PEOPLE V. ARIZOBAL and Erlinda's son.

Moments later she heard a burst

G.R. No. 135051-52 of gunfire which reverberated through the stillness
- of the night.
FACTS:
Accused-appellants Erly Lignes and Clarito Arizobal ISSUE:
(still at large) were convicted by the trial court of Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide dwelling may be appreciated.
and were sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty
of death. Held:
24 March 1994 - Clementina Gimenez Yes. The Court affirmed the conviction. The trial
together with her husband Laurencio Gimenez and court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an
a grandchild were sound asleep in their house. At aggravating circumstance. Generally, dwelling is
around 9:30 in the evening, Laurencio roused her considered inherent in the crimes which can only
from sleep and told her to open the door because be committed in the abode of the victim, such as
there were persons outside the house. Since it was trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited
pitch-dark she lit a kerosene lamp and stood up to place. However, in robbery with homicide the
open the door. She was suddenly confronted by 3 authors thereof can commit the heinous crime. In
armed men pointing their guns at her. the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an
She recognized 2 of them as Clarito impudent disregard of the inviolability of the
Arizobal and Erly Lignes but failed to recognize the victims' abode when they forced their way in, looted
third person who was wearing a maskara. The their houses, intimidated and coerced their
intruders ransacked their cabinet and scattered inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio
everything on the floor until they found P8,000.00 and Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging
among sheets of paper. Before leaving with their them out of the house to be killed. without
loot they ordered Laurencio to go with them to transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile.
Jimmy's house because "we have something to talk Treachery however was incorrectly considered as
about." Against his will, Laurencio went with them. was band.
Clementina recalled that shortly after the group left PEOPLE V. ESCOTE
she heard a volley of shots. G.R. NO. 140756
On the same night, while Jimmy Gimenez -
was in the process of skinning a chicken for their FACTS:
supper, 3 men suddenly appeared and ordered September 28, 1996 at past midnight, Rodolfo
them to lie face down. One of them pushed her to Cacatian, the regular driver of Five Star Passenger
the ground while the others tied Francisco and Bus drove the bus from its terminal at Pasay City to
Jimmy as they whipped the latter with an armalite its destination in Bolinao, Pangasinan. Also on
rifle. board was Romulo Digap, the regular conductor of
The robbers proceeded to ransack the the bus, as well as some passengers. At Camachile,
household in search for valuables. They took Balintawak, six passengers boarded the bus,
around P1,000.00 from her sari-sari store and told including Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote,
them to produce P100,000.00 in exchange for Jr. who were wearing maong pants, rubber shoes,
Jimmy's life. Since the couple could not produce hats and jackets. Another passenger, SPO1 Jose C.
such a big amount in so short a time, Erlinda Manio, Jr., a resident of Angeles City, was seated at
offered to give their certificate of large cattle. the rear portion of the bus on his way home to
Culprits did not accept. Angeles City. Tucked on his waist was his service
3 masked men then dragged Jimmy outside gun. Every now and then, Rodolfo looked at the side
the house and together with Laurencio brought view mirror as well as the rear view and center
them some 50 meters away while leaving behind mirrors installed atop the driver's seat to monitor
Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes to guard Francisco
any incoming and overtaking vehicles and to
observe the passengers of the bus. The Court agrees with the trial court that treachery
was attendant in the commission of the crime.
When the bus was travelling along the highway in There is treachery when the following essential
Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly stood elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the
up, whipped out their handguns and announced a attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
holdup. Juan fired his gun upward to awaken and himself; and (b) the accused consciously and
scare off the passengers. Victor followed suit and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods
fired his gun upward. Juan and Victor then or forms of attack employed by him. The essence
accosted the passengers and divested them of of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
their money and valuables. by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim,
depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself
Juan divested Romulo of the fares he had collected and thereby ensuring its commission without risk
from the passengers. Manio, Jr. brought out his of himself.
identification card bearing No. 00898.3 Juan and In the case at bar, the victim suffered six
Victor took the identification card of the police wounds, one on the mouth, another on the right ear,
officer as well as his service gun and told him: one on the shoulder, another on the right breast,
Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo one on the upper right cornea of the sternum and
rin and papatay sa iyo. The police officer pleaded one above the right iliac crest. Juan and Victor
for mercy: Pare maawa ka sa akin : May pamilya were armed with handguns. They first disarmed
ako. However, Victor and Juan ignored the plea of SPO1 Manio, Jr. and then shot him even as he
the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right pleaded for dear life. When the victim was shot, he
ear, chest and right side of his body. was defenseless. He was shot at close range, thus
insuring his death. The victim was on his way to
The robbers assured Rodolfo that if the latter will rejoin his family after a hard days work. Instead, he
follow their instructions, he will not be harmed. was mercilessly shot to death, leaving his family in
Victor and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus grief for his untimely demise. The killing is a grim
along the overpass in Mexico, Pampanga where example of the utter inhumanity of man to his
they alighted from the bus. The robbery was over in fellowmen.
25 minutes.
PEOPLE V. VILLONEZ
When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, G.R. NOS. 122976-77
Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident -
to the police authorities. FACTS:
On May 3, 1994, Gerardo Longasa, the deceased,
ISSUE: had a fistfight with Rudy Santos at Liwayway street,
Whether or not treachery is generic aggravating Baritan, Malabon. Edgar Jimenez, the witness, went
circumstance in a crime of robbery with homicide. to the area to stop the fistfight. Edgar passed at
Javier II street going to Liwayway street. At Javier II
HELD: street, Edgar was attacked by seven armed men,
Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to which included the accused-appellants. Edgar was
robbery with homicide although said crime is able to escape from his assailants. While fleeing,
classified as a crime against property and a single Edgar ran past Gerardo, who seemed drunk. Edgar
and indivisible crime. Treachery is not a qualifying called Gerardo but the assailants already attacked
circumstance because as ruled by the Supreme Gerardo. Edgar saw Emerlito hit Gerardo with a 2x2
Court of Spain in its decision dated September 11, inches piece of wood while Regando and Ruel
1878, the word homicide is used in its broadest and simultaneously hit Gerardo with bottles. Rey and
most generic sense. Buddha held Gerardo’s arms while Rudy and Eddie
Santos stabbed Gerardo, which caused his death. the latter. One of the appellant's companions,
The RTC held that the accused-appellants were whom the prosecution witnesses described as a
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of male with long hair, drew out a knife and repeatedly
murder without appreciating treachery because the stabbed Michael on the stomach. Unsatisfied, the
deceased was already engaged in a fistfight prior appellant's other companion, whom the
the attack, thus he was forewarned. The prosecution witnesses described as a male with
aggravating circumstance, superior of strength, flat top hair, took the knife and stabbed Michael on
was appreciated for the assailants had the upper the stomach. As the finale, appellant went in front
hand, which was strength in number. of Michael, took the knife and also stabbed Michael
on the stomach. When Michael fell on the ground,
Issue
appellant kicked him at the body. Upon noticing
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance, that the bloodied Michael was no longer moving,
treachery, should be appreciated. appellant and his two companions fled the scene.
