1.

People v Fajardo
GR # 26143
August 7, 1925

Facts:

Defendant Restituto Fajardo deceived and defrauded Bugtong Otek for a

PHP 50.00 watch with a chain and fob. Fajardo pawned the said watch to Otek
for PHP 50.00 but when the former is about to pay the latter, the former asked to
check the watch’s condition but did not return the watch and even the money he
loaned from the latter. Fajardo was convicted in the Justice of the Peace Court in
Baguio for the crime of estafa.

Issue:

Whether or not the Justice of the Peace Court of Baguio has jurisdiction
for cases like estafa.

Ruling:

The Court held that the provisions of Section 1 of Act 2131, amending
Section 4 of Act 1627 as amended by Section 4 of Act 2041 when the penalty
imposed for the crime charged does not exceed six months, or a fine of PHP
200.00, the Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction to try the case and render
judgement, provided that the act charged was committed within his territorial
jurisdiction. For the crime of estafa has a penalty of arresto mayor and does not
affect the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court since they do not modify
nor alter the nature of the penalty as provided by the law. The herein accused
was sentenced by the Justice of the Peace Court and was appealed to the Court
of First Instance. In addition, the penalty has accessories that carry with it such
as suspension from public office and the right of suffrage during the term of the
sentence. The lower court committed an error of law in holding that it had no
jurisdiction to try the case on appeal and its judgement to dismiss the case and to
release the accused is unappealable because it would be a case of double
jeopardy.

2. Pendon v Diasnes
GR # L-5606
August 28, 1952

Facts:

Defendant Julito Diasnes was initially charged for the crime of estafa by
the Court of First Instance in Iloilo in 1932 but claims that he was previously
granted absolute pardon by the Governor General in 1934. The defendant did not
produce any written documents and only verbal evidence was presented
 because according to Diasnes, all pre-war records including certificates that
would show he was granted as such have been destroyed during World War II
and the former’s residence was burned along with the original copies of his
absolute pardon.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime of estafa with a sentence of more than a year of
imprisonment needs to have an absolute pardon to enjoy the right to suffrage.

Ruling:

The Court held that Paragraphs A and B of Section 99 of RA 180 as

amended by RA599, if construed together, provides that absolute pardon for any
crime for which one year of imprisonment or more was meted out, restores the
prisoner his political rights. If the penalty is less than one year, disqualification
from the right to suffrage cannot be attached, except when the crime committed
is against property, which would need pardon to be granted in order for the
convicted to exercise his right to suffrage.

3. People v Caldito
GR # 47694
June 10, 1941

Facts:

Defendants Patricio Caldito and Tomasa de Guzman were prosecuted by

the Court of First Instance for a violation of the Usury Law which in turn, moved
to quash the information with the contention that the original jurisdiction should
go to the Justice of the Peace Court. The motion was granted, hence the
defendants were released.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction for cases that
imposes a penalty for usurious interest and subsidiary imprisonment.

Ruling:

The Court held that the penalty prescribed in Section 10 of the Usury Law,
as amended by Act 2992, does not exceed six months or a fine of PHP 200.00. It
was previously held in People v Fajardo that what determines the jurisdiction of
the court in criminal cases is the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for
the misdemeanor, crime or violation. If the penalty does not exceed six months or
a fine of PHP 200.00, the Justice of the Peace of Court has original jurisdiction,
otherwise, the Court of First Instance will have jurisdiction. The return of the
 usurious interest is a civil liability and is not a part of the penalty provided for the
offense. It is a well settled rule that subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory
penalties, is not essential in the determination of the criminal jurisdiction of a
court.

4. People v Jose
GR # L-28232
February 6, 1971

Facts:

Jaime Jose, Edgardo Aquino, Basilio Pineda Jr., and Rogelio Cañal were
all charged of the crime of forcible abduction with rape of Magdalena de la Riva
by the Court of First Instance of Rizal with aggravating circumstances: (1) use of
a motor vehicle; (2) night time; (3) abuse of superior strength; (4) means were
employed or circumstances brought about which added ignominy to the natural
effects of the act; and (5) wrong act done in the commission of the crime was
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for the
commission.

Issues:

Whether or not the absence of spermatozoa disprove the consummation

of the crime of rape.
Whether or not the plea of guilty of the accused as a qualifying
circumstance necessary during trial.
Whether or not conspiracy can be appreciated in giving the number of
penalties.

Rulings:

The Court held that the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the
consummation of rape, what is important to consider is the penetration of the
penis and not the emission of semen. It is difficult to imagine that any sane
woman, who is single and earning as much as Maggie de la Riva, an actress,
would self-inflict injuries on her vagina by puncturing it wit a sharply-pointed
object to justify revenge against four strangers who allegedly hired her as a
stripper but only paid her PHP 90.00. When de la Riva confessed to her mother
that she was raped by these four men, it gives probative value as it is logical to
think that mothers are more often than not confidantes of daughters. When a
woman is raped puts herself in a medical examination and public trial, she is
risking herself of ridicule and in the case of de la Riva, a popular movie actress,
whose earnings might be affected by such scandal.
Plea of guilty by the accused is a mitigating circumstance and at the same
time constitutes admission of all the material facts alleged in the information,
including the aggravating circumstances, it does not matter if the offense is
 capital, for the plea of guilty covers both the crime and its attendant
circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime. The legal effect of
Pineda’s plea of guilty was not incumbent upon the lower court to receive his
evidence, moreso his presence in court as a requirement.
The Supreme Court opined that in view of the existence of conspiracy
among the accused and its findings as regards the nature and number of crimes
committed, as well as the presence of aggravating circumstances, conspiracy is
appreciated in providing the number of death penalties for each accused.

5. Commissioner of Customs v Encarnacion

GR # L-7598
July 26, 1954

Facts:

Rodolfo Sadia, a crew member of the Philippine Air Lines (PAL), arrived
from Madrid and on board the plane were dutiable articles not declared in the
baggage declaration and without import license, which were eventually seized by
the customs authorities. Sadia was then charged of violation of Section 2703 of
the Revised Administrative Code for his failure to declare the dutiable articles in
his baggage declaration. Judge Encarnacion presided over the case and
eventually acquitted Sadia on the ground of insufficient evidence, hence, the
Bureau of Customs (BOC) were ordered to return the said articles to Sadia upon
the latter’s payment of customs duties.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent Judge has acted in accordance with the
ordering of the return of the dutiable articles to private respondent in purview of
his acquittal from the criminal case against him.

