US v Insierto

Facts:
The defendant, Ramon Insierto inflicted upon his niece, Marcelina Cainela, a girl of twelve years
of age, three wounds, which required a little over  a month to  cure, without medical
attendance, and of which on the day of the trial  nothing but the scars appeared. Marcelina
Cainela declared that she lived with her aunt and  uncle, Oliva Insierto and Ramon Insierto and
that the latter was her teacher.

The Court of First Instance of Cebu, taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of
parentage and in addition that of abuse of a person of tender age,  sentenced him to two years
and four months of prision correccional, with  the  corresponding  accessory penalties, but
credited him with one-half of the time of his detention in prison, and to pay the  costs, without
subjecting  him to pay an indemnity for the reason that no evidence had been adduced as to
damages.

By his testimony the accused shows that his mental faculties were somewhat unbalanced ever
since he suffered from an affection of the head.

People vs Ancheta
Facts:
This is petition filed by the accused and appellant Vicennte Acheta for reconsideration of the
judgement rendered against him which affirms that formerly entered by the court of first
instance of plawan sentencing him to the indeterminate penalty of form six months of arresto
mayor to four years of prision correccional with the cost of the proceedings. His petition is
based on the following:
i. That is is an error to hold that the detention of bibiana sanson ordered by the
appellant was not justified, on the ground that it has been not been proven that she
had conspired with her borther to assault said appellant.
ii. That the conviction of the appellant in this case, after then SC has found in its
decision that there are circumstance in support of the theory of the defense that the
appellant ordered the arrest of bibiana for having conspired with her brothers and
deceased Salazar to assault said appellant is a deviation from the uniform ruling that
peace officers are empowered to make arrests without warrant when they have
been reasonable cause to believe that an offense or violation of law has been
committed and that the accused is guilty thereof and is likewise contrary to the
express provision of section 848 of the administrative code pertinent thereto.

The assault committed by the Sanson brothers and justice of the peace Salzar upon Ancheta
took place immediately after the latter had been approached by bibiana sanson in the middle of
the street while he was passing in front of the store situated under the house of sanson. Under
said circumstance, the appellant undoubtedly had well founded reasons to believe that bibiana
was not innocent of said aggression.
Issue:

Whether or not the conviction of the appellant in this case is a deviation from the uniform
ruling that peace officers are empowered to make arrest without a warrant when they have
reasonable cause

Ruling:

The obligation of an agent of authority to make an arrest by reason of a crime, does not
presuppose as a necessary requisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indubitable excistence of a
crime. For the detention to be perfectly legal, It is sufficient that the agent or person in
authority making the arrest has reasonably grounds to believe the existence of an act having
the characteristics of a crime and that the same grounds exist to belive that the person sought
to be detained participated therein. 9decision of sc of spain of nov 5, 1982)

 It was likewise stated therein that under such conditions, even if the suspected person is later
found to be innocent, the peace officer who arrested him is not liable, adding that one should
not expect too much of a policeman, and the same is true with a constabulary officer as the
appellant, because both are not presumed to have the training and preparation of a judicial
officer, not having as they do not often have the opportunity to make proper investigation but
must act in haste on their own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal. 

It should likewise be borne in mind that the law (section 848 of the Administrative Code and
article 124 of the Revised Penal Code) allows members of the Constabulary or policemen, and
in general, every public officer or employee, to make arrest without warrant, not only when a
crime is being committed or is about to be committed in their own presence, but also when
they reasonably believe or have ground to suspect that a crime has been committed and that it
has been committed precisely by the person arrested (U.S . vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil., 472;
U.S. vs. Samonte, 16 Phil., 516; U.S. vs. Batallones, 23 Phil., 46; U.S. vs. Santos, supra;
People vs. Kagui Malasugui, 63 Phil., 221). Bibiana Sanson's detention ordered by the appellant
took place exactly under these same circumstances.

