RPC Art 5-8 DIGESTS

1 CASE: CADAJAS V.
PEOPLE TOPIC: Article 5

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: PRAYER:
• Christian • People of the • Reversal of the decision of CA and
Cadajas y Philippines the lower courts
Cabias
FACTS:
• Petitioner Christian Cadajas engaged in a relationship with AAA, a 14-year-old minor, however,
BBB, their mother, disapproved of the said relationship.
• Petitioner Cadajas prompted AAA to send her nude photos of her breasts and vagina on account
of their relationship. Upon knowing by the mother, she confronted petitioner about this and forced
him to let go of her daughter. On that same day, petitioner broke up with AAA.
• Thereafter 2 criminal cases were filed against him, he was charged for violation of RA 7610, child
abuse and for child pornography.
• One of the arguments raised by petitioner before this Court concerns the admissibility of the
evidence presented by the prosecution, which was taken from his Facebook messenger account.
He claims that the photos presented in evidence during the trial of the case were taken from his
Facebook messenger account. According to him, this amounted to a violation of his right to
privacy, and therefore, any evidence obtained in violation thereof amounts to a fruit of the
poisonous tree.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:
• After trial, the RTC acquitted petitioner of the • CA affirmed the RTC’s judgement.
charge for violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. • The CA held that the minority of AAA
7610 but found him guilty beyond reasonable was both established and was even
doubt for violation of Section 4 (c) (2) of R.A. admitted by the petitioner. 22
No. 10175 (CYBERCRIME) in relation to Furthermore, petitioner's
Sections 4 (a), 3 (b) and (c) (5) of R.A. No. 9775 conversation with AAA showed that
(CHILD PRONOGRAPHY). he induced her to send him photos o
• RTC ruled in dismissing the charge against
petitioner by holding that AAA is a city lass who
was no longer innocent of the ways of the world.
• She herself attested that she was not affected by
what happened. As such, the RTC ruled that the
protective mantle of R.A. No. 7610 is wanting.
ISSUE(S):
• Whether the CA gravely erred in not finding that the evidence presented by the prosecution are
inadmissible for violating petitioner's right to privacy.
• Whether the CA gravely erred in convicting petitioner of violation of Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No.
10175 in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and (c)(5) of R.A. No. 9775 despite the fact that the
alleged act complained of does not constitute an offense penalized under the said statute.
RULING:
• Photos and Videos obtained from FB Messenger are admissible.

• The right to privacy is defined as "the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one's
person or from intrusion into one's private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a
person's ordinary sensibilities." It is the right of an individual "to be free from unwarranted
publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is
not necessarily concerned." Simply put, the right to privacy is "the right to be let alone."
• petitioner, which he considers as fruit of the poisonous tree, were not obtained through the efforts
of the police officers or any agent of the State. Rather, these were obtained by a private
individual. Indeed, the rule governing the admissibility of an evidence under Article III of the
Constitution must affect only those pieces of evidence obtained by the State through its agents. It
is these individuals who can flex government muscles and use government resources for a
possible abuse. However, where private individuals are involved, for which their relationship is
governed by the New Civil Code, the admissibility of an evidence cannot be determined by the
provisions of the Bill of Rights.
• Here, the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution were properly authenticated when
AAA identified them in open court.
• Be that as it may, the act of AAA cannot be said to have violated petitioner's right to privacy.
• Here, petitioner's expectation of privacy emanates from the fact that his Facebook Messenger
account is password protected, such that no one can access the same except himself. Petitioner
never asserted that his Facebook Messenger account was hacked or the photos were taken from
his account through unauthorized means. Rather, the photos were obtained from his account
because AAA, to whom he gave his password, had access to it. Considering that he voluntarily
gave his password to AAA, he, in effect, has authorized AAA to access the same. He did not
even take steps to exclude AAA from gaining access to his account.
• Having been given authority to access his Facebook Messenger account, petitioner's reasonable
expectation of privacy, in so far as AAA is concerned, had been limited.
• In this case, the photographs and conversations in the Facebook Messenger account that were
obtained and used as evidence against
• Petitioner was charged for violating Section 4 (c) (2) of R.A. No. 10175 49 in relation to Child
Pornography.
• Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses.
• It is evident from the above-quoted conversation that petitioner induced AAA to engage in the
lascivious exhibition of her breasts and vagina through Facebook Messenger. Notably, it was
petitioner who was the one giving specific orders to AAA. He even asked AAA to send to him
nude photos of her and for the latter to further spread her legs near the camera, so that petitioner
can see her vagina. In her testimony, AAA further explained that it was because of the continuous
prodding of petitioner, that forced her to send her nude photos to the latter
• On another matter, petitioner's heavy reliance on the sweetheart theory is misplaced. Invoking
this defense would depend on the circumstances of each case. Jurisprudence explained that the
said theory applies in felonies that were committed against or without the consent of the victim.
This theory operates on the premise that the violation committed was consensual. Hence, the
party invoking this theory bears the burden of proving that said party and the victim were lovers
and that the latter consented to the commission of the act.
DOCTRINES:
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Consequently, The Decision dated September 17, 2018
and Resolution dated May 9, 2019 both rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
40298 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
2 CASE: PEOPLE V. LAMAHANG TOPIC: Article 6; stages in the
execution of a felony
• People • Aurelio Lamahang • The defendant Aurelio
• Tan Yu, storeowner Lamahang is on appeal from a
decision finding him guilty of
attempted robbery.
FACTS:
• At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Del
gado and C.R. Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caughtthe accused in the act
of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods located on the last-
named street.
• At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman.
• The accused had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the wall,
when the policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and placed him under custody.

• CFI of Iloilo convicted Lamahang of Attempted Robbery
ISSUE(S):
• WON the accused was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery
RULING:
• YES, he was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery. The accused is then held guilty of
attempted trespass to dwelling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and sentenced to three months and one day of arresto mayor.
• It is necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. In the
case of robbery, it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to take possession, for the
purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. In the instant case, it may only
be inferred as a logical conclusion that his evident intention was to enter by means of force said
store against the will of its owner. That his final objective, once he succeeded in entering the
store, was to rob, to cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit any other offense, there is
nothing in the record to justify a concrete finding.
• It must be borne in mind (I Groizard, p. 99) that in offenses not consummated, as the material
damage is wanting, the nature of the action intended (accion fin) cannot exactly be ascertained,
but the same must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed (accion medio). The relation
existing between the facts submitted for appreciation and the offense which said facts are
supposed to produce must be direct; the intention must be ascertained from the facts and
therefore it is necessary, in order to avoid regrettable instances of injustice.
• Under article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court is of the opinion that the fact under
consideration does not constitute attempted robbery but attempted trespass to dwelling. Against
the accused must be taken into consideration the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and
former convictions, — inasmuch as the record shows that several final judgments for robbery and
theft have been rendered against him — and in his favor, the mitigating circumstance of lack of
instruction.
DECISION:
• Wherefore, the sentence appealed from is revoked and the accused is hereby held guilty of
attempted trespass to dwelling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid aggravating
and mitigating circumstances and sentenced to three months and one day of arresto mayor, with
the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs.
3 CASE: BALEROS V. PEOPLE TOPIC: ART 6: OVERT ACTS AND
ATTEMPTED STAGE OF FELONY
• RENATO • PEOPLE OF THE •
BALEROS PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
• One evening, inside her room, Malou retired at around 10:30. Outside, right in front of her
bedroom door, her maid slept on a folding bed. Early morning of the following day, petitioner, clad
in t-shirt and shorts, entered the room of Malou through its window. Once inside, he approached
Malou and tightly pressed on her face a piece of cloth soaked with chemical and. at the same
time, pinned her down on the bed. She was awakened thereby and she struggled but could not
move.
• She wanted to scream for help but the hands covering her mouth with cloth wet with chemicals
were very tight. Still, Malou continued fighting off her attacker by kicking him until at last her right
hand got free. With this, the opportunity presented itself when she was able to grab hold of his
sex organ which she then squeezed. Petitioner let her go and escaped while Malou went straight
to the bedroom door and roused her maid.