Ruling:

The Court held that the lower court has the power to determine whom the
instruments or tools used in the commission of a crime should be adjudicated in
case of acquittal. For the court to exercise its jurisdiction, the instruments or tools
that were used in the commission of the crime be submitted as evidence or be
placed at the disposal of the lower court. Otherwise, the court is deprived of
power to pass upon the disposition of said instruments or tools. Under Article 45
of the Revised Penal Code, every penalty imposed for the commission of a
felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools with which it was committed. Such proceeds and instruments
to tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they
be the property of a third person not liable for the offense.
6. People v Sanchez
GR # L-9768
June 21, 1957

Facts:

Dominador Sanchez was charged with a violation of Circulars 20 and 42,

as amended by Circular 55 of the Central Bank of the Philippines, in relation to
Section 34 of RA 265. Initially, Sanchez was in the possession of USD 400.00,
which he failed to declare with any authorized agent of the Central Bank of the
Philippines when he arrived, which is a violation of the aforementioned circulars.
The lower court then ordered the money confiscated to Sanchez be exchanged
at the Central Bank of the Philippines with Philippine Currency and later on to be
delivered to the accused. The Solicitor General appealed, claiming that under
Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, which is a supplementary provision of
Article 45 of the same code referring to the confiscation and forfeiture of the
proceeds of the crime and the instruments used for the commission of the crime,
provided that the USD 400.00 confiscated from Sanchez is considered as
proceeds of the instrument in committing the offense, therefore it is subjected of
forfeiture.

Issue:

Whether or not the confiscated dollars from the accused can be

exchanged at the Central Bank of the Philippines with Philippine Currency and be
delivered to the accused.

Ruling:

The Court held that if the penalty imposed did not include the confiscation
of the dollars involved, the confiscation or forfeiture of the said dollars would be
an additional penalty and would amount to an increase of the penalty initially
imposed, which would place the accused in double jeopardy. Rule 118 Section 2
of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the government cannot appeal in a
criminal case if the defendant would be placed in double jeopardy.

7. People v Exconde
GR # L-9820
August 30, 1957

Facts:

Appellant Pedro Exconde was on board a vessel bound for Japan when
he was caught in possession of PHP 5,090.00 in Philippine Currency, plus USD
50.00 in cash; traveler’s checks for USD 100.00; and a Bank of America
 remitter’s receipt for USD 350.00. The Philippine Currency was not licensed and
was in violation of Central Bank Circular 37.

Issue:

Whether or not violations of Central Bank Circular 37 are punishable as

criminal offenses under the provisions of RA 265.

Ruling:

The Court held that violations of Central Bank Circular 37 are punishable
as criminal offenses under the provisions of the first paragraph of Section 34 of
RA 265. In pursuant of Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, Article 45 of the
same code provides the confiscation or forfeiture of the instruments or tools
employed in the commission of a crime, which applies to criminal proceedings for
violations of the Central Bank Act or the regulations or circulars issued in
accordance with the same.

8. People v Muñoz
GR # L-38016
September 10, 1981

Facts:

Feliciano Muñoz and Justo Millora were charged of the crime of murder of
Ricardo Depacina with the aggravating circumstances of use of motor vehicle,
armed with firearms, acted with conspiracy, with evident premeditation and
treachery, and with intent to kill without any mitigating circumstance to offset by
the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.

Issues:

Whether or not there was a conspiracy when Muñoz and Millora killed
Depacina.
Whether or not Millora’s minority can be a mitigating circumstance.
Whether or not the use of a motor vehicle can be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance.

Rulings:

The Court held that the findings of the trial court are supported by
evidence on record. Patrolman Agbuya testified that when Muñoz inquired for the
whereabouts of Depacina just before the incident had happened, he also saw
Millora driving the police patrol jeep. Additionally, Millora was seen standing near
Muñoz holding a long gun while the latter shot Depacina proving that the former
was ready to help the latter in ensuring the killing of the deceased should he try
 to resist or overcome any resistance from the persons with whom Depacina was
conversing with. Therefore, there was unity of criminal design from the specific
acts done by the defendants.
The evidence presented by the prosecution established proof beyond
reasonable doubt that appellant Millora is guilty of the crime of murder as a
co-conspirator or principal by direct participation. His minority being 14 years old
does not hold water because he misrepresented himself to be 21 years old to be
able to secure an appointment as security guard of the mayor of San Carlos City.
Millora had the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong and to fully
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful acts.
The Court also held that the use of a motor vehicle should not be
considered as an aggravating circumstance because the use of the police patrol
jeep when the defendants were looking for Depacina was mere incidental. The
use of the said vehicle was not deliberately utilized to facilitate the killing of
Depacina, the escape of the defendants from the scene of the crime, and the
concealment of the body of the victim.

9. People v Alcantara
GR # L-16832
November 18, 1967

Facts:

Lucio Mañosca and Mariano Ramos were charged with the crime of
kidnapping for ransom as principal and accomplice of Wee King and his family by
the Court of First Instance of Quezon. HMB’s Commander Alcantara held a
conference with Commander Magtapat and at that time Mañosca was the
vice-mayor while Ramos was the councilman lieutenant. When Alcantara asked
who the wealthiest person in town, Mañosca answered the copra merchant Wee
King. Alcantara and his men succeeded in the kidnapping of Wee King and his
family and ordered Mañosca to get the ransom from Mrs. Wee King. Mañosca
and Ramose served as look-outs while the kidnapping took place.

Issues:

Whether or not conspiracy is present between Mañosca, Ramos, and

Alcantara during the kidnapping of Wee King.
Whether or not Mañosca’s present age can be considered as a mitigating
circumstance.

Rulings:

The Court held that there is conspiracy when Mañosca provided to

Alcantara that Wee King is the wealthiest man in town in whom they will be
kidnapping and extorting money. He was also tasked by Alcantara to get the
ransom money from Wee King’s wife and since he is the vice-mayor, he was
 entrusted by the people. Ramos, on the other hand, served as an accomplice
when he stood as a look-out while the kidnapping was taking place.
At the time the trial court rendered it decision, Mañosca was 64 years old
and since it has been 10 years, considering the present age of Mañosca, 74
years old, Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits the imposition of death
penalty if the person is more than 70 years of age. The Court also held that the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be reviewed to determine if
reclusion perpetua or death should be imposed.

10. People v Dela Cruz

GR # L-46397
May 16, 2983

Facts:

Antonio dela Cruz, Hernando Deo, Reynaldo Arnaldo, Virgilio Baluyot, and
Edgardo Mariño were all charged with the crime of murder of Mabini Garachico
by the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal. All accused were found to have conspired
and confederated together and mutually helped and aided one another with the
use of a deadly weapon and with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident
premeditation. The accused were also recidivists-habitual delinquents while they
are serving final sentence.

Issue:

Whether or not death penalty is the corect sentence for the case at bar.

Ruling:

The Court held that the crime committed shows proof beyond reasonable
doubt that all accused were guilty of murder. The killing of the victim took place
inside the New Bilibid Prison while the defendants are serving their sentences for
offenses that they previously committed. All defendants, except Mariño, were
death convicts. The trial court was correct in imposing death penalty ofr the
defendants under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, but the Supreme Court
thinks that the deplorable condition existing in the national penitentiary can be
considered a mitigating circumstance to lower the penalty from death to reclusion
perpetua.

11. People v Marcos

GR # L-65048
January 9, 1987
 Facts:

Moises Marcos, together with Danilo Castro, Jun alias “John Doe” and
“Peter Doe,” were charged with the crime of kidnapping of Benedict Gonzales
alias “Cocoy” by the defunct Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig. The said defendants
were accused of conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and
aiding one another, to kidnap Cocoy and used a motor vehicle to take the victim
with them and detain the latter in an isolated hut for two nights and one day.
They initially demanded a PHP 200,000.00 ransom from Benito Gonzales,
Cocoy’s father, but since the latter cannot produce such an amount, the
defendants agreed to get the PHP 20,000.00 money instead. Marcos is the
victim’s cousin, who lives just across Gonzales' residence, and pretended to be
helping his uncle raise the money by suggesting a loan from someone he knows.
In addition, the appellant also knows where the victim was detained and even
reenacted the incident to the NBI agents.

