Case Facts
1. People v Juan Charged by rape by sexual assault
Recital of information rape through sexual intercourse
"AAA" testified that at around 9:30 p.m. of September 29,
2008, she was having a drinking session with appellant
and Meneses in the house of appellant. After some time,
she felt dizzy so she took a nap. At around 11:00 p.m., she
was roused from her sleep by Meneses who was mounting
her and inserting his penis into her vagina. She felt pain
but could only cry in silence for fear that the knife which
they used to cut hotdog and now lying on top of a table
nearby would be used to kill her if she resisted. Meneses
left after raping her. While still feeling dizzy, afraid and
shivering, appellant approached her and asked if he could
also have sex with her. When she did not reply appellant
mounted and raped her. Appellant stopped only when she
tried to reposition her body. "AAA" then left appellant's
house and immediately returned to the house she shared
with her live-in partner.
2. People v Crime charged MURDER
Carmen Conviction RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE resulting to
HOMICIDE
Ruling
"[T]he character of the crime is not determined by the
caption or preamble of the Information nor from the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have
been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts
and circumstances in the complaint or information."10
No allegation whatsoever was made by "AAA" that
Meneses or appellant employed force, threat or
intimidation against her. No claim was ever made
that appellant physically overpowered, or used or
threatened to use a weapon against, or uttered
threatening words to "AAA
Resistance Should be Made Before the Rape is
Consummated.
where consent is induced by the administration of
drugs or liquor, which incites her passion but does
not deprive her of her will power, the accused is not
guilty of rape
ACQUITTED
Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal intent to
kill the boy. Their liability arises from their reckless
imprudence because they ought that to know their
actions would not bring about the cure. They are,
therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and not of murder.
The elements of reckless imprudence are apparent in
the acts done by accused-appellants which, because of
their lack of medical skill in treating the victim of his
alleged ailment, resulted in the latter's death. As
already stated, accused-appellants, none of whom is a
medical practitioner, belong to a religious group,

The question now is whether accused-appellants can be
held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide,
considering that the information charges them with
murder. We hold that they can.
3. Celdran v While Brother Edgar J. Tria Tirona was reading a passage
People from the Bible around 3:00 p.m., petitioner entered the
Manila Cathedral clad in a black suit and a hat. Petitioner
went to the center of the aisle, in front of the altar and
suddenly brought out a placard emblazoned with the word
"DAMASO." Commotion ensued when petitioner started
shouting while inside the church saying "Bishops, stop
involving yourself (sic) in politics,"9 disrupting and
showing disrespect to an otherwise solemn celebration.
READ ELEMENTS OF ART. 133
known as the Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima,
which is engaged in faith healing.
Consequently, treachery cannot be appreciated for in
the absence of intent to kill, there is no treachery or
the deliberate employment of means, methods, and
manner of execution to ensure the safety of the
accused from the defensive or retaliatory attacks
coming from the victim.33 Viewed in this light, the
acts which the trial court saw as manifestations of
treachery in fact relate to efforts by accused-
appellants to restrain Randy Luntayao so that they
can effect the cure on him
SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between
allegation and proof. When there is variance between
the offense charged in the complaint or information
and that proved, and the offense as charged is
included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense
proved which is included in the offense charged, or of
the offense charged which is included in the offense
proved.
IMPRUDENCE resulting to HOMICIDE
[W]hether or not the act complained of is offensive to
the religious feelings of the Catholics, is a question of
fact which must be judged only according to the
feelings of the Catholics and not those of other
faithful ones, for it is possible that ce1iain acts may
offend the feelings of those who profess a certain
religion, while not otherwise offensive to the feelings
of those professing another faith. xx x
GUILTY
 OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
4. People v Pugal Pugal, while holding the firework slanted towards the
fireworks display in front of the store, lighted its fuse with
his cigarette,10 and said: "Happy New Year!"11 Franklin
tried to stop Pugal, but the device had already flown
towards the mother rocket on display at the store.12 The
sparks coming from FQ Grocery's mother rocket caused
explosion of the other fireworks displayed.13 Since the
building where FQ Grocery was located was made of wood,
it was easily razed by fire.14 Pugal attempted to escape, but
was chased and subdued by Franklin and Rebamonte
5. Disini v SOJ The Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) 10175
or known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which
seeks to protect individuals from crimes or unlawful acts
that can be committed through the internet. While it is
admitted that the use of internet or cyberspace gives access
to research, advertisements, business, inquiries and
connection with a greater number of audience, it is also an
instrument to commit crimes which the law itself is trying
to prevent and regulate.