• Charged Baleros with attempted Rape • Affirmed the conviction of the trial
court
ISSUE(S):
• W/N THE PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED RAPE
RULING:
• NO. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a man who has carnal
knowledge or intercourse with a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) By using
force or intimidation; (2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
(3) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. Under Article 6, in relation to
the aforementioned article of the same code, rape is attempted when the offender commences
the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
• There is absolutely no dispute about the absence of sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge in
the present case. The next question that thus comes to the fore is whether or not the act of the
petitioner, i.e., the pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an overt
act of rape.
• Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention
to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its
complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense.
• It cannot be overemphasized that petitioner was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on
his part to undress Malou, let alone touch her private part. For what reason petitioner wanted the
complainant unconscious, if that was really his immediate intention, is anybody’s guess.
DOCTRINES:
• Doctrine: Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried
out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen
into a concrete offense.
DECISION:
• Assailed decision was REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered ACQUITTING
petitioner Renato D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for attempted rape. Petitioner, however, is
adjudged GUILTY of light coercion and is accordingly sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor
and to pay a fine of P200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs.
4 CASE: PEOPLE V. TRINIDAD TOPIC: STAGES IN THE EXECUTION OF
A FELONY
• PEOPLE OF • EMELIANO • REVERSAL OF THE DECISION OF
THE TRINIDAD THE RTC
PHILIPPINES
• LOLITO
SORIANO
• RICARDO TAN
• MARCIAL
LAROA
FACTS:
• Lolito Soriano is a fish dealer. His helpers were Ricardo Tan and Marcial Laroa. While the three
were driving on their way to Davao City to sell fish, accused Emeliano Trinidad asked for a ride to
Agusan del Norte. Trinidad, a member of the Integrated National Police, was in uniform and had
two firearms, a carbine and a .38 caliber revolver.
• Tan was driving the car at that time, and he was instructed by Trinidad to slow down because
they were treading dangerous territory. Tan suddenly heard two gunshots -- Soriano and Laroa
slumped dead for both were hit on the head. Trinidad had used his carbine in killing the two
victims. Tan was able to get off the car and hail a jeepney passing by. However, he noticed that
Trinidad was also seated at the back of the said jeepney. Tan immediately got off the jeepney,
followed by Trinidad. When the jeepney started to drive away, Tan suddenly clung to its side, but
Trinidad fired two shots, one of which hit Tan on his right thigh. Tan jumped from the jeep and
fortunately a Philippine Constabulary member chanced upon him and helped him board a bus for
Butuan.
• Trinidad was charged with FRUSTRATED murder in relation to the shooting of Tan, and he was
found guilty by the RTC. On appeal, Trinidad claims that the RTC erred in convicting him of the
crime of frustrated murder.
• Trinidad was charged with FRUSTRATED murder
in relation to the shooting of Tan, and he was
found guilty by the RTC.
ISSUE(S):
• W/N Trinidad can only be convicted for the crime of FRUSTRATED murder?
RULING:
• Trinidad should only be held criminally liable for attempted murder