The appellant was convicted by the trial court with
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance, the crime of murder. On appeal, appellant contends
superior of strength, should be appreciated. that even if he were held liable for the death of
Held: Michael, there was no treachery which will qualify
the killing as murder. According to him, there is no
Yes. Treachery should be appreciated and No, evidence to show that appellant and his two
superior of strength should not be appreciated. companions had deliberately and consciously
Treachery may still be appreciated even adopted their mode of attack to ensure its
when the victim was forewarned of an attack execution without risk to themselves. The stabbing
against him. What is decisive is that the execution incident occurred in a place that was properly
of the attack made it impossible for the victim to lighted. There were many people in the area then
defend himself or to retaliate. The fact that the walking in different directions. He claims that if he
victim was unarmed and his arms were held behind and his two companions wanted to ensure that no
him preclude the possibility of any defense by him. risk would come to them, then they could have
The other aggravating circumstance, superior of chosen another time and place to attack Michael.
strength, will no longer be taken against the
accused-appellants for it is absorbed in treachery. ISSUE:
Hence, the crime committed was murder with the Whether or not treachery be properly appreciated
aggravating circumstance of treachery. in the instant case?
HELD: Yes. Treachery is a sudden and unexpected
PEOPLE V. DE GUZMAN attack under the circumstances that renders the
GR NO 169246 victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by
- reason of the suddenness and severity of the
FACTS: attack. It is an aggravating circumstance that
After attending a worship service at the Iglesia ni qualifies the killing of a person to murder. Article
Kristo church in his barangay, Michael proceeded 14, paragraph (16) of the Revised Penal Code
home. While Michael was casually walking along states the concept and essential elements of
the corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, treachery as an aggravating circumstance. There is
appellant and his two companions, who were treachery when the offender commits any of the
drinking nearby, suddenly approached and crimes against the person, employing means,
surrounded Michael. Appellant positioned himself methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
at the back of Michael while his two companions tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
stood in front of Michael. In an instant, they without risk to himself arising from the defense
grabbed the shoulders of Michael and overpowered which the offended party might make. As can be
gleaned from the foregoing, two essential
elements/conditions are required in order that for them. Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so he
treachery may be appreciated: (1) The employment went back to a guardhouse and left Eady there. He
of means, methods or manner of execution that tried to find a way to overtake Ormeo and Cordero
would ensure the offender's safety from any but was unsuccessful. At the guardhouse, he
retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, discovers Eady had escaped. Torrefiel followed a
who has, thus no opportunity for self-defense or different route enabling him to find Ormeo and
retaliation; (2) deliberate or conscious choice of Cordero. Ormeo rushed back to the guardhouse
means, methods or manner of execution. Further, it upon discovering that Eady had escaped; Cordero
must always be alleged in the information and was left with Torrefiel.
proved in trial in order that it may be validly
considered. The fact that the place where the As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed
incident occurred was lighted and many people her and carried her to a log and laid her on it and
were walking in different directions does not raped her. Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants
negate treachery. It should be made clear that the and wound cogon leaves around his genitals. It was
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected visible to Cordero as her blindfold had fallen down
attack on an unsuspecting victim without the a little. Pressing her neck so she would remain
slightest provocation on his part. This is even more silent, Torrefiel proceeded to have intercourse with
true if the assailant is an adult and the victim is a her. Ormeo, taking advantage, also had sex with
minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender her. The soldiers desisted from bringing Cordero to
years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. their headquarters and returned her to their house.
Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a A servant informed Cordero that Eady had gone
minor, treachery exists. away. Upon Eady‘s return, Cordero informed him
that she was abused by Torrefiel.
PEOPLE V. TORREFiEL
CA-GR NO 659-R ISSUE:
- Whether or not there was any aggravating
FACTS: circumstances
Facts:
December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m. Torrefiel and Ormeo HELD:
were on their way to the USSAFE headquarters in YES. Trial Court erred in accepting Nocturnity as
the mountains. They passed by Eady’s residence aggravating circumstances -- this was entirely
and talked to him at the balcony to ask for khakis. unexpected as the ordeal started early in the
Eady had none except what he had on. afternoon. However, ignominy is present, the
novelty of the act of winding cogon grass in his
Ceferina Cordero also came to the balcony and genitals before raping the victim augmented the
inquired about their mission. She scolded Torrefiel wrong done bt increasing its pain and adding moral
and Ormeo because all their belongings have been disgrace thereto.
looted by USSAFE soldiers. Torrefiel threatened her
with slapping; brought out revolver. Eady and PEOPLE V BUTLER
Cordero were charged with being fifth columnists L-50376
as they refused to give aid to them. Subsequently -
they were taken to the USSAFE headquarters. FACTS:
Butler (Defendant) was charged with the murder of
Torrefiel took charge of Eady and Ormeo took Joseph Anderson and assault with attempt to
charge of Cordero. Their hands were free but were murder William Russell Locklear. At trial, Defendant
blindfolded. Cordero called Eady every now and testified that Anderson had owed him money and
then to know if he was following. After a while Eady that Anderson kept putting off repayment.
did not respond anymore so they stopped to wait Defendant testified he went to Anderson’s house to
only threaten Anderson to repay him and that the
gun went off when Anderson grabbed for it. After the second rape, he told her he loved her and
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in her effort to release herself, she “agreed” to
and assault with a deadly weapon and was elope with him. Convinced, Fernando let her go
sentenced to death. Defendant had an automatic home to get her things. She then went to her
right to appeal the conviction to the Supreme Court cousin, Antonette and narrated everything that
of California. happened. Antonette then called her brother SPO1
Bautista who advised Juditha to continue with the
Issue: ​Whether or not a defendant must possess elopement so that he and his companions could
felonious intent to take the personal property of stage an arrest. This went successful and Fernando
another person without believing, in good faith, that was apprehended.
the defendant has a right or claim to the property to
be convicted of larceny or robbery. On June 5, 1997, Fernando was charged with the
complex crime of robbery and rape but he merely
Held. ​Yes. Defendant’s convictions are reversed. To brushed this aside as simply sex between
be convicted of larceny or robbery, the defendant consenting adults.
must possess felonious intent to take the personal
property of another person without believing, in RTC​: Found him guilty on the charge against him.
good faith, that the defendant has a right or claim Contention of the accused: There is no convincing
to the property. ​The result, therefore, of our review proof that he is guilty of the crime charged.
of the record is that the crime here under
consideration is attended by the aggravating ISSUE:
circumstances of (1) treachery, (2) dwelling, and (3) Whether or not the additional rape committed by
rape against all the three accused, with the added the accused is considered as an aggravating
aggravating circumstance of (4) recidivism against circumstance?
