People v. Abarca, G.R. No.

74433, 14 September 1987.
Second Division

[SARMIENTO, J.]

FACTS: Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of accused Francisco Abarca, Jenny, had illicit relationship. The illicit relationship
apparently began while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar examinations. The accused missed his
itineraries that day so he decided to go home. Upon reaching home, the accused found his wife, Jenny, and Khingsley
Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who
got his revolver. The accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away. The
accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City. He went to the house of a PC soldier, got an M-16 rifle, and went
back to his house but he was not able to find his wife and Koh there. He proceeded to the “mahjong session” as it was
the “hangout” of Kingsley Koh. The accused found Koh playing mahjong. He fired at Kingsley Koh three times with his
rifle hitting Koh, as well as Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a room adjacent to the room where Koh was
playing mahjong. Kingsley Koh died instantaneously. Arnold Amparado was hospitalized and operated on in the kidney
to remove a bullet Arnold’s  wife, Lina Amparado, was also treated in the hospital as she was hit by bullet fragments.

The accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder as
charged in the amended information, and pursuant to Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code which does not consider the
effect of mitigating or aggravating circumstances when the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty in relation to Art.
48, he is sentenced to death.

On appeal by the accused, the Solicitor General recommends that we apply Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code
defining death inflicted under exceptional circumstances, complexed with double frustrated murder.

ISSUE: Is the trial court correct in finding Abarca guilty of the COMPLEX CRIME OF MURDER with DOUBLE FRUSTRATED
MURDER?

HELD: NO
PEOPLE v. DANNY GODOY, GR Nos. 115908-09, 1995-12-06

Facts: Accused-appellant Danny Godoy was charged in two separate information filed before the Regional Trial Court,
for Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 47, with rape and kidnapping with serious illegal detention

In Criminal Case No. 11640 for Rape:

"That on or about the evening of the 21st day of January, 1994, at Barangay Pulot Center, Municipality of Brooke's
Point, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused by means
of force, threat and... intimidation, by using a knife and by means of deceit, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with one Mia Taha to her damage and prejudice."[1]

In Criminal Case No. 11641 for Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention:

"That on or about the 22nd day of January 1994, at Barangay Ipilan, Municipality of Brooke's Point, Province of Palawan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, a private individual, and being a
teacher of the victim, Mia

Taha, and by means of deceit did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap or detained (sic) said Mia
Taha, a girl of 17 years old (sic), for a period of five (5) days thus thereby depriving said Mia Taha of her liberty against
her will and consent and without... legal justification, to the damage and prejudice of said Mia Taha."

On May 20, 1994, the court a quo rendered judgment [5] finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
of rape and kidnapping with serious illegal detention, and sentencing him to the maximum penalty of death in both
cases.

Issues: The trial court gravely erred by imposing the death penalty for each of the crimes charged on the accused-
appellant even though the crimes were allegedly committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659.

Ruling: Republic Act No. 7659 which reimposed the death penalty on certain heinous crimes took effect on December
31, 1993, that is, fifteen days after its publication in the December 16, 1993 issues of the Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star,
Malaya and Philippine Times Journal,[95] and not on January 1, 1994 as is sometimes misinterpreted.
PEOPLE v. THEODORE BERNAL, GR No. 113685, 1997-06-19

Facts: Accused-appellant Theodore Bernal, together with two other persons whose identities and whereabouts are still
unknown, were charged with the crime of kidnapping... while Roberto Racasa and Openda, Jr. were engaged in a
drinking spree, they invited Bernal, who was passing by, to join them.

After a few minutes, Bernal decided to leave both men, apparently because he was going to fetch his child. Thereafter,
two men arrived, approached Openda, Jr., and asked the latter if he was "Payat."[3] When he said yes, one of them
suddenly pulled out a... handgun while the other handcuffed him

Racasa immediately went to the house of Openda, Jr. and informed the latter's mother of... the abduction.

PROSECUTION

The theory of the prosecution, as culled from the testimony of a certain Salito Enriquez, tends to establish that Openda,
Jr. had an illicit affair with Bernal's wife Naty and this was the motive behind the former's kidnapping. Until now,
Openda, Jr. is still missing.