Petitioners in these consolidated cases, contended that this
law violated certain constitutional rights thus praying that
it be declared void and unconstitutional.
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on October 9,
2012 is extended for 120 days, pending resolution of the
case.
In this case, a signboard "no testing no smoking" was
posted in front of the store, which was adequate
warning that the area was a fire-hazard.58 Despite
this warning, accused-appellant deliberately lit the
mother rocket not only in close proximity to, but
directed towards, the other firecrackers on
display.59 The burning of the merchandise and the
building is a result that was foreseeable. Judging
from his "action, conduct and external acts,"60 there
was intent to cause damage to another's property by
fire. We cannot accept accused-appellant's claim that
he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
perpetrated.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
The Court in Section 4(c)(3) placed great weight in
the protection of commercial speech, it is ruled that
unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of
expression. It ruled that there is no basis to the claim
that the presence of unsolicited commercial
communications or spam tend to slow down the
efficiency of computers, as well as its storage and is
considered as a nuisance to the users. Commercial
speech is afforded protection in this case, further
stating that people have the right to read one’s email,
and the denial of such constitutes violation of
freedom of expression.
It is noted that these messages forms part of the
freedom of speech, and were never considered as
nuisance, some people may even be interested in the
ads, as long as the people have the right of option
whether to open the mail or not.
As to Section 12, the court found that it failed to
provide safeguards to the right to privacy of every
individual, as it authority is given to law enforcement
authorities to gather electronic traffic data referred as
the date, time, size, origin etc. of a certain
communication. It is declared as unconstitutional, as
it must be specific and definite to ensure that the
rights of every individual are protected.
The court ruled that the authority given under this
Section is without restraint, although the law states
that the collection of data is limited to those
associated with specified communications, it is still
the law enforcement agencies that would specify the
target communications.
It is noted that every single information when
collected and gathered may create profiles of persons,
including their political views, associations and
activities which is protected by the right to privacy.
The section likewise failed to define what is meant by
“due cause” which will empower and authorize law
enforces to collect traffic data, as it did not relate the
use of said collection of traffic data to the probable
commission of a particular crime. There is no
guarantee or limitations imposed that law enforcers
will not take advantage and abuse the authority given
to have access to information.
Lastly, the court declares Section 19 as
unconstitutional as it violates the constitutional
guarantees to freedom of expression and against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
This section gives power to the DOJ to block access to
a computer data which is found to be prima facie a
violation of the Cybercrime Law without the need of a
search warrant. It is guaranteed by the 1987
Constitution in Sec.2, Article III that every person has
the right to be secured against any unreasonable
searches and seizures, the power granted under
section 19 of the Cybercrime law clearly contradicts
the constitutional right of every individual against
searches and seizures without a warrant.
It is also ruled that computer data, constitutes

6. Siloven v Makasiar (1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process
when informations for libel were filed against them
although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case
was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and,
subsequently, by the President; (2) whether or not the
constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when
respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest
without personally examining the complainant and the
witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause; and (3)
whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the
Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the
petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affidavit.
READ ELEMENTS OF LIBEL
speech and the curtailment of such by the DOJ
through blocking any access to it restricts freedom of
expression.
The Court in upholding the validity of several
provisions, ensured that the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution will not be violated or restricted.
DISMISSED
It may also be added that with respect to petitioner
Beltran, the allegation of denial of due process of law
in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact
that instead of submitting his counter- affidavits, he
filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed," in
effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by
filing counter-affidavits. Due process of law does not
require that the respondent in a criminal case actually
file his counter-affidavits before the preliminary
investigation is deemed completed. All that is
required is that the respondent be given the
opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so
minded.
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive
and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to
satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In
satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not
required to personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses. Following established doctrine and
procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report
and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the
basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the
basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscal's report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to
aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence

7.Intestate v People That on or about the 24th day of November, 1992, in
Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by
means of deceit, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully
and feloniously defraud MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE
CARUNGCONG in the following manner, to wit: the said
accused induced said Manolita Gonzales Vda. De
Carungcong[,] who was already then blind and 79 years
of probable cause.
Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would
prevent the President from waiving the privilege.
Thus, if so minded the President may shed the
protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the
court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise
the privilege or to waive it is solely the President's
prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed
and imposed by any other person.
As regards the contention of petitioner Beltran that
he could not be held liable for libel because of the
privileged character or the publication, the Court
reiterates that it is not a trier of facts and that such a
defense is best left to the trial court to appreciate
after receiving the evidence of the parties.
As to petitioner Beltran's claim that to allow the libel
case to proceed would produce a "chilling effect" on
press freedom, the Court finds no basis at this stage
to rule on the point.
The petitions fail to establish that public respondents,
through their separate acts, gravely abused their
discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. Hence,
the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for
cannot issue.
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly
limited to the felonies mentioned therein. The plain,
categorical and unmistakable language of the
provision shows that it applies exclusively to the
simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes
mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with
old[,] to sign and thumbmark a special power of attorney
dated November 24, 1992 in favor of Wendy Mitsuko C.
Sato, daughter of said accused, making her believe that
said document involved only her taxes, accused knowing
fully well that said document authorizes Wendy Mitsuko C.
Sato, then a minor, to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise
dispose of to any person or entity of her properties all
located at Tagaytay City
another crime, such as theft through falsification or
estafa through falsification.
Therefore, the allegations in the Information
essentially charged a crime that was not simple
estafa. Sato resorted to falsification of public
documents (particularly, the special power of
attorney and the deeds of sale) as a necessary means
to commit the estafa.
Since the crime with which respondent was charged
was not simple estafa but the complex crime of estafa
through falsification of public documents, Sato
cannot avail himself of the absolutory cause provided
under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code in his
favor.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the
State waives its right to hold the offender criminally
liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief and considers the violation of the
juridical right to property committed by the offender
against certain family members as a private matter
and therefore subject only to civil liability. The waiver
does not apply when the violation of the right to
property is achieved through (and therefore
inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public
interest in the integrity and presumed authenticity of
public documents. For, in the latter instance,
what is involved is no longer simply the
property right of a family relation but a
paramount public interest.
In this case, the crime of falsification of public
document, the SPA, was such a "necessary means" as
it was resorted to by Sato to facilitate and carry out

8. Penaranda v People Review for Certiorari – Attempted Murder
[Gutierrez] worked as a tricycle driver at Libtong,
Meycauayan City, Bulacan. Before June 5, 2005, he filed a
complaint before the Sangguniang Barangay against
[petitioner], also a tricycle driver, for charging excessive
fare. On June 5, 2005, between 7:30 to 8:00 o'clock in the
evening, he was at the tricycle terminal when Ivan
Villaranda (or "Ivan") summoned his companions Rannie
Cecilia (or "Rannie"), Raul Cecilia (or "Raul"), [petitioner]
and another one whose identity was not yet known to him
at that time. As these persons approached Gutierrez,
[petitioner] threw a stone hitting him on his left arm.
Although Gutierrez was armed with a steel pipe, he
lowered his defense when Raul intervened and told him,
"Hayaan mo na Boyet, ako na ang bahala." Immediately
thereafter, a tricycle arrived. Edwin Celedonia (or
"Edwin"), the occupant of the tricycle, alighted and hacked
Gutierrez using a "samurai". Gutierrez was hit on his upper
right biceps. Afterwards, Ivan, Rannie and Raul hit
Gutierrez with steel pipes while [petitioner] hit him with a
stone. Then, all the aggressors ran away leaving him
wounded. While running away, Rannie threw a steel pipe,
which Gutierrez earlier held, hitting the latter on his
stomach
9. Demata v People That on or about June 21, 2012, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, being then the Editor-in-
more effectively his evil design to swindle his mother-
in-law. In particular, he used the SPA to sell the
Tagaytay properties of Manolita to unsuspecting third
persons.