Gaudencio Mongado. And only one mitigating
circumstance - that of voluntary plea of guilty - can HELD:
be considered in favor of the three accused. By the No. The record shows that the prosecution has
law, the three accused merit the penalty of death. established that he committed both robbery and
We do not thus find it necessary to pass upon the rape with the intent to take personal property of
lower court's pronouncement that the aggravating another preceding the rape.
circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse
of confidence also attended the commission of the Complaining witness Bautista was raped twice on
crime. The result is the same. The penalty is death. the occasion of the robbery. In the recent case of
People v. Regala, the Court held that the additional
PEOPLE V. SULTAN rapes committed should not be appreciated as an
GR NO 132470 aggravating circumstance despite a resultant
- "anomalous situation" wherein robbery with rape
FACTS: would be on the same level as robbery with multiple
On June 2, 1997, around 9:00 in the evening, rapes in terms of gravity. The Court realized that
Juditha Bautista was on her way home from there was no law providing for the additional rape/s
visiting her cousin when she was accosted by the or homicide/s for that matter to be considered as
accused Fernando Sultan. Fernando pointed a aggravating circumstance. It further observed that
sharp instrument at her neck and told her that this the enumeration of aggravating circumstances
was a hold-up. Fearing for her life, she let him grab under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is
and bring her to his house. Through intimidation exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code which
and her fear for her life, she was robbed and twice enumerates the mitigating circumstances where
raped.
analogous circumstances may be considered, aggravating circumstance under the third
hence, the remedy lies with the legislature. paragraph of the provision.

Consequently, unless and until a law is passed RTC’s contentions:[Should be convicted of a

providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s separate offense]
may be considered aggravating, the Court must ● Second paragraph’s (see top) proviso (no
construe the penal law in favor of the offender. other crime), refers only to homicide or
Under this view, the additional rape committed by murder, in both of which illegal possession
accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating of firearms is an aggravating circumstance.
circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the ● n other words, if a crime other than murder
Revised Penal Code which provides that "[i]n all or homicide is committed, a person may still
cases in which the law prescribes a penalty be convicted of illegal possession of
composed of two indivisible penalties, the following firearms. In this case, the other crime
rules shall be observed in the application thereof . . committed was direct assault with multiple
. . 2. [w]hen there are neither mitigating nor attempted homicide; hence, the trial court
aggravating circumstances in the commission of found appellant guilty of illegal possession
the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied," the of firearms.
lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed on accused-appellant. ISSUE: Whose contentions are correct [whether or
not illegal possession of firearms is a separate
offense when coupled with direct assault with
PEOPLE V. LADJAALAM
multiple attempted homicide] OR more specifically
G.R. NOS 136149-51
[whether or not the proviso in the second paragraph
-
FACTS: HELD: A simple reading thereof shows that if an
Ladjaalam was charged with 4 informations, one of unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of
them was for illegal possession of firearms and any crime, there can be no separate offense of
another was for multiple attempted murder with simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the
direct assault (for firing an M14 rifle to police men “other crime” is murder or homicide, illegal
who were about to enter his house to serve a possession of firearms becomes merely an
search warrant). RTC found Ladjaalam guilty of aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense.
direct assault with multiple attempted homicide Since direct assault with multiple attempted
(not murder since no policeman was hit and homicide was committed in this case, appellant
injured) and sentenced a separate offense of illegal can no longer be held liable for illegal possession
possession of firearms under PD 1866, as of firearms. Moreover, penal laws are construed
amended by RA 8294. liberally in favor of the accused and the plain
OSG’s contentions: [Ladjaalam shouldn’t be meaning of RA 8294’s simple language is most
convicted of separate offense of illegal possession favorable to Lamjaalam. Since the crime
● RTC shouldn’t have applied the new law (RA committed was direct assault and not homicide or
8294) but PD 1866 (penalized simple illegal murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be
possession of firearms even if another deemed an aggravating circumstance
crime is committed at the same time)
because provision does not cover specific OSG’s contentions​: while RA 8294 took effect on
facts of the case since another crime - July 6, 1997. Therefore, when crime was
direct assault with multiple unlawful committed, PD 1866’s provision, which justified a
homicides -- was committed. conviction for illegal possession of firearms
● Since there was no killing in this case, illegal separate from any other crime, was amended by RA
possession cannot be deemed as an
8294 which contained the specific proviso that “no expressly said so. As accusation is not
other crime was committed.” synonymous with guilt, there is yet no showing that
petitioner did in fact commit the other crime
RTC’s contention​s: Limiting the proviso in the charged. Consequently, the proviso does not yet
second paragraph to only murder and homicide is apply.
not justified. If the intention of the law in the In sum, when the other offense involved is
second paragraph were to refer only to homicide one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any
and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it information for illegal possession of firearm should
did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the law be quashed because the illegal possession of
does not distinguish, neither should the SC. firearm would have to be tried together with such
other offense, either considered as an aggravating
ENDING: (in relation to topic) Ladjaalam charged
circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed
with direct assault and multiple attempted
as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or
homicide with the use of a weapon lang (no
attempted coup d'etat. Conversely, when the other
separate offense nor aggravating circumstance)
offense involved is not one of those enumerated
under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal
possession of firearm should continue to be
prosecuted.
CELINO V COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE V ATOP
GR NO 170562
GR NO 124303-05
-
-
FACTS:
FACTS:
Two separate informations were filed before the
The accused is the common law husband of the
RTC charging petitioner with violation of the
victim’s grandmother (Like WTF).
gunban and illegal possession of firearms.
Sometime in 1991, Regina Guafin (10) told her
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash contending that
grandmother that his grandfather, Alejandro Atop
he "cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of
(37), inserted his finger into her vagina. Aside from
firearms (R.A. 8294) . . . if he was also charged of
not believing her, Trinidad (the grandmother) told
having committed another crime of [sic] violating
her it was just a “​manifestation of fatherly concern​”
the Comelec gun ban under the same set of facts.”
(I can’t even.).
The trial court denied the motion to quash on the
Oct. 9, 1992 [1​st rape]: As Regina (then 12
ground that "the other offense charged . . . is not
y/o) was approaching Atop, he suddenly rushed
one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294 . . . ." The
towards her, removed her panty and inserted his
denial was affirmed on appeal. Hence this petition,
male organ into her vagina (well that escalated
where petitioner contends that the mere filing of an
quickly). Aside from gagging her, he was also
information for gun ban violation against him
carrying he knife so she couldn’t do anything. This
necessarily bars his prosecution for illegal
happened again sometime in 1993 [2​nd rape] and on
possession of firearms.
Dec. 26, 1994 [3​rd rape]. Every time, she told her
ISSUE: ​whether or not the court err in denying the grandmother but Trinidad wouldn’t believe her.
Motion to Quash? Dec. 31, 1994 [4​th rape]: She was molested
in the presence of her aunt and Atop’s two nieces.
HELD: No​. The law is clear: the accused can be Regina and the two nieces kicked him so he
convicted of simple illegal possession of stopped.
firearms, provided that "no other crime was January 1995: She was at her other
committed by the person arrested." If the intention grandfather’s house when the accused came and
of the law in the second paragraph were to refer tried to force her to go home. He kept on pulling her
only to homicide and murder, it should have until they reached a waiting shed where the
accused smashed her to the concrete wall. This SC’s excuse: penal laws are construed in
explained all the bruises and abrasions in her body favor of the accused
upon medical examination.