• Trinidad had commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but was unable to
perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of causes other than
his spontaneous desistance, such as, that the jeep to which TAN was clinging was in motion, and
there was a spare tire which shielded the other parts of his body.
• Moreover, the wound on his thigh was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound
inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only ATTEMPTED murder,
the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the
death (citing, People v. Pilones)
DECISION:
• SC Held that Trinidad is only liable for ATTEMPTED MUDER.
5 CASE: PEOPLE V. LABIAGA TOPIC: FRUSTRATED V. ATTEMPTED
MURDER
• PEOPLE V. • REGIE LABIAGA •
PHILIPPINES
• GREGORIO
CONDE
• JUDY AND
GELENELYN
CONDE
FACTS:
• On December 23, 2000, Gregorio Conde and his two daughters, Judy and Glenelyn Conde were
in their home. When Gregorio stepped outside, Regie Labiaga who was approximately five
meters away from Gregorio, shot the latter in the right forearm with an unlicensed firearm.
Gregorio called Judy for help. When Judy and Glenelyn rushed to Gregorio’s aid, Labiaga shot
Judy in the abdomen. Thereafter, He fled the crime scene together with the two other accused
that were standing behind him.
• That on or about December 23, 2000 in the Municipality of Ajuy, Province of Iloilo, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and helping one another, armed with unlicensed firearm, with deliberate intent and
decided purpose to kill, by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot JUDY CONDE alias ‘JOJO’ with said
unlicensed firearm, hitting her and inflicting gunshot wounds on the different parts of her breast
which caused her death thereafter.
• That on or about December 23, 2000 in the Municipality of Ajuy, Province of Iloilo, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and helping one another, armed with unlicensed firearm, with deliberate intent and
decided purpose to kill, by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot Gregorio Conde with said unlicensed
firearm, hitting him on the posterior aspect, middle third right forearm 1 cm. In diameter; thereby
performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of Murder as a consequence,
but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused;
that is by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Gregorio Conde which
prevented his death.
• Gregorio and Judy were rushed to the Hospital. Judy was pronounced dead on arrival while
Gregorio made a full recovery after treatment of his gunshot wound.
• Labiaga admitted that he was present during the shooting incident on 23 December 2000. He
claimed, however, that he acted in self-defense. Gregorio, armed with a shotgun, challenged him
to a fight. He attempted to shoot appellant, but the shotgun jammed. Appellant tried to wrest the
shotgun from Gregorio, and during the struggle, the shotgun fired. He claimed that he did not
know if anyone was hit by that gunshot.
• CONVICTED HIM OF FRUSTRATED MURDER • The CA-Cebu, however, upheld the
AGAINST GREGORIO CONDE AND conviction for murder and frustrated
CONVICTED HIM OF MURDER FOR THE murder.
DEATH OF JUDY CONDE
ISSUE(S):
• W/N REGIE LABIAGA IS GUILTY OF FRUSTRATED MURDER (no)
RULING:
• Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the stages in the commission of felonies:
• Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.— Consummated felonies as well as
those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
• A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
• There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
• NO. In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal
were it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the
wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention, the
accused should be convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
• In the instant case, it does not appear that the wound sustained by Gregorio Condé was mortal.
Since Gregorio’s gunshot wound was not mortal, we hold that appellant should be convicted of
attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
DOCTRINES:
Doctrine: In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal
were it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound
sustained would have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention, the accused should be
convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
DECISION:
• Appellant Regie Labiaga is GUILTY of Attempted Murder and shall suffer an indeterminate
sentence ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
6 CASE: VALENZUELA V. PEOPLE TOPIC:
• ARISTOTLE • SM • REVERSAL OF DECISION
VALENZUELA • LORENZO LAGO
• JOVY
CALDERON
FACTS:
• On May 19, 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super
Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo
Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the
supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark
“Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU),” hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the well-
known “Tide” brand . Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon
was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged
with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the
open parking space.
• Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it
towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide
Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle . All these acts were eyed by Lago, who
proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner
for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired
a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were
apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered . The filched items seized from
the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3)
additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate value of P12,090.00.
• In arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft , petitioner cites two decisions
rendered many years ago by the Court of Appeals: People vs. Diño and People vs. Flores. Both
decisions elicit the interest of the Court, as they modified trial court convictions from
consummated to frustrated theft and involve a factual milieu that bears similarity to the present
case. Petitioner invoked the same rulings in his appeal to the Court of Appeals, yet the appellate
court did not expressly consider the import of the rulings when it affirmed the conviction.
The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of Valenzuela appealed before the Court of
the crime of consummated theft. Appeals, arguing that he should only be
convicted of frustrated theft since he was
not able to freely dispose of the articles
stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s
decision, thus the Petition for Review was
filed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE(S):
• ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of frustrated theft only (NO, GUILTY OF
CONSUMMATED THEFT)
RULING:
Article 6 defines those three stages, namely the consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies. A
felony is consummated “when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.” It is frustrated “when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.” Finally, it is attempted “when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.”
Court has long recognized the following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code, namely: 1) that there be taking of personal property; 2) that said property belongs to another;
3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; 4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
and 5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things.
No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be
present – (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that
the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
(5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidating of persons or force
upon things. The court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one
with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property
stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has
already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be
attempted or consummated.
DOCTRINES:
Doctrine: Indeed, we have, after all, held that unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed complete
from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of
the same.
DECISION:
• We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft. As
petitioner has latched the success of his appeal on our acceptance of the Diño and Flores rulings,
his petition must be denied, for we decline to adopt said rulings in our jurisdiction. That it has
taken all these years for us to recognize that there can be no frustrated theft under the Revised
Penal Code does not detract from the correctness of this conclusion. It will take considerable
amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft may be recognized. Our
deference to Viada yields to the higher reverence for legislative intent.
• WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
7 CASE: CANCERAN V. PEOPLE TOPIC: THEFT HAS NO FRUSTRATED
STAGE
• JOVITO • PEOPLE • REVERSAL OF CA RULING
CANCERAN
FACTS:
• Petitioner Accused was caught stealing 14 boxes of Ponds Whitening Cream by hiding he said
item inside a box of Magic Flakes. The accused was caught trying to pass the said items when he
trying to pay for the items as Magic Flakes. When the guard inspected the said box, he
discovered the 14 boxes of Ponds. After the discovery of the items, the accused ran, but was
apprehended by the Mall employees. The accused was charged of Frustrated Theft. The
information was filed by the prosecution. The RTC held that Theft has no Frustrated stages
hence, based on the evidence presented, sentenced the accused of Consummated Theft.
The RTC found Canceran guilty beyond reasonable The CA affirmed with modification the
doubt of consummated Theft in line with the ruling of the September 20, 2007 judgment of the RTC.
Court in Valenzuela v. People that under Article 308 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), there is no crime of
“Frustrated Theft.”
ISSUE(S):
• Whether the accused should be acquitted in the crime of theft as it was not charged in the
information?
RULING:
Yes, it is a Constitutional guarantee that the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be
informed of the nature of and causes of the accusation against him. It is fundamental that every element
of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of
requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to
suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.
As stated earlier, there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The Information can never be read to charge
Canceran of consummated Theft because the indictment itself stated that the crime was never produced.
Instead, the Information should be construed to mean that Canceran was being charged with theft in
its attempted stage only. Necessarily, Canceran may only be convicted of the lesser crime of
Attempted Theft.
An accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was charged in the complaint
or information and on which he was tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of
guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted in the courts of any offense, unless it is charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein. He has a right to be
informed as to the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial, and to convict
him of an offense higher than that charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried would be
an unauthorized denial of that right.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The August 10, 2012 Decision and the
March 7, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals m CA-G.R. CR No. 00559 are hereby
MODIFIED, in that, the Court finds accused Jovito Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Attempted Theft.
8 CASE: PEOPLE V. ORITA TOPIC: THERE IS NO FRUSTRATED
RAPE
• PEOPLE • CECILIO ORITA • REVERSAL OF RTC RULING
• CRISTINA
ABAYAN
FACTS:
Cristina Abayan (Abayan), the complainant, was a freshman student. While Ceilito Orita (Lito) was a
Philippine Constabulary soldier.
Abayan on March 20, 1983 arrived at her boarding house, when suddenly, somebody held her and poked
a knife to her neck. She recognized Lito who was a frequent visitor of another boarder.
Lito ordered her to go upstairs with him, with his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand
poking a “balisong” to her neck. When they reached the second floor, he commanded her to look for a
room.
Upon entering the room, Lito pushed Abayan who hit her head on the wall. With one hand holding the
knife, Lito undressed himself and ordered Abayan to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her t-shirt
and pulled off her bra, pants and panty.
Lito ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it in
her vagina. SHE FOLLOWED HIS ORDER AS HE CONTINUED TO POKE THE KNIFE TO HER. AT
SAID POSITION, HOWEVER, APPELLANT COULD NOT FULLY PENETRATE HER. ONLY A PORTION
OF HIS PENIS ENTERED HER AS SHE KEPT ON MOVING.
Lito then laid down on his back and commanded her to mount him. IN THIS POSITION, ONLY A SMALL
PART AGAIN OF HIS PENIS WAS INSERTED INTO HER VAGINA. AT THIS STAGE. APPELLANT HAD
BOTH HIS HANDS FLAT ON THE FLOOR. THUS, ABAYAN THOUGHT OF ESCAPING.
Abayan dashed out to the other rooms but was consequently chased by Lito. Still naked, she darted to
the municipal building. When the policemen opened the door, they found the complainant naked sitting on
the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras was the first policeman to see her.
Afterward, the complainant was brought to Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital where she was examined.
Her vulva had no abrasions or discharges.
• HELD ORITA GUILTY FOR FRUSTRATED
RAPE
ISSUE(S):
• WHETHER THE CRIME COMMITTED WAS CONSUMMATED RAPE
RULING:
• YES. In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he
actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense
have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has
performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated.
• We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not
essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or
lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ
(People v. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559; People v. Rabadan, et al., 53 Phil. 694; United States v. Garcia,
9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and
manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable
how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed.
DOCTRINES:
• Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he
actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense
have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has
performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. [Art.
266 and Art. 6]
• We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not
essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or
lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
warrant conviction
DECISION:
• The decision of the RTC is hereby MODIFIED. The accused Ceilito Orita is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape [consummated] and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000.00.
9 CASE: PEOPLE V. CAMPUHAN TOPIC: NO CRIME OF FRUSTRATED
RAPE
• PEOPLE • PRIMO CAMPUHAN •
• CRYSTHEL
PAMINTUAN
• MARIA
CORAZON
PAMINTUAN
FACTS:
• On April 25,1996, Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year old Crysthel Pamintuan,
went down from the second floor of their house to prepare chocolate drinks for her two (2)
children. At the ground floor she met Primo Campuhan, the accused, who was then busy filling
small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer located at the second floor.
• Primo was a helper of Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon. As Corazon was busy preparing the
drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" prompting Corazon to rush upstairs.
Thereupon, she saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room kneeling before Crysthel whose
pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were already removed, while his short pants were down to
his knees.
• As seen by Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel's vagina. Horrified, she cursed the
accused, "P - t - ng ina mo, anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several times. He evaded her blows
and pulled up his pants. He pushed Corazon aside when she tried to block his path. Corazon
then ran out and shouted for help thus prompting her brother, a cousin and an uncle who were
living within their compound, to chase the accused.
• Seconds later, Primo was apprehended by those who answered Corazon's call for help. They
held the accused at the back of their compound until they were advised by their neighbors to call
the barangay officials instead of detaining him for his misdeed. Physical examination of the victim
yielded negative results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted by the medico-
legal officer on Crysthel's body as her hymen was intact and its orifice was only 0.5 cm. in
diameter.