DEFENSE

On the other hand, the defense asserts that Openda, Jr. was a drug-pusher arrested by the police

RTC... the court a quo rendered judgment[5] finding Bernal "guilty... a certain Salito Enriquez, a tailor and a friend of
Openda, Jr., testified that sometime in January 1991, Openda, Jr. confided to him that he and Bernal's wife Naty were
having an affair. One time, Naty even gave Openda, Jr. money which they used to pay for a motel... room. He advised
Naty "not to do it again because she (was) a married woman.

Issues: YES

Openda, Jr.'s revelation to Enriquez regarding his illicit relationship with Bernal's wife is admissible in evidence

Ruling: Undoubtedly, his wife's infidelity was ample reason for Bernal to contemplate revenge.

Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in establishing the identity of the perpetrator. Coupled with enough
circumstantial evidence or facts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the accused was the malefactor, motive
may be sufficient to support a... conviction.[10] Openda, Jr.'s revelation to Enriquez regarding his illicit relationship with
Bernal's wife is admissible in evidence, pursuant to Section 38, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, viz.
[CASE DIGEST] FRANCIS LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 90423)
September 6, 1991

Medialdea, J.

FACTS: Pelagia Panlino de Chin assisted Honorio Carpio in withdrawing cash proceeds from an apparently fake check.

Modus: De Chin presented a Midland National Bank Cashier's check worth $5200 payable to Carpio's savings account,
which was created earlier with an initial deposit of P50. Upon assuring Mr. Cruz of Pacific Banking Corporation that the
check will be honored by the two banks, a notice was sent to Carpio indicating that the proceeds of the check
amounting to P92,557 had already been credited to his account.
Subsequently, the money was withdrawn by De Chin, first for P12,607, then 80,000.44, after which she closed Carpio's
account.

Francis Lee, the PBC Branch Manager, was not present when this scam was perpetrated.

After discovering what happened, Lee had De Chin fetched from her house in Caloocan. De Chin waited for an hour at
the bank before Lee confronted her.

During the said confrontation, the petitioner Francis Lee was shouting at De Chin with piercing looks and threatened to
file charges against her unless and until she returned all the money equivalent of the subject cashier check. Accordingly,
the complainant was caused to sign a prepared withdrawal slip, and later, an affidavit prepared by the bank's lawyer,
where she was made to admit that she had swindled the bank and had return the money equivalent of the spurious
check. During her stay at the said bank, the complainant, who was five (5) months in the family way, was watched by
the bank's employees and security guards. It was about six o'clock in the afternoon of the same day when the
complainant was able to leave the bank premises.

De Chin filed a case against Lee for grave coercion, for which Lee was found guilty.

Whether or not Lee is guilty of grave coercion. - NO.

RULING: The circumstances of this case reveal that the complainant De Chin, despite her protestations, indeed
voluntarily, albeit reluctantly, consented to stay at the bank and sign the document.

The Court finds that complainant's lengthy stay at the bank was not due to the petitioner's threat. It was rather due to
her desire to prove her innocence.

Moreover, while complainant claimed that her freedom of movement was restrained, she, however, was able to move
about freely unguarded from the office of the petitioner situated at the ground floor to the office of Cruz at the
mezzanine floor where her sister found her.

The most telling proof of the absence of intimidation was the fact that the complainant refused to sign the promissory
note despite the alleged threats of the petitioner. American authorities have declared that "(t)he force which is claimed
to have compelled criminal conduct against the will of the actor must be immediate and continuous and threaten grave
danger to his person during all of the time the act is being committed. That is, it must be a dangerous force threatened
'in praesenti.' It must be a force threatening great bodily harm that remains constant in controlling the will of the
unwilling participant while the act is being performed and from which he cannot then withdraw in safety." (State v.
Hood, 165 NE 2d, 28, 31-32,).

There was no coercion in this case. Therefore, petitioner Lee should be acquitted.
JORGE TAER, vs. CA and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 85204 June 18, 1990

FACTS: Cirilo Saludes slept in the house of his compadre accused Jorge Taer, whereat he was benighted. At about 2:00
o'clock dawn, accused Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived at Taer's house with two (2) male carabaos owned by
and which Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend. The said carabaos were left at Taer's place. After searching in vain for the
carabaos at the vicinity, Dalde and Palaca reported the matter to the police. Reyes informed Dalde that he saw the
latter's lost carabao at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez. Forthwith Dalde and Palaca went on that day toDatag and there they
found their missing carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near the houseaccused Taer. Upon query by Dalde and Palaca
why their carabaos were found at his place, accused Taer, replied that the carabaos reached his place tied together
without any person in company.