WHEREFORE, SC affirms the decision of the RTC
She only reported such incidents in January
but modifies the penalties to 3 counts of r​ eclusion
1995 because she was afraid Atop will kill her. She
perpetua​.
did not exactly tell the truth (in her sworn
statement, she only said that a finger was inserted) PEOPLE V SAN PEDRO
at first because Atop was still not apprehended (he SCRA 306
was hiding). When finally he was arrested, she -
requested the fiscal to re-investigate and then told FACTS:
them what was really done to her. On June 2, 1970 between the barrios of Masaya
He was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and and Paciano Rizal Municipality of Bay, Laguna,
was sentenced to 2 terms of reclusion perpetua Felimon Rivera (a jeepney driver) was killed. He
and death. In the other rape incident (Dec. 31, died of profuse hemorrhage due to 23 lacerated
1994), he was found not guilty for insufficiency of and stab wounds and multiple abrasions found on
evidence. the different parts of the body.
Four days prior to the date of crime, Luisito,
ISSUES
Artemio, and others planned to steal the jeep of the
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of victim. They then rented Rivera's jeep to haul
nocturnity is present coconuts (with him as driver), where they
proceeded to Brgy. Puypuy in Bay, Laguna. They
Whether or not relationship is present
were joined by Salvador Litan and Rodrigo
Whether or not death penalty was rightfully applied Esguerra.
At Esguerra's signal, Litan hit Rivera at the
HELD: nape with a water pipe. Rivera jumped out of the
No evidence that the accused intentionally sought jeep but was chased by San Pedro and Litan who
the darkness to do his dastardly acts. stabbed him at the back several times with a
dagger. Esguerra then drove the jeep and the group
There is no blood relationship or legal bond that proceeded to Makati, Rizal, where he was joined by
links the two. Scope of relationship: Nelson Piso and Antonio Borja. The jeep was sold
o Spouse for Php 2,000.00 at Cavite. Piso then went to Los
o Ascendant Baños after four days and gave San Pedro, Litan
o Descendant and Banasihan Php 50.00 each.
o Legitimate, natural or adopted On June 11, 1971, police caught Rodrigo
sibling Esguerra. He then admitted his participation and
o Relative by affinity in the same named his companions. Artemio Banasihan was
degree (in-laws) apprehended in 1972.
Since he is only a common-law husband, Court said
nope. Issue:
1. Whether or not the aggravating
For rape, it can only be given if the victim is a circumstance of “Craft” can be joined as
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by one with “Treachery”.
consanguinity or affinity within the 3​rd civil degree,
or the common law spouse of the parent. 2. Whether or not the aggravating
And since in this, Atop was the common circumstances could be offset by the
law spouse of the grandmother, still nope. mitigating circumstance of “Lack of
Instruction”.
 the accused committed any of the foregoing acts
HELD: prior to the commission of the crime. In order that a
No. Treachery is when the victim did not have a person may be convicted as principal by
chance to defend himself at the time of the crime. inducement, the following must be present: (1) the
Craft on the other had is intellectual trickery to lure inducement be made with the intention of procuring
the victim. the commission of the crime, and (2) such
There was treachery because the criminals inducement be the determining cause of the
attacked the victim in surprise and he was commission by the material executor. There must
unarmed. There was craft because the criminals exist, on the part of the inducer, the most positive
tricked the victim to bring them (and the jeep) to a resolution and the most persistent effort to secure
secluded area. the commission of the crime, together with the
Therefore, these two aggravating presentation to the person induced of the strongest
circumstances are separate for this case and kind of temptation to commit the crime.
cannot be combined into one. With the presence of
two aggravating circumstances, the single PEOPLE V MALUENDA
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction will GR NO 115351
not make any difference. The mitigating -
circumstance of “lack of instruction” cannot be FACTS:
considered because With the presence of two This is an appeal from the March 18, 1994 Decision
aggravating circumstances, the single mitigating of the Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao del
circumstance of lack of instruction will not make Sur, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. L-1174,
any difference. convicting Raul Mondaga, Rodrigo Legarto and
Daniel Maluenda of kidnapping and sentencing
PEOPLE V YANSON-DUMANCAS them to ​reclusion perpetua​.
GR NO 115351 On aug 19, 1992 in the evening, Eng Resus
- and his wife Dr. Bernardita, arrived at their
FACTS: residence and also clinic in Surigao del Sur, from a
One Rufino Gargar, Jr. was abducted and detained. novena they attended. While waiting the Resus sps
He was thereafter shot and killed while blindfolded, at the clinic, 3 mean who identified themselves
by a group of persons; most of whom were Commander Bobong Gonzaga(Mondaga), Bongkoy,
members of the police force, alleged to be under and alias Alex. Mondaga declared that they were
thedirection, and undue influence of one P/Col. sent by an alleged Father Simon, an NPA
Nicolas Torres, and acting upon the inducement of Commander, to solicit money and medicines
accused Yanson-Dumancas. needed for injured NPAs. The trio demanded
medicines and money amounting to 20,000, but
Issue: Whether or not accused Yanson-Dumancas when the couple said they do not have such
could be held liable of the crime as a principal by amount they reduced it to 10,000 the to 5,000.
inducement. Mondaga then demanded that very early in the
morning, the couple should prepare the vehicle so
Held: There are two ways of directly forcing another Engr Resus could drive them to San Roque, Borobo.
to commit a crime, namely: (a) by using irresistible They left the clinic with a threat not to tell anyone
force or (b) by causing uncontrollable fear. There is about their coming, otherwise they would kill all the
nothing to conclude that the accused used either of members of their family and blow up the clinic.
the methods on the accused-appellants. Likewise, The next day, 5AM, Mondaga arrived at the
there are two ways of inducing another to commit a residence of the resus couple. Engr Resus the
crime, specifically: (a) by giving a prize, or offering a drove Mondaga to Andanan to meet the latter’s
reward or promise, and (b) by using words companions. When Mondaga returned, 7PM, to the
ofcommand. There was no evidence to show that residence of the spouses, he demanded from Dr.
Resus 300,000 for the release of Eng. Resus, WHEREFORE, the appeal is partially granted. The
however Dr. Resus could only produce 10,000. The assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED as regards
accused told the latter to reserve money bec he Maluenda, but MODIFIED as regards Legarto.
would get it the following money and instructed Dr Legarto is hereby found GUILTY as an ACCESSORY
resus to look for the firearm of her husband. only and is ORDERED to serve the indeterminate
sentence of two (2) years, four (4) months and one
ISSUE: whether or not conspiracy can be day of prision correccional​, as minimum, to eight (8)
appreciated on this act of felony. years and one day of​ prision mayor​, as maximum.