Issue:

Whether or not death penalty should be imposed as the appellant’s

sentence.

Ruling:

The Court held that the narration of the kidnapping incident by Marcos
proves that he was principally involved in the kidnapping because no one can
provide the exact details of the said kidnapping other than the one who was
actually on the incident. The facts that transpired in this case was not the result
of any deliberate and well formed nefarious conspiracy of a criminal group but
was rather a crime clumsily conceived on the spur of the moment. Marcos had a
change of heart when he volunteered to negotiate with the so called “kidnappers”
and ask to lower the ransom from PHP 200,000.00 to PHP 20,000.00. This
shows that there was an abrupt and increasing remorse or contrition but he
cannot turn his back from his assigned role. The Supreme Court opined that the
extreme penalty of death is inappropriate and should be reduced to life
imprisonment instead.

12. People v Villanueva

GR # L-2073
October 19, 1953

Facts:

Appellant Pedro Villanueva was charged for several counts of the complex
crime of treason and murder, as defined in Article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code, in connection with Article 48 of the same Code, by the Fifth Division of the
Defunct People’s Court. Villanueva claims that the Chief Executive granted
 executive clemency to all those who were convicted of treason, including those
cases that were pending appeal, on condition that such appeals be first
withdrawn to give finality of judgement of the lower court. Appellant on the other
hand, filed to withdraw his appeal in compliance with the condition set by the
Chief Executive.

Issue:

Whether or not executive clemency can be invoked in the case at bar.

Ruling:

The Court held that even though the appellant’s name appears in the list
of prisoners convicted by the People’s Court but herein appellant was sentenced
with death penalty, hence his appeal is subject for automatic review however, he
submitted a petition to withdraw his appeal. The pardon being given by the Chief
Executive refers to the remission of the “unexpired portions of the prison
sentence term and the fines of the prisoners listed who were convicted by the
defunct People’s Court of treason and was transferred to the New Bilibid Prison
to serve their sentence.” The prison term of the appellant does not involve an
expiration of time and that a death sentence is not exactly served but is rather
executed. It is prerequisite of the executive clemency that a conviction should be
final however, in the case at bar the Supreme Court is yet to decide if they will be
affirming, modifying or reversing the lower court’s decision of the death sentence.

13. People v Busa

GR # L-32047
June 25, 1973

Facts:

Defendants Inocencio Busa, Marcelo Elardo, and Igmedio Cabacha were

all charged with the crime of robbery with homicide of Romeo Olige by the Court
of First Instance of Surigao del Norte. Aggravating circumstances include
treachery, use of superior strength, and nocturnity. Additionally, they conspired in
stabbing to death the Olige and took his money and rubber shoes. Busa
voluntarily pleaded guilty of the crime he has committed.

Issue:

Whether or not the plea of guilty can be invoked as a mitigating

circumstance.
 Ruling:

The Court held that trial judges should refrain from accepting an accused
plea of guilty as they should be extra solicitous in seeing that when an accused
pleads guilty, he should fully understand the meaning of his plea and its impact in
conviction. When the crime committed is a grave offense, the Court ensures that
proper course was followed in establishing the guilt and the degree of culpability
of the defendant. The accused plea of guilty is insufficient to admit and render
judgement. The essence of judicial review in capital offenses is that while society
allows violent retribution for heinous crimes committed against it, it always must
make certain that the blood of the innocent is not spilled, or that the guilty are not
made to suffer more than their punishment and retribution. A judgement meting
out the penalty of death is valid only if it is susceptible of a fair and reasonable
examination by the Supreme Court.

14. People v Toling

GR # L-27097
January 17, 1975

Facts:

Antonio and Jose Toling were identical twins who were found guilty of the
crimes of multiple murder and attempted murder by the Court of First Instance of
Laguna. They both decided to go to Manila after receiving a letter from Antonio’s
daughter telling him that she will give him money. While the defendants are in
Manila, they tried looking for a job but unfortunately, Jose did not find one, hence
they decided to go back home using the money that their children and
grandchildren gave to them. They took the train going to Bicol, the same way
they did when they went to Manila. While on board the train, the twins went
amuck and stabbed the passengers on board while some jumped out of the train
for fear that they might be killed by the twins. When they were arrested by the
Constabulary soldiers, they claimed that they were being attacked by the
passengers and were trying to extort the remaining money they have.

Issues:

Whether or not the defendants should be held criminally liable for the
deaths of the four other victims who jumped out of the train due to lack of
eyewitnesses.
Whether or not the eight killings and the attempted killing should be
treated as separate crimes of murder and attempted murder qualified by
treachery.
Whether or not death penalty sentece is imposable to the twins.
 Rulings:

The Court held a rule that “if a man creates in another man’s mind an
immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so
doing he injures himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is
responsible for the injuries which result.” Since the victims who jumped out of a
moving train had the impression that they will be killed by the twins and their lives
are in great danger, their flight or fight response would be for self preservation,
hence jumping out of a moving train. The absence of an eyewitness-testimony
precludes the imputation of criminal responsibility to the defendants for the
ghastly deaths of the victims.
As for the eight killings and the attempted killing, the Court held that these
should be treated as separate crimes of murder and attempted murder qualified
by treachery. The attacks of the twins were unexpected and the victims did not
anticipate that the former would go on a killing spree, hence they were unable to
defend themselves in the consummation of the twins’ diabolical objective to
butcher their co-passengers. Also, there is conspiracy and community of design
when they relentlessly stabbed the passengers. The eight killings and the
attempted murder were perpetrated by means of different acts, hence they
cannot be regarded as constituting complex crime under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, which refers to cases where “a single act constitutes two or
more grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing
the other.”
Since there are no generic aggravating and mitigating circumstances were
proven in this case, penalty of murder in its medium period was imposed.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision, the death penalty imposed by the
trial courst was not warranted, hence they modified the sentence to reclusion
perpetua.

15. People v Tamani

GR #s L-22160 and L-22161
January 21, 1974

Facts:

Teodoro Tamani was charged for the crimes of murder of Jose Siyang, his
second cousin, and attempted murder of Mayor Eduardo Domigo by the Court of
First Instance of Isabela. Mayor Domingo was previously suspended and
Vice-mayor Villamor Tamani as acting mayor, appointed Tamani, his second
cousin, as a policeman but resigned the soonest Domingo resumed his position
as mayor. Because Vice-mayor Tamani resented Mayor Domingo’s resumption
of office, he ordered his cousin and Domingo Cadawan, also a policeman, to
liquidate the mayor. Eventually, Tamani and Cadawan pursued their intent to kill
the mayor when the latter was in the front of a store conversing with a group of
persons on the cemented pavement. Siyang and Domingo were shot which
caused the former’s death and the latter’s gunshot injuries.
 Issue:

Whether or not the crime committed by the appellant should be homicide.

Whether or not the crime committed by the appellant is a complex crime.