PETITION GRANTED
[W]hen the accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his
assault, and his victim sustained fatal or mortal
wound/s but did not die because of timely medical
assistance, the crime committed is frustrated murder
or frustrated homicide depending on whether or not
any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 249
of the Revised Penal Code are present. However, if
the wound/s sustained by the victim in such a case
were not fatal or mortal, then the crime committed is
only attempted murder or attempted homicide. If
there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused
and the wound/s sustained by the victim were not
fatal, the crime committed may be serious, less
serious or slight physical injury.
Thus, the Court holds that the elements of attempted
felony were not present in this case because
petitioner and his fellow malefactors voluntarily and
spontaneously stopped or desisted — an element that
removed the crime from the contemplation of
attempted felony. Nevertheless, as discussed above,
petitioner remains liable for serious physical injuries.
The spontaneous desistance of malefactors exempts
them from criminal liability for the intended crime,
but it does not exempt them from the crime
committed by them before their desistance.40
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
There is no arguing that the Bagong Toro newspaper
depicts or describes sexual conduct and displays the
Chief of Bagong Toro Tabloid, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and knowingly sell and circulate, or caused to
be sold and circulated to the public a BAGONG TORO
Tabloid Vol. 1 Issue 224 dated June 21, 2012 containing a
photo of one AAA, a 17-year old minor, under the article
"facebook sexy and beauties" together with pictures
showing nude and semi-naked women in uncompromising,
scandalous, and sexually enticing poses and illustrated
stories and depicting, describing, presenting, and showing
indecent and immoral scenes of naked and half-naked
female persons showing their private parts, which
literature or publication serves no other purpose but to
satisfy the market for lust or pornography and, therefore,
are grossly and seriously offensive to morals
without her consent which caused severe anxiety,
depression, withdrawal or outward aggressive behaviour or
a combination of said behaviours thereby causing harm to
her intellectual and psychological functioning which is
prejudicial to said child's development.
female body, but there is grave doubt as to whether it
did so in a "patently offensive" manner. True, the
women in the photographs can hardly be described as
having puritanical modesty, but it is not patently
offensive for them to wear low-cut swimwear. There
is also serious doubt that the stories are "patently
offensive" as they are, for the most part, couched in
innuendos. The authors alluded to the reproductive
organs using terms that are not sexual in and of
themselves, e.g., "hiyas" or "alaga."107 Consistently,
the newspaper even blurred out images of what
purported to be scenes from a sex tape of a celebrity.
It leaves much to the reader's imagination as to how
the images really appear had they not been blurred.
As such, these do not fit the "hardcore" pornography
considered as "patently offensive" in Miller and as
affirmed in Fernando. For these reasons, We do not
think that Bagong Toro's depiction of sexual matters
is "patently offensive."
Based on the foregoing, this Court holds that the
offense of creating "conditions prejudicial to the
child's development" is not mala prohibita, for there
may instances where the child finds himself/herself
in that situation without the willful intent of the
adults around him or her. For example, failure to
send a child to school would certainly be prejudicial
to his/her development, but if it was because the
child lived in a remote area under the care of an
unemployed and financially struggling single parent,
the latter may not necessarily be convicted under
Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610. The same may not
necessarily be said of parents who are well-off but
intentionally deprives education for their children
just so that they could always have someone to order
around the house. This is the same principle that
underpins cases where this Court found the accused
guilty of slight physical injuries instead of child abuse
 because the circumstances did not show the act was
not intended to debase, degrade, or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
being.

ACQUITTED
10. Madrilejos v Even granting, for the sake of argument, that
Gatdula petitioners' case has not been mooted by the
dismissal of the charge for violation of Ordinance No.
7780 against them, they have still failed to establish a
cause of action to warrant a ruling in their favor. The
present petition does not involve a free speech case; it
stemmed, rather, from an obscenity prosecution.
Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect
resulting from their very existence, and, if facial
challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State
may well be prevented from enacting laws against
socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law,
the law cannot take chances as in the area of free
speech. The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines
then have special application only to free speech
cases. They are inapt for testing the validity of penal
statutes. a. Petitioner asserts that his utterance in
question is a protected form of speech. The Court
rules otherwise. It has been established in this
jurisdiction that unprotected speech or low-value
expression refers to libelous statements, obscenity or
pornography, false or misleading advertisement,
insulting or "fighting words," i.e., those which by
their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of peace and expression
endangering national security

DISMISSED