Wherefore, judgment is rendered acquitting the appellant Vicente P. Ancheta, lieutenant of the
Constabulary, of the crime of arbitrary detention with which he was charged, the detention of
Bibiana Sanson ordered by him being as it is now declared sufficiently justified, in view of the
circumstances surrounding the same, with the costs de oficio.

People vs Ortiz and Zausa

Ortiz and Zausa were charged with conspiracy to kill the victim but Ortiz contends that he
should be acquitted because he did not take part in the attack. The court ruled that Ortiz
cannot be convicted either as principal or as accessory for it has been shown that there was
neither plan nor agreement between him and Zausa to commit the crime, and that he took no
part in the latter’s attack with the spear.
Facts:
Here the defendants are Bias Ortiz and Modesta Zausa are charged with crime of homicide in
an information. The defendants pleaded not guilty in the Court of First Instance. The
antecedents facts is that on or about September 8, 1930 in the municipality of Pilar, Province of
Capiz the defendants, conspiring and helping each other, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
killed Sotero, Bancoyo, attacking him with a bamboo lance and wounding him on the left side of
the abdomen, from which wounds his bowels protruded.

The defense's account of the occurrence finds no support in the evidence. It clearly appears
that the shotgun belonged to the appellant, who had it for a long time before the crime; several
of the witnesses for the prosecution saw him with the gun. The appellant began the attack,
because of the deceased's reproach in exclaiming there was not even water to drink in the
appellants' house. the male appellant descended from the house carrying his shotgun, which he
pointed at the deceased. When the latter saw the appellant's aggressive attitude, he flung
himself upon him, caught hold of the weapon, and they both struggled for it.

At this juncture Modesta Zausa, the female appellant, companion of Blas Ortiz, took a spear
from within the house, rushed down and with it attacked the deceased, stabbing him on the left
side of the abdomen, so that the intestines protruded. (Dying declaration.) The deceased fell to
the ground unconscious, was assisted, and that night died of peritonitis.
The defense contends that the trial court should have given more credence to the witnesses for
the defense, and held that the shotgun belonged to the deceased; that a struggle took place
between the deceased and the male appellant in the course of which the latter succeeded in
overpowering his opponent and in obtaining the firearm; that in defending himself the male
appellant wounded the deceased with the spear, and that the shotgun found after the fight
beside the dead man's right arm was not place there by the appellant. As to the female
appellant, the theory of the defense is that she took no part, directly or indirectly, in the attack.

Issue:
Whether or not male appellant is has criminal liability for the act committed by his coappellant

Ruling:
It appears that there was no plan or agreement between the appellants to carry out the attack
which ended in the death of the victim, and that from the time Modesta Zausa thought of
wounding the deceased to the time she actually did so, barely few seconds elapsed, and this
iterval is palpably insufficient to give rise to the criminal agreement alleged in the information.
In United States vs. Monteroso and Monteroso (33 Phil., 325), it was held that . . . while the
record discloses that the defendant Eugenio Monteroso joined with his father and his brothers
in the quarrel which arose as a result of the misbehaviour of the deceased, it does not
conclusively appear that he was a party to the deadly assault of which his father was guilty, or
that he had any means of knowing that his father was about to make such an assault . . ., said
accused should be acquitted.
Applying the same doctrine laid down in the cases cited to the case of appellant Ortiz, we hold
that he cannot be convicted of homicide committed on the deceased Sotero Bancoyo, either as
principal or as accessory before the fact, for it has been shown that there was neither plan nor
agreement between him and his companion, the appellant Modesta Zausa, to commit the
crime, and that he took no part in the latter's attack with the spear; and this notwithstanding
the fact that the said appellant began by pointing his shotgun at the deceased, but without any
consequences.

The penalty imposed upon Modesta Zausa is the minimum of the medium degree of that fixed
by article 404 of the Penal Code, which is in accordance with law, there being no modifying
circumstance present.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed so far as it finds the appellant Modesta
Zausa guilty of homicide and sentences her to fourteen years, eight months, and one day
of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000, to suffer
the accessories of article 59 of the Penal Code, and to pay one-half of the costs of both
instances, and reversed with reference to the appellant Blas Ortiz, who is hereby acquitted,
with the other half of the costs de oficio. 