Ruling:

The Court held that the act of shooting Siyang at a distance without the
least expectation on his part that he would be assaulted should be murder
because there is presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. Appellant
Tamani deliberately employed a mode of execution which tended directly to
ensure the consummation of the killing without any risk to himself arising from the
defense which the victim could have made.
As for the crime committed, the infliction of the four fatal gunshot wounds
in the palm of the mayor’s right hand was not the result of a single act. The
injuries were the consequences of the two volleys of gunshots, hence the
assaults on Siyang and the mayor cannot be categorized as a complex crime.

16. People v Apiado

GR # 31075
August 12, 1929

Facts:

Appellant Telesforo Apiado was charged of the crime of rape with slight
physical injuries to Pantaleona Nool by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
Victim was only fifteen years old and was raped by the herein appellant through
the use of violence and intimidation and was aided by night time in his full
consummation of the crime. The injuries incurred by the victim was cured in five
days without medical assistance but the inflammation of the upper lips of the
girl’s genital organ, a part of her vagina, and the rupture of the hymen were duly
noted.

Issue:

Whether or not there should be two separate penalties for the crime of
rape and the crime of slight physical injuries.

Ruling:

The Court held that based on previous jurisprudence in the commission of

the crime of rape, there should result either homicide or serious or less serious
physical iinjuries, pursuant to Article 89 of the Penal Code and maximum penalty
corresponding to the more serious crim should be imposed on the offender.
However this particular provision is not applicable to the case at bar since the
 crime is for rape with slight physical injuries. When a person is found guilty of two
or more felonies or misdemeanors, all the penalties corresponding to the several
violations of law should be imposed, the same to be simultaneously served, if
possible, according to the nature and effects of such penalties as provided in
Article 87 of the same Code. But in the case at bar, since the nature of the
injuries caused to the girl’s genital organ by the violence with which the act was
consummated, and with which such injuries were necessary consequence of
rape, which does not penalize the appellant for slight physical injuries.

17. People v Remollino

GR # L-14008
September 30, 1960

Facts:

Trizon Remollino was prosecuted for the crime of multiple homicide by the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Appellant with treachery, evident
premeditation, intent to kill, and armed with a carbine, relentlessly shot Isabelo
and Carlos Nozuelo, Francisco and Jacinto Sepnio, Santos Moreno, and Epifanio
Bascos thereby causing immediate death to the victims.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellant should be sentenced for six separate crimes
of homicide.

Ruling:

The Court held that when the appellant admitted that he shot each of the
six victims through his plea of guilty, the deaths of each person were the result of
six separate acts, and our jurisprudence provides that these constitute separate
crimes. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that penalty for complex
crimes can only be invoked when a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means of committing the
other, the penalty for the most serious crime should be imposed in its maximum
period.

18. People v Abella

GR # L-32205
August 31, 1979

Facts:

In the Davao Penal Colony, a riot occurred inside involving two gangs
namely the Oxo gang, whose members were Visayans with an Oxo mark tattoos
on their bodies, and the Sigue-sigue gang, whose members hailed from Luzon
with a name Sigue-sigue was tattooed on their thighs or buttocks. Emerito Abella,
a member of the Oxo gang, together with the rest of his group, invaded the big
cell where most of the Sigue-sigue gang were detained, and with improvised
weapons, assaulted the latter who were unarmed and unaware that they would
be attacked by the former. Fourteen of the Sigue-sigue members died due to
severe internal and external hemorrhages while three others survived and were
treated in the hospital. After further investigation, it was found that there were
thirty seven of the Oxo members were accused with multiple murder and multiple
frustrated murder by the Court of First Instance of Davao, who were also
quasi-recidivists because they were serving sentences for different crimes after
having been convicted by final judgement.

Issues:

Whether or not conspiracy is present in the case at bar.

Whether or not reiteration can be considered as an aggravating
circumstance in the case at bar.
Whether or not treachery and evident premeditation are tenable
aggravating circumstances in the case at bar.

Rulings:

The Court held that there is conspiracy when the sixteen raiders, led by
Abella, simultaneously and concertedly attacked the prisoners in the big cell
when it should have been locked. They have assaulted the guard for them to
enter the said cell and grabbed the keys to unlock the cell in pursuit of their goal,
to kill the Sigue-sigue gang prisoners. The trial court was correct in their
judgement that the acts and conduct of the accused from the start of their
aggression until the riot was suppressed were characterized “by a swift, united
and concerted movement that could easily indicate a community of purpose,
closeness of association and concurrence of wills.”
The Court also held that in order that the aggravating circumstance of
reiteration may be appreciated, it should show that the offender had already
served his sentence prior to the offenses. But since the accused are
quasi-recidivists, reiteration cannot be appreciated and their plea of guilty is
mitigating but will not affect the imposition of death penalty for the murders and
frustrated murders they had committed.
Lastly, the defense’s contention that treachery and evident premeditation
are not aggravating in this case is untenable. The accused were all armed and
attacked the unarmed victims in a surprising manner, which rendered the latter
defenseless and had no means of escaping from that cell and who could not
avoid the assaults. In addition, the victims did not offer resistance when the
defendants initiated the attacks and no one from the latter incurred injuries or
was exposed to any risk that could arise from any defense that the victims might
have made, hence showing that the victims failed to retaliate. The defendants
also had deliberate plans on how they would execute the attack as shown by the
 manner on how they have executed the massacre, hence there is evident
premeditation.

19. People v Remerata

GR # L-6971
February 17, 1956

Facts:

Appellant Petronio Remerata was convicted of stealing a rifle and illegal

possession of the same firearms in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. He
pleaded guilty but the trial court invoked Rule 113 Section 9, which led to the
dismissal of the second information charged to him, on the theory that the illegal
possession was inseparable from the theft of which the accused had already
been convicted and sentenced.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime of illegal possession of firearms is a separate

crime from theft.

Ruling:

The Court held that in stealing a firearm, the accused must necessarily
come into possession of the weapon, which requires not only intention to own but
intention to use, which is not necessarily the case in every theft of firearms. The
appellant only stole the firearm but was not proven to use the same firearm.
According to the Supreme Court, stealing a firearm with intent not to use but to
render the owner defenseless, may suffice for purposes of establishing a case of
theft but would not justify of illegal possession of the firearm, since intent to hold
and eventually use the weapon would be lacking, since there can be theft without
illegal possession of firearms and vice-versa, illegal possession may exist without
the element of taking, which is essential in the crime of theft, therefore, conviction
of one offence will not be a bar to the prosecution for the other.

20. People v Araneta

GR # 24622
January 28, 1926

Facts:

Appellant Germiniano Araneta is charged with the crime of

misappropriation of public funds through falsification of public documents by the
Court of First Instance of Bohol. Araneta was a public officer employed in the
municipal treasury of the municipality of Dauis wherein he collected and received
the sum of PHP 1.50 from Crispo Penales in payment of the fee for permit to kill
 a cow belonging to Baldomero Doldolea, thereby falsifying and counterfeiting the
stub-book of the permit to kill large cattle, a public document. Araneta erased the
name of Damaso Penales and instead substituted it with the name of Doldolea.
He also changed the place of residence and the age of the cow to be killed in the
said permit.