• RTC: guilty of statutory rape, sentenced him to the
extreme penalty of death
ISSUE(S):
• Whether or not the accused committed a consummated statutory rape.
RULING:
• The records reviewed failed to show the proof whether Primo’s penis was able to penetrate
Chrystel’s vagina. Failure to prove such penetration, even the slightest one, cannot be considered
consummated rape, however, only attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. Also, there were
no physical signs of injuries on the witness’ body to conclude a medical perspective that a
penetration has taken place. In rape cases, it is important that a valid testimony and medical
certificate complements each other, for relying alone on testimonial evidence may create
unwarranted or mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully establish a proof that the penis, in
reality, entered the labial threshold of the demale organ to accurately conclude that the rape was
consummated.
• For attempted rape, there was no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of
execution were performed or the offender merely commenced the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts.
• no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact between the accused and the victim
• Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the oft-quoted “touching of the
female organ” but has also progressed into being described as “the introduction of the male organ
into the labia of the pudendum”, or “the bombardment of the drawbridge.”
DOCTRINES:
Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the oft-quoted “touching of the female
organ” but has also progressed into being described as “the introduction of the male organ into the labia
of the pudendum”,or “the bombardment of the drawbridge.”
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the decision of the court on convicting Campuhan guilty of statutory rape is
MODIFIED. Hence, convicted of ATTEMPTED RAPE instead.
10 CASE: PEOPLE V. PAREJA TOPIC:
• PEOPLE • BERNABE PAREJA •
• AAA
• AAA’S
MOTHER
FACTS:
AAA was thirteen (13) years of age when the alleged acts of lasciviousness and sexual abuse took place
on three (3) different dates. At the time of the commission of the aforementioned crimes, AAA was living
with her mother and with the accused Bernabe Pareja who, by then, was cohabiting with her mother,
together with three (3) of their children.
The first incident took place in December 2003. AAA’s mother was not in the house and was with her
relatives in Laguna. Taking advantage of the situation, Pareja, while AAA was asleep, placed himself on
top of her. Then, Pareja, who was already naked, begun to undress AAA. Pareja then started to suck the
breasts of AAA. Not satisfied, Pareja likewise inserted his penis into AAA’s anus. Because of the
excruciating pain that she felt, AAA immediately stood up and rushed outside of their house. AAA never
told anyone about the December 2003 incident for fear that Pareja might kill her. Pareja threatened to kill
AAA in the event that she would expose the incident to anyone. AAA further narrated that the incident had
happened more than once. According to AAA, in February 2004, she had again been molested by Pareja.
Under the same circumstances, with her mother not around while she and her half-siblings were asleep,
Pareja again laid on top of her and started to suck her breasts. But this time, Pareja caressed her and
held her vagina and inserted his finger in it.
With regard to the last incident, on March 27, 2004, it was AAA’s mother who saw Pareja in the act of
lifting the skirt of her daughter AAA while the latter was asleep. Outraged, AAA’s mother immediately
brought AAA to the barangay officers to report the said incident. AAA then narrated to the barangay
officials that she had been sexually abused by Pareja many times. On May 5, 2004, Pareja was charged
with two counts of Rape and one Attempted Rape.
• RTC: Acquitted Pareja from the charge of AFFIRMED RTC JUDGEMENT
attempted rape but convicted him of the crimes of
rape and acts of lasciviousness in the December
2003 and February 2004 incidents, respectively.
ISSUE(S):
• W/N ACCUSED PAREJA IS GUILTY OF CONSUMMATED RAPE,
notwithstanding that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
• NO, ACCUSED PAREJA IS GUILTY ONLY FOR ATTEMPTED RAPE + ACTS OF