Issues: Whether or not there conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused as principal for
the crime of cattle rustling as defined and punished by PD 533

Held: No. Conspiracy must be established not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.

WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran and affirmed by therespondent Court of
Appeals is hereby MODIFIED in that the herein JORGE TAER is convicted as an accessory of the crime of cattle-rustling as
defined and penalized by PD No. 533 amending Arts. 308, 309, and 310 of the Revised Penal Code and he will serve the
minimum penalty within the range of arresto mayor medium, which we shall fix at 4 months imprisonment and the
maximum penalty of prision correccional minimum which we shall fix at 2 years.
PEOPLE vs. QUIACHON
G.R. No. 170236 • August 31, 2006
FACTS:
Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged with the crime of qualified rape. On or about 12 May 2001, the accused, by
means of force and intimidation had sexual intercourse with a certain Rowena Quiachon, his daughter, 8 years old, a
deaf-mute. Rowel recounted that on the night of 12 May 2001, he saw his father on top of his sister Rowena and they
were covered by a blanket. His father’s buttocks were moving up and down, and Rowel could hear Rowena crying. He
could not do anything because he was afraid of his father. Rowel remained in the room but the following morning, he
told his aunt, Carmelita Mateo about what he had witnessed. Together, Carmelita and Rowel went to the police to
report what had transpired. The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape
defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and B of the RPC. The court imposed death penalty against the accused. The
defense argued that the benefits of RA 9346 should be extended to the accused.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant can benefit from RA 9346?

RULING:
Yes. In view of the enactment of RA 9346 on 24 June 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty
to be meted on appellant is reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section 2 thereof which reads: SECTION 2. In lieu of
the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes
use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the
law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. The aforequoted
provision of R.A. No. 9346 is applicable in this case pursuant to the principle in criminal law, [favors ampliandi sunt; odia
restrigenda]. Penal laws which are favorable to accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied under
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides as follows: Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall
have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term
is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has
been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
MEL DIMAT v. PEOPLE, GR No. 181184, 2012-01-25
Facts:

Delgado's wife, Sonia, bought from accused Dimat a 1997 Nissan Safari PO Ramirez and fellow officers of the Traffic
Management Group (TMG) spotted the Nissan Safari on E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City, bearing a suspicious plate
number. After stopping and inspecting the vehicle, they discovered that its engine number was... actually TD42-119136
and its chassis number CRGY60-YO3111. They also found the particular Nissan Safari on their list of stolen vehicles. They
brought it to their Camp Crame office and there further learned that it had been stolen from its registered owner, Jose
Mantequilla. Mantequilla affirmed that he owned a 1997 Nissan Safari that carried plate number JHM-818, which he
mortgaged to Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. The vehicle was carnapped on May 25, 1998 at Robinsons
Galleria's parking area. Dimat claimed that he did not know Mantequilla. He bought the 1997 Nissan Safari in good faith
and for value from a certain Manuel Tolentino under a deed of sale that gave its engine number as TD42-126134 and its
chassis number as CRGY60-YO3553. He also claimed that, although the Nissan Safari he sold to Delgado and the one
which the police officers took into custody had the same plate number, they were not actually the same vehicle.

Issues:

The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA correctly ruled that accused Dimat knowingly sold to Sonia
Delgado for gain the Nissan Safari that was earlier carnapped from Mantequilla.

Ruling:

The elements of "fencing" are 1) a robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who took no part in the
robbery or theft, "buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
manner deals in any article or object taken"... during that robbery or theft; (3) the accused knows or should have known
that the thing derived from that crime; and (4) he intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for another.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 26, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR 29794.
ROBERT SIERRA Y CANEDA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 182941, 2009-07-03
Facts:
In August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA[5] was playing with her friend BBB in the second floor of her family's house in
Palatiw, Pasig. The petitioner arrived holding a knife and told AAA and BBB that he wanted to play with them. The
petitioner then undressed BBB and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards, he turned to AAA, undressed her, and
also had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his male organ into hers. The petitioner warned AAA not to tell
anybody of what they did. On the basis of the complaint and the physical findings, the petitioner was charged with rape
The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and raised the defenses of denial and alibi. He claimed that he was
selling cigarettes at the... time of the alleged rape. He also claimed that AAA only invented her story because she bore
him a grudge for the beatings he gave her.