Issues:

Whether or not the appellant is considered as a public officer under Article

401 of the Penal Code.
Whether or not the penalty of ten years imprisonment for the crime of
misappropriating public funds is just a small act of PHP 1.50 is cruel and
unconstitutional.

Rulings:

The Court held that Article 390 of the Penal Code relating to malversation
of public funds has been repealed by Sections 2671 and 2672 of the
Administrative Code. The word “officer” in relation to offenses punishable under
the Administrative Code includes any Government employee or agent who has
authority to act in the matter from which the offense arises. Since Araneta is
working as a treasurer holding an office in the municipal government, he is a
public officer as provided in Article 401 of the Penal Code.
Additionally, one of the two offenses charged in the same information
being punishable under an ordinary act of the Legislature, the two offenses being
separate and distinct, and cannot be treated as a complex crime. The penalty of
prision mayor prescribed by Act 2712 for the crime of falsification of public
documents by public officers of employees is not cruel and unusual, and is not in
conflict with the Organic Act.

21. Parulan v Rodas

GR # L-1537
July 31, 1947

Facts:

Sometime in June 1947 in the City of Manila, herein petitioner Ricardo

Parulan committed a crime of kidnapping and murder of Arthur Lee, and was
eventually charge of the complex crime of kidnapping with murder by the Court of
First Instance of Manila. Parulan, with his desire to extort money, kidnapped Lee
and used an automobile, and threatened the latter of killing him should the
money asked would not be given. Lee was taken to an uninhabited place through
a motor boat and with treachery, fired a .45 caliber pistol through his chest and
head by Parulan which caused the immediate death of the former.
 Issues:

Whether or not the offense charged in the information is a complex crime

of kidnapping and murder.
Whether or not the Court of Instance of Manila has jurisdiction of the case
at bar.

Rulings:

The Court held that it is essential to constitute these two offenses,

kidnapping and murder, as a complex crime if one is an essential element of the
other. In Section 48 of the Penal Code, when an offense is a necessary means to
commit the other, the penalty for the most serious crime should be imposed in its
maximum period. In this herein case, kidnapping is a necessary means “for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim if the desired amount of money could
not be given,” which means that the defendants need to kidnap or carry the
victim in a faraway secluded place in order to secure the consent of the victim
through fear to pay the ransom. And because the victim refused to pay ransom,
he was killed by the herein defendants, hence the crime committed is a complex
crime of kidnapping and murder.
Since the crime charged is a complex crime of kidnapping and murder,
and the place where the victim was kidnapped and killed in Manila, and since
kidnapping is a continuous crime, the Court of First Instance of Manila can take
cognizance of the offense.

22. People v Ty Sui Wong

GR # L-32529
May 12, 1978

Facts:

Ty Sui Wong, hired Victor Ng and asked him to hire others to kill Mariano
Lim because of jealousy of Ruby Ng. Ty Sui Wong and his other co-accused
were charged with the crime of kidnapping with murder of Lim by the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, with presence of conspiracy and effected force and
intimidation to execute kidnapping, and aided by night time. With intent to kill,
evident premeditation, and treachery, by taking advantage of their superior
strength, and in consideration of a prize or reward given by Ty Sui Wong, the
other accused stabbed Lim with a bladed weapon causing his immediate death.
The family of Lim testified that they were threatened by Ty Sui Wong twice if Lim
will continue to pursue courting Ruby Ng.

Issues:

Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so

grave a wrong can be invoked by Victor Ng.
 Whether or not the complex crime of murder is applicable in the case at
bar.
Whether or not there is treachery present as an aggravating circumstance
for Victor Ng and Ty Sui Wong.
Whether or not there is evident premeditation that can be absorbed as an
aggravating circumstance when Victor Ng offered a reward to Jose de los Santos
and his co-defendants.

Rulings:

The Court held that Victor Ng’s lackness of intent to kill Mariano Lim was
not established by the fact that the defendants did not have a ready weapon and
had to borrow from Roque Dejungco’s “compadre,” and the smallness of the
amount PHP 2,000.00 actually received as consideration for the crime, as
compared to that promised, which is PHP 5,000.00. If their intention was to
merely frighten the victim, they need not have a deadly weapon to borrow from
Dejungco’s “compadre”, as the direct participants superiority in strength and
number could effectively scare Lim from pursuing Ruby. When de los Santos
asked Juanito Ang where the heart is located and the former stabbed the victim
on the chest, which is fatal, proves that the defendants’ intention was to slay
driven by the amount promised by Victor.
The real intention of the defendants was to kill Lim, not to kidnap him.
Kidnapping the victim was merely incidental to their principal purpose as their
main goal is to dispose Lim. The omission of taking Lim from one place to
another just for a definite time for the sole purpose of killing him and not for
detaining or asking for ransom is murder and not the complex crime of
kidnapping with murder.
The circumstance of treachery cannot be applied to Victor Ng and Ty Sui
Wong since they were not actually present when the crime was committed but
they are guilty as principals by induction.
There is also evident premeditation because the reward of promise is
present, hence qualifies the crime as murder.

23. People v Manguiat

GR # 28377
January 24, 1928

Facts:

Macario Manguiat and Hilarion Sanqui were charged with the crime of
forcible abduction with rape of Ana Refresca by the Court of First Instance of
Cavite. Nineteen year old Refresca was working in a rice field and requested her
aunt’s permission so she could return home. The latter asked Sanqui to
accompany her which Sanqui heeded and the two were eventually joined by
Manguiat. Upon reaching an uninhabited place, Manguiat and Sanqui forcibly
abducted Refresca and despite her refusal, she was taken to the woods in
 Silang, Cavite and was later on brutally raped by Manguiat on several occasions
while being assisted by Sanqui, and with threats and intimidation, she was
compelled to place her signature on a marriage certificate so that Manguiat can
have an alibi that his commission of rape is because he was the husband of
Refresca, hence extinhuishing his criminal liability.

Issue:

Whether or not there are two separate crimes of rape and abduction can
be charged against the defendants.

Ruling:

The Court held that the crime is a complex crime of rape with abduction
and where a single act constitutes two crimes, abduction and rape, and where
aggravating circumstances without any mitigating circumstances to offset, the
maximum penalty provided by the should be imposed.

24. People v Hernandez

GR #s L-6025-26
July 18, 1956

Facts:

Amado Hernandez was charged and has been convicted with the complex
crime of rebellion with murders, arsons, robberies, hence the sentence that may
be imposed is capital punishment. Hernandez was found to have been
conspiring, confederating, and cooperating with other rebels and/or members of
the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO), formerly known as Committee on
Labor Organization (CLO), an active agency, organ, and instrumentality of the
Communist Party of the Philippines, who fully cooperates in, and synchronizes its
activities with the rebellious activities of the “Hukbong Mapagpalayang Bayan”
(HMB), formerly known as “Hukbalahaps” (Huks), in participating is armed public
uprising, for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines from the
allegiance to the government, and attacking the police, constabulary, and army
detachments as well as innocent civilians, through acts of murder, pillage,
looting, plunde, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to
create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear.

Issues:

Whether or not the crime of rebellion is a complex crime.