LASCIVIOUSNESS
• Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that under the new provision of Republic Act No. 8353, rape can
be committed in two ways:
1. Article 266-A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through sexual intercourse, also known as “organ
rape” or “penile rape.” The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal
knowledge, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Article 266-A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called “instrument or object
rape,” or “gender-free rape.” It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in
subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1.
• AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December 2003, inserted his penis into her
anus. While she may not have been certain about the details of the February 2004 incident, she
was positive that Pareja had anal sex with her in December 2003, thus, clearly establishing the
occurrence of rape by sexual assault. In other words, her testimony on this account was, as the
Court of Appeals found, clear, positive, and probable.
• However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape
through carnal knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even
though it was proven during trial. This is due to the material differences and substantial
distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the
second, and vice-versa. Consequently, to convict Pareja of rape by sexual assault when what he
was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Thus, even though the crime charged against Pareja was for rape through carnal knowledge, he
can be convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness without violating any of his constitutional
rights because said crime is included in the crime of rape.
DOCTRINES:
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, premises considered, the June 15, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR HC No. 02759 is MODIFIED, as follows:
• The appellant's conviction for the crime of rape is VACATED, and
• (1) we find appellant Christopher Pareja y Velasco GUILTY of the crime of ATTEMPTED RAPE;
11 CASE: CRUZ V. POEPLE TOPIC:
• NORBERTO • AAA •
CRUZ • BBB
FACTS:
In December 1993, Norberto Cruz (Norberto) and his wife went to La Union to sell plastic and glass
wares. Along with them is AAA and BBB. Upon reaching their destination, they set up a tent in order that
they will have a place to sleep.
At around 1 AM, AAA was awakened when she felt that somebody was on top of her. The person was
Norberto who was mashing her breast and touching her private parts. He fought back and kicked
Norberto twice. He was not able to pursue his lustful desires; he offered AAA money and told her not to
tell the incident to her mother. Thirty minutes later, when AAA retured to her tent, she again saw Norberto
touching private parts of BBB.
Later that day, they reported the incident to the police. Norberto was summoned to the police station
which resulted to an argument. He deined the allegations contending that there were many people around
who were preparing for the “simbang gabi”, and that once AAA and BBB would scream, the policemen in
the municipal hall could hear them.
• RTC found Norberto guilty beyond reasonable CA promulgated its decision affirming the
doubt of the crimes of ATTEMPTED RAPE and conviction of the petitioner for attempted
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS. rape in Criminal Case No. 2388, but
acquitting him of the acts of lasciviousness.
ISSUE(S):
• W/N ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED RAPE
RULING:
NO. There is an attempt, according to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
In attempted rape, therefore, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all the acts of
execution of having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates
rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of the felony directly
by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should produce the felony, the
only means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to have a causal relation to
rape as the intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the female.
The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim, and was already touching her genitalia with his hands
and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on
her. It is obvious that the fundamental difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is
the offender’s intent to lie with the female.
The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female Without such showing, only the felony of acts of
lasciviousness is committed.
The intent to commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner, even from his own
declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts directly leading to rape. In People v. Bugarin, the
Court said that The accused was held liable only for acts of lasciviousness because the intent to commit
rape “is not apparent from the act described,” and the intent to have sexual intercourse with her was not
inferable from the act of licking her genitalia.
DOCTRINES:
Doctrine: The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of
consummating the sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only
the felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed.
DECISION:
• The Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES petitioner NORBERTO CRUZ y BARTOLOME guilty of
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.
12 CASE: PEOPLE V. CARANDANG TOPIC:
• PEOPLE • CARANDANG •
• SPO1 • MILAN
MONTECALVO • CHUA
FACTS:
• In the afternoon of April 2001, La Loma Police Station received a request from the sister of
accused Milan that there is a drug trade that is happening on their house in Quezon City.
• At around 4:00 PM, SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar (Red) along with Police Officer 2 Dionisio Alonzo, SPO1
Estores, and SPO1 Montecalvo went to Milan’s house and surrounded the area. The door of the
house was open, enabling the police officers to see Carandang, Milan, and Chua inside.
• PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open, and shouted “Walang gagalaw!”. They are
instantly shot and failed to return fire causing their instant death. SPO1 Montecalvo fell on the
ground, SPO1 Estores heard Chua say to Milan “Sugurin mo na!”.
• Milan lunged Montecalvo but failed to maul him because the police officer was able to fire his gun
to Milan. Thereafter, Estores went inside the house to pull Montecalvo out.
RTC found the three guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime CA affirmed the decision.
of murder. Likewise, they were also found guilty of attempted
murder in Relation to Article 6 par 2, having been acted in
conspiracy.
ISSUE(S):
• WON accused-appelants are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder against SPO1 Montefalco.
RULING:
• YES. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual
agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of
the crime. Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which
demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is
established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of the degree of participation of each.
• In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with Carandang was established
by their acts (1) before Carandang shot the victims (Milans closing the door when the police
officers introduced themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush), and (2) after the shooting
(Chuas directive to Milan to attack SPO1 Montecalvo and Milans following such instruction).
These facts are convincing circumstantial evidence of the unity of purpose in the minds of the
three. As co-conspirators, all three are considered principals by direct participation.
DOCTRINES:
• Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a
sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection. Instead,
conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
subject felony
• Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a finding of conspiracy. Unlike
evident premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient
period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection. Instead, conspiracy
arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the subject felony.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934 dated May
10, 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED,
13 CASE: PEOPLE V. OCTA TOPIC:
• PPEOPLE • ESTANLY OCTA •
• JOHNNY
CORPUZ
FACTS:
• On the morning on Septemebr 25 2003, while Johnny Corpuz and Mike Batuigas are on board
in a Honda Civic travelling in Sampaloc, Manila, some four armed men blocked their way and
insisted to get inside their car. The armed men deemed successful in getting in the car and was
ordered Johnny to take the back seat. Also, he was handcuffed, blindfolded, and even boxed
while travelling.
• When they reached the safehouse, the armed men called Johnny’s wife Ana Marie to inform her
that they are indeed kidnapped. The armed men started demanding P 20 Million but were
reduced to P538,00.
• Finally, on September 30, 2003, Ana Marie were instructed to give the ransom money to a man
wearing a red cap that she will see on Caltex Auto Supply. She reached the location before giving
the money to the man, who was further discovered to be Estanly Octa, she first phoned the
kidnappers to confirm whether or not Octa is one of them. Johnny and Mike were released on
October 1 2003.
RTC found Octa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of CA AFFIRMED THE DECISION
kidnapping, and was sentenced to suffer maximum prison
term of reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE(S):
• W/N ACCUSED OCTA IS GUILTY OF KIDNAPPING AS CO-CONSPIRATOR
RULING:
• YES. HE IS GUILTY
• YES. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Where all the accused acted in concert at
the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the
same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently
established. It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness
and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.
• Evidently, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown
to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.
• There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose. Thus, accused-appellants’ argument that he is a mere accomplice
must fail.
• He is liable as a principal for being a co-conspirator in the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom under Art. 267 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659.
• While his receipt of the ransom money was not a material element of the crime, it was
nevertheless part of the grand plan and was in fact the main reason for kidnapping the victims.
DOCTRINES:
Doctrine: There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose.
DECISION:
• Appeal is dismissed. CA’s decision is affirmed with modifications.
14 CASE: PEOPLE V. FELCIANO ET. AL. TOPIC:
• PEOPLE • DANILO FELICIANO •
• DENNIS • ROBERT MICHAEL
VENTURINA ALVIR
• MEMBERS OF • CHRISTOPHER
SIGMA RHO SOLIVA
FRATERNITY • JULIUS VICTOR
MEDALLA
• WARREN ZINGAPAN
• MEMBERS OF
SCINTILLA JURIS
FRATERNITY
FACTS:
• On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma
Rho fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the
University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by several masked men carrying
baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required hospitalization. One
of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries.
• An information for murder was filed against several members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity and
separate informations were also filed against them for the attempted and frustrated murder of
Sigma Rho fraternity members
• Dennis Venrurina was hit on the head and was clubbed on different parts of his body inflicting
upon him serious and mortal injuries which were the direct immediate cause of his death.
• The attackers were later discovered to be members of Scintilla Juris Fraternity, and were
identified as Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor
Medalla, Warren Zingapan.
• All of them were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder and
were sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua by the RTC.
• CA affirmed the decision.
• Accused-apellants are now questioning the court if they should all suffer as principals and co-
conspirators of teh crime. Hence, the appeal.
• GUILTY OF MURDER AND ATTEMPTED AFFIRMED RTC DECISION
MURDER AND SENTENCED TO SUFFER
RECLUSION PERPETUA
ISSUE(S):
• WHETHER ACCUSED APELLANTS SHOULD BE TREATED AS CO-CONSIPRATORS
RULING:
• YES. Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-
principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in the
commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all.
• Verily, the moment it is established that the malefactors conspired and confederated in the
commission of the felony proved, collective liability of the accused conspirators attaches by
reason of the conspiracy, and the court shall not speculate nor even investigate as to the actual
degree of participation of each of the perpetrators present at the scene of the crime.
• The appellate court, therefore, erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty only of slight
physical injuries. It would be illogical to presume that despite the swiftness and suddenness of
the attack, the attackers intended to kill only Venturina, Natalicio, and Fortes, and only intended
to injure Lachica, Mangrobang, and Gaston. Since the intent to kill was evident from the
moment the accused-appellants took their first swing, all of them were liable for that intent
to kill.
• Accused-appellants should be liable for the murder of Dennis Venturina and the attempted
murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal
Gaston, Jr.
DOCTRINES:
Doctrine: The moment it is established that the malefactors conspired and confederated in the
commission of the felony proved, collective liability of the accused conspirators attaches by reason of
the conspiracy, and the court shall not speculate nor even investigate as to the actual degree of
participation of each of the perpetrators present at the scene of the crime.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR N). 01158 dated November
26, 2010 is AFFIRMED insofar as the accused-appellants Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor
Medalla, Christopher Soliva, Warren L. Zingapan, and Robert Michael Beltran Alvir are found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in. Criminal Case No. Q95-61133 with the
MODIFICATION that they be fouhd GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder in
Criminal Case Nos. Q95-61136, Q95-61135, Q95-61134, Q95-61138, and Q95-61137.
15 CASE: DUNGO V. PEOPLE TOPIC:
• DANDY L. • PEOPLE •
DUNGO • MARLON
• GREGORIO VILLANUEVA
SIBAL MEJLLA
FACTS:
• Petitioners Dandy L. Dungo (Dungo) and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr. (Sibal), was charged of violation of
Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049-Anti-Hazing Law
• That on January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba, City, Province of Laguna,
the above named accused, during an initiation rite and being then members of Alpha Phi
Omega fraternity and present thereat, in conspiracy with more or less twenty other
members and officers, whose identity is not yet known, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously assault and use personal violence upon one MARLON VILLANUEVA y
MEJILLA, a neophyte thereof and as condition for his admission to the fraternity, thereby
subjecting him to physical harm, resulting to his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs
of the victim.
• The accused pleaded not guilty during the arraignment and filed a motion to quash for lack of
probable cause which was denied by the RTC.
• RTC indicted Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law
and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
• The RTC explained that even if there was no evidence that Dungo and Sibal participated to bodily
assault and harm the victim, it was irrefutable that they brought Villanueva to the resort for
their final initiation rites. Clearly, they did not merely induce Villanueva to attend the final
initiation rites, but they also brought him to Villa Novaliches Resort.
• Also, the witnesses presented by the defense were partial and could not be considered as
disinterested parties.
• The petitioners filed a notice of appeal on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish their
guilt beyond reasonable doubt and RA 8049 sec 4 is unconstitutional.
• The CA denied the notice of appeal and affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the petitioners but the same was denied.
• Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 arguing that they were convicted of
a crime not stated in the information. While the evidence proved that they were guilty of
hazing by inducement this does not necessarily include the criminal charge of hazing by
actual participation.
• Thus, they cannot be convicted of a crime not stated or necessarily included in the
information.
• The Court argued that Dungo and Sibal were charged in the amended information with the proper
offense and convicted for such.
• Dungo and Sibal were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Their involvement in the hazing of
Villanueva is not merely based on prima facie evidence but was also established by
circumstantial evidence and an unbroken chain of events. Wherefore petition is denied.
RTC indicted Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of The CA denied the notice of appeal and
violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law and affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. A motion for reconsideration was filed by
the petitioners but the same was denied.
ISSUE(S):
• The petitioners assail that the prosecution failed to establish the fact of conspiracy.
RULING:
• The Court disagrees.
• A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a
common design to commit a felony. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active
participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his
co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.
• In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express
terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the
secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken
together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. Responsibility of a conspirator is
not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral
acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.
• Classes of direct participants are:

• the first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected
to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the
officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the
infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals.
• The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the
organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing.
• The third class of principals would be the officers or members of an organization group, fraternity
or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be
present thereat due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to
attend the hazing.
• The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser.
• The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity,
group, or organization.
• Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy
can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they
prevented the commission of the acts therein. As correctly held by the RTC, the presence of
Dungo and Sibal during the hazing at Villa Novaliches Resort was established by the testimony of
Ignacio. She testified that she saw Sibal emerge from the resort and approach her store.
• Because of the uncontroverted prima facie evidence against the petitioners, it was shown that
they performed an overt act in the furtherance of the criminal design of hazing. Not only did
they induce the victim to attend the hazing activity, the petitioners also actually participated in it
based on the prima facie evidence. These acts are sufficient to establish their roles in the
conspiracy of hazing.
• Hence, generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to
conspiracy. Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal
conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the
hazing, unless they prevented the commission of the acts therein.
DOCTRINES:
Hence, generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.106
Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be
proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they prevented the
commission of the acts therein.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The April 26, 2013 Decision and the October 8, 2013
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 05046 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
16 CASE: PEOPLE V. BOKINGCO TOPIC:
• PEOPLE • MICHAEL BOKINGCO • Appellant sought reversal to the
• NOLI PASION • REYNANTE COL decision contending that Col is not
guilty of conspiring with Bokingco.
FACTS:
• Noli and Elsa Pasion were an owner of a pawnshop and a two-row apartment in Angeles City,
Pampanga.
• In the midnight of February 2000, Dante Vitaliano saw Michael Bokingco hitting something on
the floor. He headed on his apartment unit and there he discovered that it was Noli Pasion, his
brother-in-law, that was hit by Bokingco.
• Upon seeing him, Bokingco ran towards him and attacked him with a hammer. Vitaliano managed
to push him away and proceeded to Pasion’s house to inform Elsa, Noli’s wife, that his husband
was already dead.
• Meanwhile, Elsa also heard the commotion while she was in the master’s bedroom. She
immediately went down to check what was happening but before reaching the kitchen, she was
blocked by co-accused Reynante Col. She asked Col why he was in their house but he refused
to answer, instead, he sprayed tear gas on Elsa’s eyes. Col instructed her to open the vault of
their pawnshop but she told him that she doesn’t know the combination lock. He then proceeded
to drag her in the back door. Before they reached the door, Bokingco opened the screen door and
shouted “tara na, patay na s’ya!” Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco.
• Later, Vitaliano and Elsa discovered Noli lying on the floor, bathing with his own blood. Necropsy
reported that Noli suffered 29 injuries, and that the injuries sustained by Noli on his skull was the
cause of his death.
• Prosecution filed a case against Bokingco and Col. RTC found them guilty of murder and
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of death. CA affirmed the decision but reduced the sentence
to life imprisonment without parole.
• Appellant sought reversal to the decision contending that Col is not guilty of conspiring with
Bokingco.
RTC found them guilty of murder and sentenced them to CA affirmed the decision but reduced the
suffer the penalty of death. sentence to life imprisonment without
parole.
ISSUE(S):
• WON Col is guilty of murder as co-conspirator.
RULING:
• NO. Indeed, in order to convict Col as a principal by direct participation in the case before us, it is
necessary that conspiracy between him and Bokingco be proved. Conspiracy exists when two or
more persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred from the
conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. Conspiracy may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the
acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and
community of interest. Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are
essential to establish the existence of conspiracy.
• Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred that Col conspired with Bokingco
in killing Pasion. At the most, Col’s actuations can be equated to attempted robbery, which
was actually the initial information filed against appellants before it was amended, on motion of
the prosecution, for murder.
• Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion had been killed and that they
had to leave the place. This does not prove that they acted in concert towards the
consummation of the crime. It only proves, at best, that there were two crimes committed
simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to escape from the crimes they separately
committed.
• Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. Bokingco had already killed
Pasion even before he sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco
was killing Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.
DOCTRINES:
DECISION:
• Appellant Reynante Col is ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. Appellant Michael
Bokingco is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. He is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years (6) and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to
14 years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
17 CASE: PEOPLE V. CASTILLO TOPIC:
• PEOPLE • ELIZABETH •
• ROCKY DE CASTILLO
GUZMAN • EVANGELINE
• SPS. DE GUZMAN PADAYHAG
FACTS:
• On March 1, 1995, an Evangeline Padayhag fetched Rocky De Guzman from his home at BF
Homes, Paranaque from his maid, Rosanna. Evangeline brought Rocky to a nearby and thereat,
Elizabeth Castillo and proceeded to a house in Caloocan.
• The maid was made to believe that Rocky will attend to a birthday party. Later in the
afternoon, spouses De Guzman found out that their son was kidnapped when a Elizabeth called
Luiz De Guzman, Rocky’s father, and demanded his ATM card in exchange of his son.
• The day after, Elizabeth changed her mind and demanded 1 million pesos. Evangeline and Luis
agreed to half the amount as ransom money. Luis was then instructed to drop the bag containing
the ransom money on a Sabadista Chruch in Obando, Bulacan. On March 5, Rocky was released
and returned home via tricycle.
• Police investigation ensued and later discovered that Elizabeth was already in Dipolig City.
• RTC charged Evangline Padayhag and Elizabeth Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
kidnapping and was sentened to suffer the extreme penalty of death. CA affirmed the decision.
RTC charged Evangline Padayhag and Elizabeth Castillo AFFIRMED RTC DECISION
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and was
sentened to suffer the extreme penalty of death
ISSUE(S):
• WON there was a conspiracy between Elizabeth and Evangeline to extort money.
RULING:
• NO. There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in concert with Castillo
to commit the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy,
there must be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and definitely links
the accused to the commission of the crime without any space for baseless suppositions or
frenzied theories to filter through. Indeed, conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the
commission of the crime itself.
• Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors: (1) singularity of intent; and (2) unity in
execution of an unlawful objective. The two must concur. Performance of an act that contributes
to the goal of another is not enough.
• The act must be motivated by the same unlawful intent. Neither joint nor simultaneous action is
per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by a common
design.
• Padayhags act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her complicity with Castillos plan, a
plan Padayhag did not even know. Both appellants testified that Padayhag met Castillo only
because Castillo told Padayhag that Padayhags boyfriend was sick. It was precisely on the
pretext that they were to visit Padayhags boyfriend that the two met. When they met, Padayhag
realized that Castillo had deceived her.
• Neither is there any hint that Castillo told Padayhag to abduct the boy, or to misrepresent herself
or use means that would have led Padayhag to suspect that Castillo had some criminal design.
Nor was there any proof that Padayhag knew that Castillo had no permission from the boys
parents. The appearance of the boy itself, newly bathed and dressed for a stroll, would have led
Padayhag to believe whatever story Castillo contrived to ask her in fetching the boy.
• Padayhags acts before, during and after the crime all point to the conclusion that she was no
more than an unwitting tool of Castillo. Castillo misled her into a meeting. Castillo again misled
her into fetching Rocky. Castillo never met or contacted her after the day of Rockys abduction.
• Nothing links Padayhag to the demand for ransom. She never received any part of the ransom,
precisely because she did not even know it existed.
DOCTRINES:
Doctrine: Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors:
• singularity of intent; and
• unity in execution of an unlawful objective.
The two must concur. Performance of an act that contributes to the goal of another is not enough.
DECISION:
• Decision convicting appellant Evangeline Padayhag is REVERSED. We ACQUIT Evangeline
Padayhag and order her immediate RELEASE.
18 CASE: GMA V. PEOPLE TOPIC:
• GMA • PEOPLE • denials to be tainted with grave
• BENIGNO • OMBUDSMAN abuse of discretion amounting to
AGUAS lack or excess of jurisdiction.
FACTS:
• Petitioners in this case are former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and former Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts Officer Benigno Aguas.
• The Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan with plunder as defined by and penalized
under Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 the following: (1)
GMA, (2) Aguas, (3) former PCSO General Manager and Vice Chairman Rosario C. Uriarte, (4)
former PCSO Chairman of the Board of Directors Sergio O. Valencia, (5) former members of the
PCSO Board of Directors, and (6) two former officials of the Commission on Audit (COA).
• …[the] accused…all public officers committing the offense in relation to their respective offices
and taking undue advantage of their respective official positions, authority, relationships,
connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire. Directly or indirectly,
ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of (PHP365,997,915.00), more or less,
through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means
• THE SANDIGANBAYAN
• The Sandiganbayan eventually acquired jurisdiction over most of the accused, including
petitioners. All filed petitions for bail, which the Sandiganbayan granted except those of the
petitioners. Their motions for reconsideration were denied. GMA assailed the denial of her
petition for bail before the Supreme Court. However, this remains unresolved.
SANDIGANBAYAN RULING: CA RULING:

Sandiganbayan respectively denied their demurrer to
evidence,
ISSUE(S):
• WoN the Prosecution sufficiently established the existence of conspiracy among GMA, Aguas,
and Uriarte – NO.
RULING:
No Conspiracy: The Prosecution did not sufficiently allege the existence of a conspiracy among
GMA, Aguas and Uriarte.
• A perusal of the information (quoted above) suggests that what the Prosecution sought to show
was an implied conspiracy to commit plunder among all of the accused on the basis of their
collective actions prior to, during and after the implied agreement. It is notable that the
Prosecution did not allege that the conspiracy among all of the accused was by express
agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or a chain conspiracy. This was another fatal flaw of
the Prosecution.
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law) requires in the criminal charge for plunder against
several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co-conspirators, who may be
members of her family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates
or other persons. In other words, the allegation of the wheel conspiracy or express conspiracy in the
information was appropriate because the main plunderer would then be identified in either manner. Citing
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, “The gravamen of the conspiracy charge…is that each of them, by their
individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition
of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President Estrada.”
• We are not unmindful of the holding in Estrada v. Sandiganabayan to the effect that an
information alleging conspiracy is sufficient if the information alleges conspiracy either:
• (1) with the use of the word conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate,
connive, collude, etc; or
• (2) by allegations of the basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of
common understanding would know what is being conveyed, and with such precision as would
enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same
facts.
• We are not talking about the sufficiency of the information as to the allegation of conspiracy,
however, but rather the identification of the main plunderer sought to be prosecuted under
R.A. No. 7080 as an element of the crime of plunder. Such identification of the main plunderer
was not only necessary because the law required such identification, but also because it was
essential in safeguarding the rights of all of the accused to be properly informed of the charges
they were being made answerable for. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of the
crime charged to be set out in the information is to enable all the accused to suitably prepare their
defense because they are presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constituted the offense charged.
• Despite the silence of the information on who the main plunderer or the mastermind was, the
Sandiganbayan readily condemned GMA in its resolution dated September 10, 2015 as the
mastermind despite the absence of the specific allegation in the information to that effect. Even
worse, there was no evidence that substantiated such sweeping generalization.
• In fine, the Prosecution’s failure to properly allege the main plunderer should be fatal to the cause
of the State against the petitioners for violating the rights of each accused to be informed of the
charges against each of them.
DOCTRINES:
2 FORMS OF CONSPIRACY
• The first is the express form, which requires proof of an actual agreement among all the co-
conspirators to commit the crime. However, conspiracies are not always shown to have been
expressly agreed upon.
• Thus, we have the second form, the implied conspiracy. An implied conspiracy exists when two
or more persons are shown to have aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent,
were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment.
• Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or
from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably
pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.
• But to be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must be shown to have
performed at least an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being
shown to do so none of them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and each may only be held
responsible for the results of his own acts.
CHAIN AND WHEEL CONSPIRACY