RULING: PEOPLE V MONTEALEGRE

The trial court convicted Legarto, Maluenda and L-67948
Mondaga, holding that they successfully -
perpetrated a clear case of kidnapping. It gave FACTS:
complete credence to the testimony of the Edmundo Abadilla was eating in a resto when he
prosecution witnesses whom it deemed detected the smell of marijuana smoke coming
unquestionably reliable, sincere and candid. The from a nearby table. Intending to call a policeman,
lower court held that Mondaga was the mastermind he quietly went outside and saw Pfc. Renato
of the kidnapping. While Appellant Legarto Camantigue. Camantigue joined Abadilla in the
portrayed himself as a good Samaritan to the resto and they both smelled the marijuana smoke
Resus couple, the trial court stated that he was a from the table of Vicente Capalad and Napoleon
wolf in sheep's clothing and described his Montealegre. Camantigue collared the 2 & said
testimony as evasive, false and shallow. “Nagmamarijuana kayo, ano?” He forced them up,
holding 1 in each hand but Capalad pulled out a
The trial court also noted the following pieces of knife & started stabbing Camantigue at the back.
evidence which proved Legarto's participation in Camantigue let go of Montealegre to get his gun
the crime. but Montealegre restrained Camantigue’s hand to
1. Witness Sanchez testified that she saw prevent the latter from defending himself. They
Mondaga frequenting Legarto's house in grappled & fell on the floor. Capalac fled and
Diatagon, and she even saw him and Camantigue pursued him firing some shots. Then
Mondaga riding on his motorcycle. he stopped and asked to be brought to a hospital.
2. On August 20, 1992, Engineer Resus saw Capalac was found slumped in the street, with a
him convey Maluenda and "Alex" to bullet to his chest. Both he and Camantigue died
Andanan, where Maluenda and "Alex" the next day. Montealegre on the other hand,
boarded Engineer Resus' car. escaped through the confusion. He was later
3. He drove the victim's car back to Diatagon apprehended.
from Alegria.
4. He delivered Mondaga's ransom note to Dr.
Resus. Issue
5. He also delivered the ransom money to the
Whether or not Montealegre was rightly considered
kidnappers.
a co-principal for having corroborated with Capalad
6. He used P36,000 of the ransom money to
in the killing of the police officer.
pay the balance of the purchase price of his
motorcycle. HELD: YES. The two acted in concert, with Capalad
actually stabbing Camantigue 7 times and
All these allegedly show Legarto's participation as a Montealegre holding on to victim’s hands to
co-principal by indispensable cooperation in the prevent him from drawing the pistol and defending
crime. himseld, as Abadilla had testified. While it is true
that Montealegre did not himself commit the act of accused-appellants were found guilty in the
stabbing, he was nonetheless equally guilty thereof aforementioned decision.
for having prevented Camantigue for resisting the The accused-appellants, in their appeal,
attack against him. alleged that the trial court erred in failing to resolve
doubts and discrepancies in its findings of fact in
Montealegre was a principal by favor of the accused and that the court erred in
indispensable cooperation under A17(3), RPC. The finding credible the testimonies of Mercy Villamor
requisites of this provision and Dr. Villaseñor.
o Participating in the criminal resolution, i.e.,
The complainant filed a Motion for Time to
there’s either anterior conspiracy or unity
File Brief separate from that which the OSG would
of criminal purpose & intention
file, by way of an answer to the brief of
immediately before the commission of the
accused-appellants. This motion was denied. The
crime charged; &
OSG subsequently filed a Manifestation
o Cooperation in the commission of the
recommending the acquittal of accused-appellants.
offense by performing another act w/o
In view of the position taken by the OSG,
w/c it would not have been accomplished.
complainant filed a Memorandum for the Private
Complainant (after filing a Manifestation and
But although there was no evidence of prior
Motion to File Brief) which was noted by the Court.
agreement between Capalad & Montealegre, their
subsequent acts should prove the presence of such
HELD:
conspiracy. The Court has consistently upheld such
Rule 122, Sec.1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
view in previous cases (People v. Laganson, People
Procedure provides that “any party may appeal
v. Cercano, People v. Garcia Cabarse, Dacanay v.
from a judgment or final order, unless the accused
People). Montealegre was correctly convicted of
will be placed in double jeopardy.” It has been held
the complex crime of murder, qualified by
that the word “party” in the provision includes not
treachery, w/ assault upon a person of authority.
only the government and the accused but other
persons who may be affected by the judgment.
PEOPLE V MADALI
• The complainant has an interest in the civil
L-67803
liability arising from the crime. Hence, in the
-
prosecution of the offense, the
FACTS:
complainant’s role is that of a witness for
An appeal from the decision of the RTC Branch 81
the prosecution.
of Romblon, Romblon finding accused-appellants
guilty of the murder of Reynaldo M. Abrenica and
• Ordinarily, the appeal of the criminal cases
sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua. The
involves as parties only the accused, as
body of Reynaldo was found by his wife on the
appellants, and the State, represented by the
landing of the stairs of their house. An autopsy
SolGen, as the appellee. The participation of
conducted by Dr. Villaseñor of the PNP Crime
the private offended party would be a mere
Laboratory yielded to the conclusion that the cause
surplusage if the State were simply to seek
of death is intracranial hemorrhage as a result of
affirmation of a judgment of conviction.
traumatic head injury.
However, where the OSG takes a contrary
position and recommends, as in this case,
Three years after Reynaldo’s death, the case was
the acquittal of the accused, the
filed after an alleged eyewitness, Mercy Villamor,
complainant’s right to be heard as regards
surfaced and implicated the accused-appellants.
indemnity and damages arises.
Based on the testimony of this witness, the
Nevertheless, the evidence is insufficient to sustain HELD: No. In the light of the facts and the evidence
the accused-appellants’ conviction. Mercy on record, the guilt of petitioner Abejuela has not
Villamor’s testimony is riddled with inconsistencies, been established beyond a reasonable doubt for
improbabilities and uncertainties which relate to which reason he must be acquitted.
material points. Evidence, to be believed, must not
only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness The prosecution miserably failed to prove
but must itself be credible. beyond reasonable doubt that Abejuela had
knowledge of the fraudulent scheme of Balo. The
most that could be attributed to Abejuela was his
ABEJUELA V PEOPLE negligence in lending his passbook and his utter
GR NO 80130 gullibility.