Issues:
Whether or not the CA erred in not applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9344 on the petitioner's exemption from criminal
liability;

Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that it was incumbent for the defense to present the petitioner's birth certificate
to invoke Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 when the burden of proving his age lies with the prosecution by express provisions
of R.A. No. 9344; an

Ruling:
In August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA[5] was playing with her friend BBB in the second floor of her family's house in
Palatiw, Pasig. The petitioner arrived holding a knife and told AAA and BBB that he wanted to play with them. The
petitioner then undressed BBB and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards, he turned to AAA, undressed her, and
also had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his male organ into hers. The petitioner warned AAA not to tell
anybody of what they did.
Case Digest: Malto vs. People G.R. No.164733, September 21, 2007
Facts:
In the Year 1996, Malto and private respondent AAA started to frequently exchange messages and calls. Their
conversation always started innocently but he had a way of veering the subject to sex. Soon, they had a "mutual
understanding" and became sweethearts. On November 19, 1997, AAA agreed to have lunch with petitioner outside the
premises of the college. She was surprised when he brought her to Queensland Lodge on Harrison St. in Pasay City.
Once inside the motel room, he kissed her at the back and neck, touched her breasts and placed his hand inside her
blouse. She resisted his advances but he was too strong for her. He stopped only when she got angry at him.
On November 26, 1997, Malto asked AAA to come with him so that they could talk in private. He again brought her to
Queensland Lodge. As soon as they were inside the room, he took off his shirt, lay down in bed and told her, "halika na,
dito na tayo mag-usap." She refused but he dragged her towards the bed, kissed her lips, neck and breasts and
unsnapped her brassiere. She struggled to stop him but he overpowered her. He went on top of her, lowered her pants
and touched her private part. He tried to penetrate her but she pushed him away forcefully and she sat up in bed. He
hugged her tightly saying, "Sige na, AAA, pumayag ka na, I won’t hurt you." She refused and said, "Mike, ayoko."
Pressured and afraid of his threat to end their relationship, she hesitantly replied "Fine." On hearing this, he quickly
undressed while commenting "ibibigay mo rin pala, pinahirapan mo pa ako" and laughed. They had sexual intercourse.
In July 1999, AAA ended her relationship with petitioner. She learned that he was either intimately involved with or was
sexually harassing his students in Assumption College and in other colleges where he taught. On learning what her
daughter underwent in the hands of petitioner, BBB filed an administrative complaint in Assumption College against
him. She also lodged a complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City which led to the filing of Criminal Case
No. 00-0691.

Issue:
Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law can be applied

Held:
Yes. The penalty prescribed for violation of the provisions of Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper
imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, the medium of the penalty prescribed by the law.
PEOPLE vs. LARIN [RA 7610] G.R. No. 128777, Oct. 7, 1998
Facts:
Ernesto Larin (accused-appellant) was charged of violating Section 6(b) of RA 7610.The prosecution, withCarla Lenore
Calumpang, the complainant herselfas its witness, adduced that on April 17, 1996, inside the ladies' shower room
located at the Baker'sHall, U.P. Los Baños, Laguna, the accused, by taking advantage of his authority, influence and
moral ascendancyand through moral compulsion, commit lascivious conduct on the complainantby shaving her pubic
hair, performing cunnilingus on her, licking her breasts, forcing her to hold and squeeze his penis; and forcibly kissing
her on the cheeks and lips the day after, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.Other prosecution’s
witnesses Dr. Nectarina Rabor-Fellizar(physical examiner),Susan Calumpang(the victim's mother),and Elizabeth
Ventura(practicing clinical child psychologist), corroborated elements of this claim.The accused-appellant denied
committing these acts. He claims that on the day in question, there were around seven (7) people in the pool and that
Carla was not alone as she was with a classmate until 5:45 p.m. when they dressed up. And that when the classmate
left, the accusedeven accompanied Carla to the boarding area in the company of two (2) other girls and a security
guard'.The RTC found the testimony of Carla worthy of full faith and credence, and found the accused guilty as charged.
In appealto this Court, the accusedassails the sufficiency of the evidence adduced against him, and the rightfulness of
the penalty imposed upon him.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the lower court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of a violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610.
2. Whether or not the lower court erred in giving weight to the victim’s testimony.
3. Whether or not, assuming the accused-appellant to be guilty, the lower court erred in imposing the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.