People vs Quisay
Facts:
December 28, 2012, Office of the City Prosecutor of /Makati issued Pasiya or Resolution finding
probable cuase against petitioner Girlie Quisay for violation of Section 10 of RA 7610 otheriwse
known as Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
Consequently, a Pabatid or information was filed to RTC charnging petitioner such crime.

Petitioner moved for quashal of the information against her on the ground of lack of authority
of the person whol filed the same before the RTC. In support to her motion, petitioner pointed
out that the Pasiya and Pabatid Sakdal were issued without the approval or authority from the
City prosecutor. As such, the information must be quashed for being tainted with a
jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured.

The RTC ruled to deny the petitioner’s motion to quash due to lack merit since it sound that the
certification attached to the Pabatid Sakdal have sufficiently complied with Sec. 4, Rule 112 of
the Rules of Court which requires the prior written authority or approval by, among others, the
City Prosecutor, the filing of informations. The Petitioner then moved for reconsideration but
denied. Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA that consequently, affirmed the ruling of the
RTC.

Issue:
WON the CA correctly held that RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing
petitioner’s motion to quash
Ruling:
No, CA erred in affirming RTC’s ruling. Sec 4, resolution of investigation prosecutor and its
review – if the investigation prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall
prepare the resolution and information. He shall clarify under oath in the information that he,
or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complaint and
his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused is informed of the complaint and of
the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit
controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.

Thus, as a general rule, complaints or information filed before the courts without prior written
authority or approval of authorized officers renders the same as defective and therefore subject
to quashal.

People vs Kiichi Omine

Facts:
Defendants appeal from a decision of the CFI finding them guilty of frustrated homicide with
the AC that advantage was taken of their superior strength and sentencing them each to suffer
an IS from 6 years of prisoin correccional to 12 yrs of prision mayor.
Defendants Eduardo Autor, Luis Ladion and Agapito Cortesani were working under co-
defendant Kiichi Omine, the manager of the hemp plantation owned by Angel Pulido. The 4
defendants lived together in a house on the plantation. Kiichi omine asked Pulido permission to
open a new road through the plantation. Acdg to omine, Pulido gave his permission that’s why
he began working on the new road. But acgd to Pulido he refused to grants this request
because was already an unfinished road.
As Pulido and his son along with 2 other were returning home from a cockpit, they noticed that
a considerable number of hemp plants were destroyed by the construction of the new road.
Angered by this they went to the defendants’ house and there happened a violent altercation
resulting to the owners’ death from wound by bolo struck in his breast.

Issue:
WON omine can be a principal by inducement in the act committed by autor

Ruling:
Although it is alleged that omine uttered words of inducement to autor, it would be insufficient
to make him a principal by induction. Autor though working under the direction of omine was
still being paid by Pulido. Moreover it is necessary that inducement be made directly w/ the
intention of the procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement be the
determining cause of the commission of the crime.
It must be precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing the criminal act that
without it the act wouldn’t have been performed. Moreover, as words of direct inducement it is
essential that such advice or words have great dominance and great influence over the person
who acts, that they be as direct, as efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as
violence itself.
Hence, the 3 codefendants of autor are not responsible for the injury inflicted by him on Pulido.
Judging from the nature of the wound, which was about 11 inches in length, it is probable that
it was caused by the point of the bolo on a downward stroke. It was not a stab wound, and was
probably given during a commotion and without being aimed at any particular part of the body.
Moreover, as autor struck the offended only once, it is indicative that it was not his intention to
take the offended party’s life.

Wherefore, autor is guilty of lesiones graves with a sentence of 1 yr and 8 mos and 21 days of
prision correccional, since the offended part was incapacitated for the performance of his usual
work for a period of more than 90 days and not frustrated homicide, the rest of the
codefendants are acquitted.