-
FACTS: Knowledge of the criminal intent of the
Petitioner Benjamin Abejuela, a principal in this case, (Glicerio Balo, Jr.) is essential
businessman, had a savings deposit in Banco in order that petitioner Abejuela can be convicted
Filipino Tacloban Branch of which his close friend, as an accomplice in the crime of estafa thru
Glicerio Balo Jr. was an employee. One day, Balo falsification of commercial document. To be
visited Abejuela to borrow the latter’s passbook convicted as an accomplice, there must be
because he wanted to deposit checks, purporting to cooperation in the execution of the offense by
be proceeds of his father’s insurance policy, in previous or simultaneous acts. However, the
Abejuela’s account. Abejuela told Balo to deposit cooperation which the law punishes is the
the proceeds in his own account but Balo said that assistance rendered knowingly or intentionally,
he was disqualified being an employee of Banco which assistance cannot be said to exist without
Filipino. Abejuela advised Balo to open an account the prior cognizance of the offense intended to be
in another bank but Balo insisted depositing the committed.
checks in Abejuela’s so he can facilitate the checks’
immediate encashment and avail himself of PEOPLE V. DOBLE
privileges. Because of Balo’s assurances and L-30028
explanations, he entrusted his passbook to Balo. -
Balo’s practice of depositing and withdrawing FACTS:
money using Abejuela’s passbook continued for Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost
quite some time until the bank noticed a all heavily armed w/ pistols, carbines and
discrepancy between the interest reconciliation thompsons, left the shores of Manila in a motor
balance and subsidiary ledger balance. After a banca & proceeded to Navotas,Rizal to rob the
further examination of bank records, the bank beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Said bank
officials concluded that Balo was able to wad an unusual banking hours, open from midnight
manipulate the ledger by posting fictitious deposit. till 8AM. Once docked in Navotas and taking
They then confronted Balo who admitted having advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men
posted the false deposits. Consequently, Balo and disembarked from the banca and proceeded to
Abejuela were charged for estafa thru falsification their mission. Once inside, they started firing at the
of commercial documents. bank’s ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men
then returned to the waiting motor banca w/ about
ISSUE: P10.5K & sped away. As a result of the shooting,
Whether or not petitioner is guilty as an accomplice many people got killed & injured. Among those who
in estafa thru falsification of commercial got killed were agents of the law. Only 5 of the 10
documents. men were brought to trial, the rest still remain at
large. 2 of the 5 accused were acquitted. It is only
Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble and Antonio
Romaquin appealing in the charge of bank robbery cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for
committed in band, w/ multiple homicide, multiple abduction w/c makes the driver a mere
frustrated homicide and assault upon agents of accomplice. But it isn’t established by evidence that
persons in authority. in the mtg held in the house of Simeon that they all
agreed to kill and not just rob. The finding that
ISSUE and HELD: appellants are liable as mere accomplices may
First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence shows that appear too lenient but evidence fails to establish
the malefactors met in his house to discuss the their conspiracy w/ the real malefactors who
plan to rob the bank. This circumstance alone actually robbed the bank and killed several people.
doesn’t conclude his guilt beyond reasonable Wherefore, Doble & Romaquin are guilty beyond
doubt. The facts do not show that he performed reasonable doubt as accomplices for the crime of
any act tending to the perpetration of the robbery, robbery in band. The penalty imposable upon
nor that he took a direct part therein or induced appellants is prision mayor min. The commission
other persons to commit, or that he cooperated in of the crime was aggr by nighttime & the use of a
its consummation by some act w/o w/c it would motorized banca. There being no MC, both
not have been committed. At most, his act appellants should be sentenced to an
amounted to joining in a conspiracy w/c is not indeterminate penalty of prision correccional from
punishable. Simeon then was not a principal both 5 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days to 8 yrs of prision mayor as
by agreement and encouragement for his maximum.
non-participation in the commission of the crime.
Nor was it clearly proven that he had received any PEOPLE V DOCTOLERO
part/fruits of the looted money as to make him an GR NO 34386
accessory. As recommended by SolGen, Simeon -
Doble is entitled to acquittal w/ no sufficient FACTS:
evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable In this case, Ludovico Doctolero had an
doubt. encounter with Marcial and Maria Sagun, Antonio
The extra-judicial statements of the appellants are and Lolita Oviedo. In his attempt to escape,
convincing to show that their liability is less than Ludovico struck Lolita Oviedo with bolo which
that of a co-principal by conspiracy or by actual caused her death. Later on, while running towards
participation. Cresencio was merely in-charge of his house, he passed by Marcial’s house. He went
the banca and had no knowledge of the concrete upstairs to look for Marcial but Epifania Escosio
plan and execution of the crime. The mastermind (Marcial’s mother) told him Marcial left. On his way
obviously did not extend confidence in him as he out, Epifania struck him at the back of his neck.
was only asked to provide a banca just a few hours Ludovico retaliated by hacking her with bolo killing
before the commission of the crime. Nor was her. The child, Jonathan Oviedo was hurt in this
Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as incident. After this, Ludovico waited for Marcial
there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to downstairs but Marcelo Sagun (Marcial’s father)
prevent him from fleeing away from the scene, came. Marcelo hit Ludovico so Ludovico boloed
evident to show that he never joined in the criminal him several times also killing him. Conrado and
purpose and that his acts were not voluntary. An Virgilio were present when Ludovico killed Epifania
accomplice is one who, not being principal as and Marcelo. Trial court found Ludovico, Conrado,
defined in Art 17 RPC, cooperates in the execution and Virgilio guilty of multiple murder and physical
of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. injuries. Ludovico as principal, Conrado and Virgilio
There must be a community of unlawful purpose as accomplices. During pendency of this petition,
between the principal and accomplice and Ludovico withdrew his appeal and Virgilio died
assistance knowingly and intentionally given to extinguishing his criminal liability. WON Conrado is
supply material and moral aid in the consummation
of the offense. In this case, the appellants’
really an accomplice, the SC found that trial court PEOPLE V DE VERA
correctly found Conrado as an accomplice. GR NO 128966
DOCTRINE: -
FACTS:
Where one goes with the principals and in staying
Edwin de Vera y Garcia, together with Roderick
outside of the house while the others went inside to
Garcia, Kenneth Florendo and Elmer Castro, was
rob and kill the victim, the former effectively
charged with Murder before the Regional Trial
supplied the criminals with material and moral aid
Court of Quezon City in connection with the killing
making him guilty as an accomplice.
of one Frederick Capulong. De Vera and Garcia
One can be an accomplice even if he did not pleaded not guilty during arraignment. The other
know of the actual crime intended by the principal two accused, Florendo and Castro, were at large.
provided he was aware that it was an illicit act. During trial, the prosecution presented as witness
one Bernardino Cacao who testified that he saw De
Vera in the car, where an altercation later occurred.
ISSUE:
Thereafter, he saw Florendo drag out of the vehicle
Whether or not the trial court erred in finding an apparently disabled Capulong and shot him in
Conrado Doctolero as an accomplice in the the head moments later. Aside from Cacao’s
commission of crime charged. testimony, the prosecution also presented De
Vera’s extrajudicial statement which established
that he knew that Florendo intended to kill the
HELD:
victim and that the three co-accused were carrying
YES, the trial court correctly found that the weapons and that he acted as a lookout to watch
appellant Conrado Doctolero participated as an for passersby. Thereafter, the trial court convicted
accomplice. De Vera and his co-accused Garcia of the crime
It was alleged in the testimony of the witness that charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty
Conrado together with Virgilio were also in the of ​reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the
crime scene watching their brother Ludovico heirs of the victim.