Whether or not the penalty for 2 or more crimes should be absorbed into
one as stated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
 Rulings:

The Court held that Article 135 of the RPC provides that one of the means
by which rebellion may be committed is by “engaging in war against the forces of
the government” and “committing serious violence” in the prosecution of the said
war. The war pertained by the provision connotes “resorting to arms in requisition
of property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty,
damages to property, physical injuries and loss of life.” Being with the purview of
“engaging in war” and “committing serious violence”, the act of resorting to arms,
with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property in its performance
“as a necessary means to commit rebellion” and in order “to facilitate the purpose
of rebellion”, constitutes neither two or more offenses, nor as a complex crime,
but a simple crime of rebellion, punishable with one single, penalty prescribed in
the said provision.
The language of Article 48 of the same Code presupposes the
commission of two or more crimes does not apply when the culprit is guilty of
only one crime. If one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no
reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each offense
combined. In imposing the penalty for the graver offense, the said provision
imposes the maximum period prescribed. When two or more crimes are the
result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he
commits said crimes through separate distinct acts. The Court ruled that instead
of sentencing the offender for each crime committed independent from each
other, the penalty for the superior crime on its maximum will be imposed, on the
assumption that it is less grave than the sum of the total separate penalties for
each offense.

25. People v Abedosa

GR # 28600
March 21, 1928

Facts:

Pedro and Marciano Abedosa, Teodoro Daet, Anatalio Gines, Roman

Hernando, Juan Castañeda, and Juan Jacobe were charged with the crime of
breaking and entering with homicide of Rafael de Fiesta by the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija. Under the command of Pedro, the defendants formed a
band of more than three persons all armed with bolos and clubs, with conspiracy
and aid of one another in illegally entering the house of de Fiesta and criminally
assaulting the latter, which eventually led to the death of de Fiesta, and attacking
Nicolas de Fiesta and Rufino Esteban, inflicting several wounds in the different
parts of their bodies. It was also noted that during the commission of the crime,
there is presence of nocturnity and superiority as aggravating circumstances.
 Issue:

Whether or not the crime of simple homicide by the defendants can be

considered as a complex crime.

Ruling:

The Court held that the breaking in and entering in the dwelling of
Abedosa and his co-defendants, is a direct means to the commission of a graver
offense, hence the minor offense should yield to the principal one. It is regarded
as only an aggravating circumstance, and the two offenses will not be considered
as a complex crime.

26. Regis v People

GR #s 46064, 46089
December 24, 1938

Facts:

Rafael Regis, a municipal treasurer, was charged for the crime of

malversation of public funds through falsification of a public document for two
counts by the Court of First Instance of Cebu. On April 30, 1931 happened when
he signed an official payroll in the amount of PHP 473.70 for certain persons who
worked as laborers in the street project but did not really transpire. On May 2,
1931 was when he signed another official payroll in the amount of PHP 271.60
for certain persons who worked as laborers for the same street project, which
again, did not transpire. Both monies were taken from the municipal funds
apparently there was no street project that was done and the persons mentioned
in both payrolls had not performed any labor.

Issue:

Whether or not the crimes of falsification of a public document and

malversation of public funds committed twice on different occasions can be
absorbed as one complex crime.

Ruling:

The Court held that falsifications committed on these two incidents were
not necessary means for the commission of malversations because each
malversation committed did not constitute a single falsification and malversation
constituted independent offenses which must be punished separately. The
falsifications and malversations committed on separate occasions did not
constitute a single falsification and a single malversation, according to previous
jurisprudence in which it was held that the falsifications and malversations
committed on different dates constitute different offenses. It does not appear that
 when the malversation and falsification committed on April 30 was the same
intention of Regis when he committed the malversation and falsification on May
2, which proves that the offenses committed on different dates are considered as
one offense. The acts are independent of each other and executed by different
voluntary actions, each constituting an independent offense.

27. People v Barbas

GR #s 41265, 41266
July 27, 1934

Facts:

Jose Barbas, a special delegate of the provincial treasurer, was charged

with the crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public
documents by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Marciano Salazar
paid Barbas PHP 2.00 for falsifying a cedula, which was originally issued to
Patricio Fernandez, and replacing it with Salazar’s name.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime of falsification of a public document can be

absorbed in the crime of estafa.

Ruling:

The Court held that the defendant, as acting special deputy of the
provincial treasurer, collected from two individuals the amount of PHP 2.00 each
for the payment of their cedula tax, which are both altered duplicates. The
monies were received by the defendant in his capacity as a public officer, and
constituted a valid payment of the cedulas of both Salazar and Fernandez. The
herein defendant who misappropriated is guilty of malversation of public funds.
The evidence proves that there is an alteration of the cedulas, as public
documents, which means that these are falsified by Barbas and eventually sold
to Salazar and Fernandez. The trial court held that the defendant is guilty of
estafa through falsification of public documents when he tricked Salazar that the
cedula he received was a legitimate one, despite paying the correct amount to
obtain such document. The falsification was the means in which the defendant
committed the crime of malversation. As the acts of the defendant constitute a
complex crime, the penalty applicable should be equivalent to the more serious
offense, which is falsification of a public document.

28. People v Ang Cho Kio

GR #s L-6687, L-6688
July 29, 1954
 Facts:

Ang Cho Kio was charged with the complex crime of serious duress with
murder of Eduardo Diago and Pedro Pelas by the Court of First Instance of
Manila. Ang Cho Kio, while on board of Philippine AirLines plane bound to Aparri,
while armed with .45 and .38 caliber pistols, shot Diago which caused the latter’s
immediate death. On the same date, the herein defendant ordered Perlas to
change the route of the plane and to take him to Amoy apparently the latter did
not comply with the order, hence he was shot by the defendant which also led to
the death of Perlas. The defendant pleaded guilty for the crime he has committed
and trial court noted treachery and known premeditation as aggravating
circumstances and sentencing the defendant with life imprisonment.

Issue:

Whether or not the public prosecutor can appeal for a greater sentence of
death penalty.

Ruling:

The Court held that the aggravating circumstance of premeditation in the

omission of the crime by Ang Cho Kio was compensated by the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilt, hence the penalty to be imposed should be in its
medium degree as provided by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which is
life imprisonment. If the defendant was convicted of a lesser penalty than what is
indicated by law, the prosecutor’s office cannot appeal to correct the error of law,
if said appeal endangers the defendant to receive another greater sentence,
which is a case of double jeopardy.

29. People v Geronimo

GR # L-8936
October 23, 1956

Facts:

Federico Geronimo was charged with the complex crime of rebellion with
murders, robberies, and kidnapping by the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur. He initially pleaded not guilty but when the trial started, he requested to
change his plea to guilty. The fiscal recommended that the penalty of life
imprisonment be imposed on Geronimo in consideration of his voluntary plea of
guilty as a mitigating circumstance.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime committed by Geronimo is a complex crime of

rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping.
 Ruling:

The Court held that in treason, where both intent and overt act are
necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the
armed uprising for the purposes expressed in Article 134 of the Revised Penal
Code, and the overt acts are essential components of one crime, and without
either of them, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist. It also follows that any
or all of the acts described in Article 135 of the same Code, becomes absorbed
in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes.
It is part and parcel of the rebellion per se, and cannot be considered as a
separate crime, under Article 48 of the same Code, which would constitute a
complex one, which is rebellion. Not every act of violence is deemed to be
absorbed in the crime of rebellion on the sole basis that it is simultaneously
committed with or in the course of rebellion. If the killing or robbing were done for
private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be
separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion. The
individual’s misdeed could not be taken into account as rebellion to constitute a
complex crime, since the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each
other, as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter.