• In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,31the Court recognized two nuances of appreciating conspiracy as
a means to commit a crime, the wheel conspiracy and the chain conspiracy.
• The wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing
individually with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically interacts
with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common
purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the instances when each spoke is
unconcerned with the success of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.
• The chain conspiracy recognized in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan exists when there is successive
communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer.
GRAVAMEN OF CONSPIRACY IN PLUNDER

• The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive
protection money from illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise
tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle Corporation and
receive commissions from such sale, nor that each unjustly enriched himself from commissions,
gifts and kickbacks; rather, it is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to
participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-
gotten wealth.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the
resolutions issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015
and September 10, 2015; GRANTS the petitioners' respective demurrers to evidence;
DISMISSES Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO and BENIGNO AGUAS for insufficiency of evidence; ORDERS the immediate release
from detention of said petitioners; and MAKES no pronouncements on costs of suit.
19 CASE: FERNAN V. PEOPLE TOPIC:
• SIMON • PEOPLE •
FERNAN
FACTS:
• The instant petition under Rule 45 originated from 119 criminal cases filed with the
Sandiganbayan (SB) involving no less than 36 former officials and employees of the the
Ministry of Public Highways (MPH) and several suppliers of construction materials for defalcation
of public funds arising from numerous transactions in the Cebu First Highway Engineering
District in 1977.
• Because of the sheer magnitude of the illegal transactions, the number of people involved, and
the ingenious scheme employed in defrauding the government, this infamous 86 million highway
scam has few parallels in the annals of crime in the country.
• The nuclei of this massive conspiracy, namely: Rolando Mangubat, Jose Sayson, and
Edgardo Cruz, all of MPH Region VII, were found guilty in all 119 counts and were accordingly
sentenced by the SB. The other conniver, Delia Preagido, after being found guilty in some of the
cases, became a state witness in the remainder. On the basis of her testimony and pertinent
documents, Informations were filed, convictions were obtained, and criminal penalties
wereimposed on the rest of the accused.
The Sandiganbayan’s Ruling
The anti-graft court was fully convinced of the guilt of

petitioner Fernan, Jr.; and in its December 4, 1997
Decision, it found him criminally liable in the six (6) cases
against him; Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents
ISSUE(S):
• Whether or not the petitioners acted on conspiracy
RULING:
• The burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy falls to the shoulders of the prosecution.
Considering, however, the difficulty in establishing the existence of conspiracy, settled
jurisprudence finds no need to prove it by direct evidence.
• In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, there are two (2) structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: (1)
the so-called wheel or circle conspiracy, in which there is a single person or group(the hub)
dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes); and (2) the chain
conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which there is
successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business
operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer
and consumer.
• The conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the wheel conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons
who constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by a single
hub, namely: Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose
Sayson (Budget Examiner), and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate spokes of
the conspiracy. Petitioners were among the many spokes of the wheel.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the December 4, 1997 Decision of the SB in
the consolidated criminal cases subject of this petition.
20 CASE: PEOPLE V. MORILLA TOPIC:
• PEOPLE • RONNIE MITRA •
• JAVIER MORILLA
FACTS:
• In October 2001, police discovered Ronnie Mitra, mayor of Panulukan, Quezon and Javier
Morilla to be transporting methampethamine hydrochloride, comomnly known as shabu.
• While in a checkpoint, the Starex Car of the Mayor was able to pass inspection, but the
ambulance that was driven by Morilla was inspected when the police noticed some sacks
inside the van. They asked Morilla to open the sacks but he refused, suggesting that they were
only pieces of narra and the sacks are of Mayor’s.
• The police insisted to inspect the ambulance and they discovered that the sacks were sacks of
shabu. The discovery prompted the police to chase the Starex Van of the Mayor Mitra, and later
discovered that there were also sacks of shabu inside his car.
• RTC found Mayor Mitra and Morilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Dangerous Drugs
Act and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of P10 Million each. CA affirmed the
decision.
• Morilla raised the issue of whether he may be consvicted for conspiracy to commit the offense
charged . Hence, the petition.
RTC found Mayor Mitra and Morilla guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Dangerous Drugs Act
ISSUE(S):
• WHETHER MITRA MAY BE CONVICTED FOR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A VAIOLATION OF
THE DANGEROUD DRUGS ACT
RULING:
• YES. Petition denied. Concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To
determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.
• Morilla argues that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended
is not sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the illegal
transportation of dangerous drugs.
• In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express
terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from
the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which,
taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole.
• In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired
with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs.
DOCTRINES:
Doctrine: It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to
enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the
crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are
parts of some complete whole.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed 13 July 2009
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02967 is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION with respect to the penalty to be imposed as Reclusion Perpetua instead of Life
Imprisonment and payment of fine of ₱10,000,000.00 by each of the accused
21 CASE: GO-TAN V. TAN TOPIC:
• SHARICA GO- • STEVEN TAN •
TAN • PERFECTO AND
JUANITA TAN
(PARENTS IN LAW)
FACTS:
• On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this union, two
female children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise.
• On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner Go-Tan (SHARICA) filed a
petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven, in
conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological, and economic abuses
upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5) and (i) of Republic Act No.
9262.
• On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution
dismissing the case as to respondents on the ground
that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they
were not included/covered as respondents under
R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius."
• The RTC contended that it lacked jurisdiction over
their persons since, as parents-in-law of the
petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
ISSUE(S):
• Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be
included in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA 9262.
RULING:
• Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.

• While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the offender be ralted or connected to the victim by
marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the
application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC.
• In Section 47 of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC.
• Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary
capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is
silent on a particular matter.
DOCTRINES:
Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to
crimes punished under special laws
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated March 7, 2005
and July 11, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-05-
54536 are hereby PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the petition
against respondents is concerned.

RPC Art 5-8 DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

RPC Art 5-8 DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPC Art 5-8 DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 CASE: CADAJAS V.

PEOPLE TOPIC: Article 5

• Photos and Videos obtained from FB Messenger are admissible.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

• Trinidad should only be held criminally liable for attempted murder

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

• Whether or not the accused committed a consummated statutory rape.

• NO, ACCUSED PAREJA IS GUILTY ONLY FOR ATTEMPTED RAPE + ACTS OF

• Classes of direct participants are:

• WON Col is guilty of murder as co-conspirator.

SANDIGANBAYAN RULING: CA RULING:

CHAIN AND WHEEL CONSPIRACY

GRAVAMEN OF CONSPIRACY IN PLUNDER

The anti-graft court was fully convinced of the guilt of

• Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.

You might also like