Held: NO. The Court holds that that the law (RA 7610) covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for profit,
but also one in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct.
PEOPLE VS CASIO (G.R. NO. 211465 DECEMBER 3, 2014)
Facts: On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM), a nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the police
in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. Chief PSI George Ylanan, SPO1 Felomino
Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1 Albert Luardo, and PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso composed the team of police operatives,
Luardo and Veloso were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests.
IJM provided them with marked money, which was recorded in the police blotter. The team went to Queensland Motel
and rented adjacent Rooms 24 and 25. Room 24 was designated for the transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of
the police team. PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City’s red
light district where the accused noticed them and called their attention. Negotiation occured and upon the signal, the
accused was arrested and the two minors were taken into custody by the DSWD officials.

Issue: Whether or not accused is liable for trafficking of persons.

Held: Yes. Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to include the
following acts:

(1) The act of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or
receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders;”

(2) The means used include “by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving
of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person”

(3) The purpose of trafficking includes “the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs”
PEOPLE v. ROBELYN CABANADA Y ROSAURO, GR No. 221424, 2017-07-19
Facts:
at about 9:00 a.m. on April 12, 2009, an Easter Sunday, private complainant Catherine Victoria (Catherine) and her
family visited her mother in Bulacan. Cabanada was left at the house since she was not feeling well and would rather
clean the house. The family returned at 9:30 p.m. of the same day. On April 13, 2009, Catherine asked her husband
Victor Victoria (Victor) for the P47,000.00 he was supposed to give for their household expenses. Victor went to his
service vehicle to get the money he kept in the glove compartment, and was surprised that P20,000.00 was missing.
When Victor informed her, Catherine checked their room and discovered that several pieces of her jewelry were also
missing. She immediately called the Mandaluyong Police Station to report the incident. The records of the case reveal
that Cabanada was brought to the CIU office for further investigation after she admitted the crime and after Catherine
expressed her desire to pursue the case against her. However, prosecution witness PO2 Cotoner admitted that
Cabanada was not apprised of her constitutional rights. He insisted that their investigation has not yet concluded and
that the accused was not yet arrested.

Issues:
Cabanada was not under custodial investigation when she made the confession

Ruling:
Cabanada admitted to the police in the presence of Catherine that she stole the money and led them to her room where
they recovered the P16,0000.00 cash and white leather wallet containing the master key of Victor's car.
Padilla vs CA G.R. No. 121917. March 12, 1997
Facts: High-powered firearms with live ammunitions were found in the possession of petitioner Robin Padilla:

“(1) One .357 Caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson, SN-32919 with six (6) live ammunitions;
“(2) One M-16 Baby Armalite rifle, SN-RP 131120 with four (4) long and one (1) short magazine with ammunitions;
“(3) One .380 Pietro Beretta, SN-A 35723 Y with clip and eight (8) ammunitions; and
“(4) Six additional live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.”

Appellant voluntarily surrendered item no. 3. and a black bag containing two additional long magazines and one short
magazine.

PNP Chief Espino, Record Branch of the Firearms and Explosives Office issued a Certification which stated that the three
firearms confiscated from appellant, an M-16 Baby armalite rifle SN-RP 131280, a .357 caliber revolver Smith and
Wesson SN 32919 and a .380 Pietro Beretta SN-A35720, were not registered in the name of Robin C. Padilla. A second
Certification stated that the three firearms were not also registered in the name of Robinhood C. Padilla.