30. Angeles v Jose

GR # L-6494
November 24, 1954

Facts:

Domingo Mejia was charged with the crime of damage to property with
less serious physical injuries through reckless negligence by the Court of First
Instance of Manila. The amount of the damages incurred by the property is PHP
654.22.

Issue:

Whether or not there should only be one penalty for the crime of physical
injury with damage to property.

Ruling:

The Court held that where both physical injuries and damage to property
were caused by one single act of Mejia, hence the crime cannot be split into two,
physical injuries and damage to property. When the execution of the act resulted
only in damage to property, the amount of damages, as provided in Article 365 of
the Revised Penal Code, a fine should be imposed. But if physical injuries have
also been caused, there should be an additional penalty for the latter crime.
31. People v Lizardo
GR # L-22471
December 11, 1967

Facts:

Solomon Lizardo was charged with the crime of slight physical injuries
through reckless imprudence against the driver of Mandaluyong Bus Company
by the Municipal Court of Manila, Traffic Branch. Although he pleaded not guilty
in court, he was acquitted on the ground that his guilt was not established
beyond reasonable doubt. However, he was also charged with the same crime
arising from the same accident but the trial court found him guilty of the offense.

Issue:

Whether or not the decision of the trial court erred in dismissing the case.

Ruling:

The Court held that since the defendant was initially acquitted, the
subsequent charge with damage to property through reckless imprudence.
Lizardo should not be harassed with various prosecutions based on the same act
by splitting the same into various charges, hence the trial court correctly
dismissed the latter charge.

32. People v Rillorta

GR # 57415
December 15, 1989

Facts:

Pascual Baylon and Wesley Rillorta, as principals, and Wilson Rillorta, as

accomplice, were charged with the complex crime of direct assault with murder of
Barangay Captain Emiliano Doton by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
The body of the latter was reported by Edita Doton, daughter of the victim, and
prosecution witness, Romy Ramos, a thresher operator, testified that he saw
Pascual threatening Ramos to leave the barrio because he is an “outsider” and
the former wanted all the palay stocks in his barrio threshed in his own thresher.
Armed with a bolo, he warned Ramos’ group not to return to thresh the palay in
their barrio however Doton, who was just behind Ramos’ group, advised Pascual
to let the threshing party to pass. The three defendants chased Doton and while
Pascual was hacking him with his bolo, his sons Wesley and Wilson were holding
each hand of Doton while the victim was asking for mercy.
 Issues:

Whether or not treachery can be appreciated in the commission of the

crime.
Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that Wesley acted in the
legitimate defense of his father.
Whether or not the trial court erred in giving the penalty for the
commission of the complex of the crime of direct assault with murder.

Rulings:

The Court held that there was no treachery when the defendants
committed the crime because prior to the hacking, there was a heated exchange
of words between the defendants and the deceased. It cannot be ruled that
Doton was caught completely by surprise when the accused took up arms
against him, therefore the killing was only homicide under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code and not murder. But the crime was a complex crime of
homicide with assault upon a person in authority as provided in the same
provision and Article 148 of the same Code. The intervention of Doton between a
possible violent encounter between the Rillortas and Ramos’ group is an act that
Doton is only discharging his duty as a barangay captain to protect life and
property and enforce law and order in his barrion. Under Article 152 of the same
Code and PD 299, a barangay captain is a person in authority.
The trial court did not err in rejecting Wesley’s plea that he acted in
legitimate defense of his father because the deceased had not committed any
unlawful aggression against the Rillortas. The number of wounds that the
deceased incurred were thirty two, indicative that there were two or more
persons who inflicted such. Also, prosecution witness Ceferino Facon positively
identified the defendants as the aggressors.
As provided by Article 48 of the same Code, the penalty for the complex
crime of homicide with assault against a person in authority is the maximum
period of the penalty for the more serious crime, which is homicide. Penalty
should be reclusion temporal in its maximum period as provided in Article 249 of
the same Code. Under the IS Law, each of the accused shall suffer an
indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be within the prescribed
penalty of reclusion temporal as maximum, and the minimum should be within
the range next lower, which is prision mayor, in its maximum period.

33. Samson v CA
GR #s L-10364; L-10376
March 31, 1958

Facts:

Rufino Samson was charged with the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of two checks of the Philippine National Bank, together with Amado
 Cruz and Bonifacio Vergara and two others whose identities are still unknown, by
the Court of First Instance of Manila. Cruz asked the help of his friend Samson to
get the check of two claimants who were with him at Camp Murphy, and the latter
heeded to the former’s request and went to Lt. Manuel Valencia, requested that
Valencia to act as guarantor. Valencia helped the supposed claimants in
securing their checks in the name of Rosalina Paras and Espiridion Lascaño,
amounting to PHP 6,417.11 and PHP 6,417.10. The two checks were cashed by
the teller Rosario Mallari, who knew Samson, then afterwards, Samson received
PHP 10.00 for his cab fare and PHP 300.00 to pay the officers who helped them
with processing. Two days later, Samson was informed of the possibility that the
two supposed claimants might not be the real claimants so he verified the
information and found who the real claimants were. He reported the incident to
an officer but Samson was still indicted for the crime of estafa with falsification of
documents.

Issue:

Whether or not estafa through falsification by negligence can be

appreciated in the case at bar.

Ruling:

The Court held that the act of endorsing checks by way of identification of
the signatures of the payees entitled to said checks and their proceeds constitute
the crime of estafa through falsification of mercantile document by reckless
imprudence because such endorsement constituted a written representation that
the true payees participated in the endorsement and cashing of the checks, when
in reality the true payees had no direct intervention in such proceedings as
provided in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. In the crime of falsification by
imprudence of public or mercantile documents, the element of intent to cause
damages is not required because what the law seeks to repress is the prejudice
to the public confidence in these documents.

34. People v Lasala

GR # L-12141
January 30, 1962

Facts:

Miguel Lasala was charged with the crime of serious slander by deed with
less serious physical injuries and damages against Wenceslao Andanar,
incumbent municipal mayor, by the Court of First Instance of Surigao. The herein
defendant, with deliberate intent to expose to public ridicule, cast dishonor and
public contempt, attacked, assaulted, using fistic blows toward Andanar, which
inflicted injuries in the different parts of the body of the latter.
 Issue:

Whether or not the complex crime of serious slander by deed defined in

Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code and less serious physical injuries can be
invoked in the case at bar.

Ruling:

The Court held that whenever an act has been committed which inflicts
upon a person less serious physical injuries with the manifest intent to insult or
offend him or under the circumstances adding ignominy to the offense, the
offender should be prosecuted under Article 265 Paragraph 2 of the Revised
Penal Code, and if convicted should be sentenced to the penalty prescribed. The
specific provision should be considered as an exception to the rule contained in
Article 48 of the same Code in relation to complex crimes, since the latter only
takes place in cases where the said Code has no specific provision penalizing
the same with definite specific penalty.

