: Whether or not the offense is already prescribed.
4. People of the Philippines vs. Balisican, G.R. Ruling: The Supreme Court decided in favor of the
No. L-26376, August 31. 1966.
respondent. According to the Court, if the respondent is
5. Braza vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 195032, charged with that offense under R.A. No. 3019 which
February 20, 2013. was amended by BP 195 which increases the period for
prescription from ten to fifteen years he will no longer
6. Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
be liable. However, if BP 195 will apply which amended
November 17, 2010.
the R.A. No. 3019, would make it an ex post facto law
7. Melo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L- since it would change his situation to his disadvantage
3850, March 22, 1950 by making him criminally liable for a crime that had
already been extinguished under the law existing when
8. People of the Philippines vs. Buling, G.R. No.
L-13315, April 27, 1960. it was committed.
4. People of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. Irrelevant: No. The freedom of expression and freedom
L-32613-14, December 27, 1972. of association is superseded by the right of the state to
self-preservation.
Facts: On March 10, 1970, a prima facie case was filed
against Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance in
Tarlac concerning the Anti-Subversion Act. He was
accused of being an officer or a ranked leader of the