Issue: Whether or not his arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course
thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule

Held: No. There is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner, but that per se did not make his
apprehension at the Abacan bridge illegal.
People vs Bustinera (2004)G. R. No. 148233 June 8, 2004
Facts:
Cipriano who manages ESC Transport, the taxicab business of his father, hired Bustinera as a taxi driver and assigned
him to drive a Daewoo Racer. It wasagreed that Bustinera would drive the taxi from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m, afterwhich
he would return it to ESC Transport’s garage and remit the boundary fee inthe amount of ₱780.00 per day. However,
Bustinera failed to return the taxi onthe same day. Cipriano sued Bustinera for qualified theft. During the trial,Bustinera
argued that his intent to gain was not present because he merelyfailed to return the car because he was short of the
P780 boundary imposed byCipriano. He further argued that he returned the car when he already had themoney to pay
Cipriano. Bustinera was found guilty by the trial court of qualifiedtheft for his failure to return the taxi to its garage. He
appealed to the SC.

Issue: WON intent to gain is present when he failed to return the taxi to itsgarage.

Ruling: Yes.Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawfultaking of the motor vehicle.
Actual gain is irrelevant as the importantconsideration is the intent to gain. The term "gain" is not merely limited to
pecuniary benefit but also includes thebenefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act
whichis performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner’s consent constitutes gain.
People v. Soriano, GR 142565, July 29, 2003

Facts:
There was a disagreement between Soriano andRosario regarding their child. It stemmed from the fact
that Honey’s brother, Oscar Cimagala, took their child
out without the consent of accused-appellant whowanted both Honey and Otoy instead to return withhim to Manila.
But Honey refused.

As their discussion wore on accused-appellantintimated to Honey his desire to have sex with her,which he vigorously
pursued the night before withmuch success. This time Honey did not relent to thebaser instincts of Nestor; instead, she
kicked him as herstern rebuke to his sexual importuning.

In the heated exchanges, Nestor struck Honey in theforehead. You are hurting me, she snapped back, justlike what you
did to me in Manila.

Nestor then moved away as he muttered: It is betterthat I burn this house, and then took a match from thetop of a
cabinet, lighted a cigarette and set fire to theplastic partition that served as divider of Honeys room.He also set on fire
the clothes. As a result, the houseoccupied by Honey was totally burned together withfive (5) neighboring houses.

Issue: WON the defendant has committed the crime ofdestructive arson.

Ruling: No. Under Art. 320 of The Revised Penal Code, asamended, and PD 1613, Arson is classified into two kinds:(1)
Destructive Arson (Art. 320) and (2) other cases ofarson (PD 1613). This classification is based on the kind,character and
location of the property burned,regardless of the value of the damage caused.
PEOPLE vs. BAYABOS [ Anti Hazibg Law] G.R. No. 171222 February 18, 2015
FACTS:
Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. (Balidoy) was admitted as a probationary midshipman at the PMMA. In order to reach active
status, all new entrants were required to successfully complete the mandatory “Indoctrination and Orientation Period,”
which was set from 2 May to 1 June 2001. Balidoy died on 3 May 2001.lawlibrary The National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) probed the death of Balidoy. After months of investigation, it forwarded its findings to the provincial prosecutor of
Zambales for the preliminary investigation and possible criminal prosecution of those involved in the orientation and
indoctrination of the PMMA Class of 2005. Subsequently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Zambales issued a
Resolution finding probable cause to charge the following as principals to the crime of hazing: Aldwin Alvarez (Alvarez),
Leotharius C. Montez (Montez), Rudence G. Reyes (Reyes), and Jed Nicholas S. Simpas (Simpas) – collectively, Alvarez et
al. A criminal case against Alvarez et al. was then filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales (RTC–Zambales).

ISSUE: Whether the Information filed against respondents contains all the material averments for the prosecution of the
crime of accomplice to hazing under the Anti-Hazing Law

RULING:
The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following essential elements are established: (1) a person is placed in
some embarrassing or humiliating situation or subjected to physical or psychological suffering or injury; and (2) these
acts were employed as a prerequisite for the person’s admission or entry into an organization. In the crime of hazing,
the crucial ingredient distinguishing it from the crimes against persons defined under Title Eight of the Revised Penal
Code is the infliction by a person of physical or psychological suffering on another in furtherance of the latter’s
admission or entry into an organization.