Doctolero do the crimes. The SC held that where In ruling that the crime committed was
one goes with the principal, the former supplied the murder, the trial court found that the killing was
criminals with material and moral aid making him attended by treachery, evident premeditation and
guilty as accomplice. It held further that one can be abuse of superior strength. One of these was
an accomplice even if he did not know of the actual enough to qualify the crime as murder; the two
crime intended by the principal provided that he others constituted generic aggravating
was aware that it was an illicit act. circumstances. The trial court explained that the
In US v. De Jesus, accomplices therein evidence established evident premeditation, for
consented to help in the commission of forcible Florendo’s group acted with deliberate forethought
abduction, and they were responsible for the and tenacious persistence in the accomplishment
resulting homicide even if the purpose of the of the criminal design. Treachery was also proven,
principal to commit homicide was unknown to the because the attack was planned and performed in
accomplices. such a way as to guarantee the execution of the
criminal design without risk to the group. There
Nonetheless, there being a doubt exist, the
was also abuse of superior strength, because the
court should favor the milder form of liability or
attackers took advantage of their superiority in
responsibility which is that of being mere
numbers and weapons.
accomplices and not conspirators.
Furthermore, the trial court found that it was
indeed Florendo who actually shot the victim.
However, it convicted De Vera as a principal
because the scientific and forensic findings on the
criminal incident directly and substantially WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby partially
confirmed the existence of conspiracy among the GRANTED.
four accused.
Aggrieved, de Vera appealed his conviction GRACES V PEOPLE
before the Supreme Court. GR NO 173858
-
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in FACTS:
convicting De Vera as principal? August 2, 1992, between 8:00 and 9:00 o’clock in
the evening, AAA was on her way to the chapel
Held: Yes. The testimony of the prosecution when the five accused (Rosendo Pacursa, Senando
eyewitness contained nothing that could inculpate Garces, Antonio Pira, Jr, Aurelio Pira and petitioner
De Vera. Aside from the fact that he was inside the herein) suddenly appeared and approached her.
car, no other act was imputed to him. Mere Rosendo Pacursa covered her mouth with his
presence does not amount to conspiracy. Indeed, hands and told her not to shout or she will be killed.
the trial court based its finding of conspiracy on He then brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn
mere presumptions, and not on solid facts while his four companions stood guard outside.
indubitably indicating a common design to commit Inside the barn, Pacursa started kissing
murder. Such suppositions do not constitute proof AAA. Private complainant fought back but to no
beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that De Vera avail. Thereafter, Pacursa succeeded in having
was at the ​locus criminis in order to aid and abet carnal knowledge of her. After a while, they heard
the commission of the crime did not make him a people shouting and calling the name of AAA. At
conspirator; at most, he was only an accomplice. this point, petitioner Ernesto Garces entered the
Moreover, the prosecution evidence has not barn, covered AAA’s mouth, then dragged her
established that De Vera was part of the conspiracy outside. He also threatened to kill her if she reports
to kill Capulong. De Vera’s participation, as culled the incident.
from his own statement, was made after the Upon reaching the house of Florentino
decision to kill was already a ​fait accompli​. Garces, petitioner released AAA. Shortly
The trial court erred in appreciating two afterwards, AAA’s relatives found her crying,
generic aggravating circumstances, because wearing only one slipper and her hair was
treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength. disheveled. They brought her home but when
Hence, there is only one generic aggravating asked what happened, AAA could not answer
circumstance, not two. Notwithstanding the because she was in a state of shock. After a while,
presence of a generic aggravating circumstance, she was able to recount the incident.
we cannot impose the death penalty, because the ISSUE:
crime was committed before the effectivity of the 1. WON PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF FORCIBLE
Death Penalty Law. ABDUCTION WITH RAPE
In the present case, De Vera knew that 2. WON PETITIONER IS AN ACCESSORY TO
Kenneth Florendo had intended to kill Capulong at THE CRIME
the time, and he cooperated with the latter. But he
himself did not participate in the decision to kill HELD:
Capulong; that decision was made by Florendo and NO. ​Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of
the others. He joined them that afternoon after the rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape
decision to kill had already been agreed upon; he the victim. Based on the evidence presented, the
was there because “nagkahiyaan na.” accused intended to rape the victim when he took
Consequently, he is convicted as an accomplice, her to the tobacco barn.
not as a principal, in the crime of murder. No aggravating circumstances of nighttime
and uninhabited place. There is no other
evidence that the peculiar advantage of
 nighttime was purposely and deliberately PEOPLE V TALINGDAN
sought by the accused (to prevent the L-32126
accused from being recognized or to ensure -
his unmolested escape). The records do not FACTS:
show that solitude was purposely sought or Bernardo Bagabag was murdered in his own house
taken advantage of to facilitate the in Abra on June 24, 1967 by Talingdan, Tobias,
commission of the crime. Berras, Bides and Teresa Domogma, his alleged
wife [whom cannot be charged with parricide
because no certificate or proof of marriage could
Will this Court’s ruling that the crime committed is
be presented by the prosecution]. The murder was
simple rape apply to Pacursa?
witnessed by Corazon, the eldest child of Bernardo
YES. ​Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court​: and Teresa. She testified to the crime committed
An appeal taken by one or more of several accused by the accused-appellants.
shall not affect those who did not appeal, except Crime Committed: Murder [and the sentence of life
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is imprisonment with indemnity to the offended party,
favorable and applicable to the latter. the heirs of the deceased Bernardo Bagabag, in the
amount of P12,000]
NO. ​Petitioner was present when Pacursa abducted Contention of the Accused: According to
Teresa, there was no illicit affair between her and
complainant and when he brought her to the barn.
Talingdan. She loved her husband. Contrary to the
He positioned himself outside the barn together
testimony of Corazon, they never quarreled nor did
with the other accused as a lookout. When he the former mistreat her. She never left home for so
heard the shouts of people looking for complainant, long. And she was cooking for supper, and not
he entered the barn and took complainant away Corazon, on the night of the murder. She contends
from Pacursa. Having known of the criminal design that her in-laws used her daughter to testify against
and thereafter acting as a lookout, ​petitioner is her because they don’t want Teresa from the start.
liable as an accomplice​, there being insufficient She even added that Bernardo had some enemies
evidence to prove conspiracy, and not merely as an during his lifetime. Talingdan said that he escorted
the Mayor as a bodyguard, while the other three
accessory.
accused also claimed that they were at a certain
Mrs. Bayongan’s house during the night of the
RPC: Accomplices are those who, not being murder.
included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of Contention of the People: The sworn statement of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. the 13-year old Corazon was true. She knew the
The two elements necessary to hold petitioner accused because they live nearby their place.
liable as an accomplice are present: Besides, the accused-appellants testimonies are
1. community of criminal design, that is, indefensible and futile. Moreover, her mother
knowing the criminal design of the claimed to have no suspect in mind during the
investigation in their house, although she was in
principal by direct participation, he
conspiracy with the other four accused.
concurs with the latter in his purpose;
and ISSUE:
2. performance of previous or
simultaneous acts that are not Whether or not Teresa Domogma is an accessory
indispensable to the commission of the to Bernardo's murder
crime.