35. People v Pineda

GR # L-26222
July 2, 1967

Facts:

Respondents Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo, and Rufino Borres were

charged as principals for the crimes of four counts of murder and one frustrated
murder of the Mendozas by the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte. The
Mendozas were sleeping in their residence when suddenly the defendants fired
in rapid succession their rifle, caliber 22 and a homemade gun, which caused the
instant death of Teofilo, Neceforo, Epifania and Marcelo, all minor children on the
couple, and wounding Valeriana. Narbasa and Alindo claim in their plea that the
acts arose out of the same incident and were motivated by one impulse, hence
respondent Judge Hernando Pineda unified all the five criminal cases into a
single case.

Issue:

Whether or not there should only be one information, either for the
complex crime of murder and frustrated murder or for the complex crime of
robbery with multiple homicide and frustrated homicide.

Ruling:

The Court held that the four separate crimes of murder and frustrated
murder resulted from the firing of several shots towards the five victims, which
 does not constitute as a complex crime, therefore, there should be five cases to
be filed. There is a complex crime where one shot from a gun results in the death
of two or more persons, or where one stabbed another and the weapon pierced
the latter’s body and wounded another, or where a person plants a bomb in an
airplane and the bomb explodes, with the result that a number of persons are
killed. But if several victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute
separate and distinct crimes but related criminal cases may be tried jointly.

36. People v Maribung

GR # L-47500
April 29, 1987

Facts:

Simplicio Maribung and Joel Alagia were charged with the crime of
robbery with homicide of Vicente Baniel, aggravated by treachery and
uninhabited place, by the Court of First Instance of Cagayan. During a town
fiesta carnival, Edgardo Calaoan met Baniel who invited him to watch the
coronation ceremonies for Miss Aparri. After the pageant, both of them decided
to make a round of the sideshows and eventually they met Maribung and Alagia,
who invited Calaoan and Baniel to join them in the seashore as they are to meet
a woman. Upon reaching the seashore, the defendants suddenly and
simultaneously attacked and boxed Baniel, took his watch and money and threw
the wallet away. Maribung and Alagia also dug a shallow pit in the sand and
buried Baniel.

Issue:

Whether or not the testimony of Edgardo Calaoan as the only “alleged”

eyewitness, is a credible witness as to inspire belief.

Ruling:

The Court held that in order for evidence to be believed, it must not only
come from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible itself. The
testimony of witnesses must be reasonable or probable to be believed, and
failure to report the occurrence of crime affects the credibility of the witness.
Additionally, a witness who keeps silent about the incident cannot be believed.
The testimony of Calaoan as sole eyewitness of a crime of murder was not
believed because after seeing the incident he left home without helping the victim
and did not even mention to people close to him nor informed the police
authorities about it. In the crime of robbery with homicide, the killing may occur
before or during the robbery but it must be by reason of or on the occasion,
hence proof of intent to rob is essential and that such intent exists before the
killing or during the killing of the victim.
37. People v Jaranilla
GR # L-26547
February 22, 1974

Facts:

Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo, and Franco Brillantes were convicted with
the crime of robbery with homicide of Ramonito Jabatan by the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo. The defendants requested Heman Gorriceta to drive them to
Mandurriao because Jaranilla had to get something from his uncle’s place. Upon
reaching the place, they alighted the vehicle and told Gorriceta to wait for them
but upon their arrival, each of them were carrying two fighting cocks they stole
from Valentin Baylon. While escaping, they saw Patrolmen Jabatan and
Benjamin Castro running towards them and the former fired a warning shot to
signal the truck to stop. Gorriceta stopped the truck but as Jabatan approached
them, Jaranilla suddenly shot Jabatan which scared Gorriceta and immediately
started the truck and drove fast. Jabatan was rushed to the hospital but
eventually died.

Issues:

Whether or not the taking of the roosters was theft, and if it was robbery,
the crime could not be robbery with homicide because the robbery was already
consummated when Jabatan was killed.
Whether or not there is conspiracy on the part of the defendants to kill
Jabatan.

Rulings:

The Court held that there is no evidence that the taking of the six roosters
from their coop or cages in the yard of Baylon constitutes violence or intimidation
of persons were employed, therefore Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
cannot be invoked. Neither did the taking fall under the provisions of Article 299
of the same Code which penalized robbery in an inhabited house, public building
or edifice devoted for worship. The coop was not inside Baylon’s house or was it
a dependency as defined in Article 301 of the same Code. Nocturnity and use of
a motor vehicle are all aggravating circumstances and the taking of the roosters
is punishable as a single offense of theft. In addition, the killing was homicide
because it was made on the spur of the moment. The defendants intentionally
used night time to their advantage and used a motor vehicle to ensure full
consummation of theft. For aggravating circumstances, Suyo and Brillantes
recidivism can be appreciated as well as the killing of an agent of authority
wearing a uniform.
 The mere presence by a member of the band does not necessarily make
a person a co-principal of the crime of homicide. Hence, there is no conspiracy in
killing Jabatan since it was only Jaranilla who shot the former.

38. People v Enguero

GR #s L-8922–24
February 28, 1957

Facts:

Florentino Enguero, Jose Tariman, Nazario Narvate, and Dionisio Bueno

were charged with the crime of robbery in band for three separate informations
by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.

Issue:

Whether or not the conviction and sentence of the defendants for three
robberies in band instead of only one is correct.

Ruling:

The Court held that after committing the first crime of robbery in band, the
defendants went to another house where they committed the second and after
committing it they proceeded to another house where they committed the third,
which all constitute three separate crimes, punishable in accordance with the
pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

39. People v Co Pao

GR # 38329
October 10, 1933

Facts:

Co Pao was charged for violating Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) or for illegal possession of counterfeit bank notes amounting to PHP 10.00
twice.

Issue:

Whether or not Co Pao knew that the bank note in question was a
counterfeit when he made use of it.

Ruling:

The Court held that the defendant is guilty of violating the above
mentioned provision of the RPC because two days after the defendant used the
 counterfeit PHP 10.00 note in question to pay the thirty centavos he owe from the
owner of the Cheng Dy store and got a change of PHP 9.70, he delivered
another counterfeit note with the same denomination to the same store in
payment of the fifty centavos he owed, which he eventually received the change
of PHP 9.50 in lawful money. It is evident that his purpose is to change the
counterfeit bank notes for lawful money.

40. People v Gayrama

GR #s 39270 and 39271
October 30, 1974

Facts:

Felix Gayrama was charged with the crime of murder with assault upon
agents of persons in authority, Placido Delloro and Fernando Corpin, for two
counts, and frustrated murder with assault, and with serious physical injuries to
Eugenio Nierras, another agent of person in authority, by the Court of First
Instance of Leyte.

Issue:

Whether or not Gayrama’s act of killing the chief of police Corpin

constitutes homicide with assault upon an agent of persons in authority.

Ruling:

The Court held that the defendant’s act in killing Corpin and Delloro
constitutes two complex crimes of homicide with assault upon agents of persons
in authority. Gayrama’s claim that he is only defending himself is untenable
because Delloro already shouted for the appellant to surrender yet he still struck
the latter with his bolo.