HELD:
SC Denied Appeal but modified CA’s decision. The court affirmed the decision held by the trial
court with costs. There are two aggravating
circumstances present, treachery and evident
premeditation, with no mitigating circumstances to
offset the accused-appellants.
 for the prosecution alleged that the stall is owned
Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, and Bides are guilty by Fredo.
beyond reasonable doubt of murder and are The CA affirmed the trial court's decision.
sentenced to DEATH to be executed in accordance Hence this petition.
with law. Teresa Domogma is guilty as accessory
to the same murder, and is hereby sentenced to
ISSUE:
suffer the indeterminate penalty of 5 years prision
correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision Whether or not the accused guilty of the crime
mayor as maximum, with the accessory penalties charged
of the law. What about Teresa’s conviction? Teresa
was more or less passive in her attitude regarding HELD:
her co-appellants' conspiracy, known to her. After Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of PD 1612
Bernardo was killed, she became active in her (Anti-Fencing Law), is the ​act of any person who,
cooperation with them. These subsequent acts of with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall
her constitute "concealing or assisting in the
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
escape of the principal in the crime" which makes
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner
her liable as an accessory --- paragraph 3 of Article
19 of the Revised Penal Code. deal in any article, item, object or any thing of value
which he knows, or should be known to him, to
DIZON-PAMINTUAN V PEOPLE have been derived from the proceeds of the crime
GR NO 111426 of robbery or theft.​
-
FACTS: The elements of the crime of fencing are:
Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary of the 1) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
Department of Public Works and Highways arrived 2) The accused , who is not a principal or
at his residence form the airport and immediately accomplice in the commission of the crime of
proceeded inside his house. robbery or theft, buys, receives, possess, keeps,
Five unidentified masked-armed persons acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
appeared from the grassy portion of the lot and sells, or in any manner deal in any article, item,
poked their guns at his driver and two helpers and object or anything of value, which has been derived
were dragged inside the house. The robbers from the proceeds of the said crime;
ransacked the house and took away pieces of 3) The accused knows or should have known that
jewelry and other personal properties including the said article, item, object or anything of value
case. has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
The matter was reported to the police. The robbery or theft; and
WPD asked Teodoro to prepare a list of items of 4) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to
jewelry and other valuables that were lost. He was gain for himself or for another.
later told that some of the lost items were in
Chinatown area as tipped by an informer. His wife Since Section 5 of PD 1612 expressly provides that
was able to recognize the stolen jewelry displayed mere possession of any good, article, item or
at the stall being tended by Norma object, or anything of value which has been the
Dizon-Pamintuan. subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
Norma was arrested, tied and convicted of evidence of fencing, it follows that the petitioner is
violating the Anti-Fencing Law. In convicting the presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the
petitioner, the trial court ruled that ​there is not items found in her possession were the proceeds
doubt that the recovered items were found in the of Robbery or Theft. The presumption is reasonable
possession of the accused and she was not able to for no other natural or logical inference can arise
rebut the presumption (Sec. 5) though the evidence from the established fact of her possession of the
proceeds of the crime of Robbery or Theft.
PEOPLE V TABACO ISSUES:
GR NO 100382 Whether or not the criminal cases, involving the
- killings of Oscar Tabulog, Jorge Arreola, Felicito
FACTS: Rigunan and Romeo Regunton, respectively, should
Mayor Jorge Arreola of Buguey, Cagayan, arrived at have been prosecuted under only one Information.
the cockpit arena while the accused Mario Tabaco
was seated on the arm of the bench situated at the RULING:
lower portion of the arena more than (3) meters No. Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
away, from the place where the late Mayor and his In the case at bar, Article 48 of the Revised
group were seated when he suddenly without Penal Code is not applicable because the death of
warning or provocation, shot the late mayor Jorge each of the five persons who were killed by
Arreola, with his M-14 rifle, followed by several appellant and the physical injuries inflicted upon
successive burst of gunfire, resulting in the each of the two other persons injured were not
shooting to death of Mayor Arreola, Capt. Oscar caused by the performance by the accused of one
Tabulog, Felicito Rigunan and Pat. Romeo simple act as provided for by said article. Although
Regunton, although the latter managed to run it is true that several successive shots were fired by
passing through the western gate near the gaffers the accused in a short space of time, yet the factor
cage but was chased by accused Tabaco. which must be taken into consideration is that, to
Regunton was later found dead inside the canteen each death caused or physical injuries inflicted
of Mrs. Amparo Go inside the Octagon cockpit upon the victims, corresponds a distinct and
arena. separate shot fired by the accused, who thus made
Pat. Mariano Retreta of INP Buguey, tried to himself criminally liable for as many offenses as
pacify Tabaco. Meanwhile, Sgt. Benito Raquepo,one those resulting from every singe act that produced
of those assigned to maintain peace and order at the same. Although apparently he perpetrated a
the Octagon cockpit arena, who was at the canteen series of offenses successively in a matter of
taking snacks, heard (5) successive gun reports seconds, yet each person killed and each person
coming from inside the cockpit arena, and saw the injured by him became the victim, respectively, of a
accused Tabaco coming from inside the cockpit separate crime of homicide or frustrated homicide.
arena. They stood face to face holding their rifles Furthermore, the trial court’s reliance on the
and when Tabaco pointed his gun towards Sgt. case of People vs. Lawas is misplaced. The
Raquepo, Pat. Retreta grappled for the possession doctrine enunciated in said case only applies when
of the gun to disarm Tabaco, and in the process, it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths
the gun went off hitting Sgt. Raquepo and also the caused by numerous killers. In the case at bench,
late Jorge Siriban who happened to be near all of the deaths are attributed, beyond a shadow of
Raquepo. Siriban died on the spot while Raquepo a doubt, to the accused-appellant.
survived his wounds on his legs due to adequate Consequently, the four murders which
medical treatment. resulted from a burst of gunfire cannot be
considered a complex crime. They are separate
There were other persons injured that evening crimes. The accused-appellant must therefore be
namely: (1) Antonio Chan injured on his right foot; held liable for each and every death he has caused,
(2) Salvador Berbano injured on his right forearm and sentenced accordingly to four sentences of
and on his right abdomen and (3) Rosario Peneyra reclusion perpetua.
on his face and right shoulder. But, the three, did
not file their complaints.”

After trial, the court a quo, in a joint decision, found

accused-appellant guilty as charged on all counts.
PEOPLE V VALDEZ delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
GR NO 127663 gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain
- in the consummation of the criminal act​. The test
FACTS: is whether accused-appellant deliberately and
One evening, witness Amanda Tabion was in her sadistically augmented the wrong by causing
house when she heard a motorcycle stop in front of another wrong not necessary for its commission or
her house and loud voices outside. One of the inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or
voices sounded as if someone was being tortured, outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. In this
so she went out to investigate. Moonlight case, evidence showed that the deceased was
illuminated the area and she saw the 4 accused, inflicted with numerous wounds before he was
Allan Valdez, Ludring Valdez, Itong Tabion and Jose killed. Such acts increased the victim's suffering
Taboac, surrounding Eusebio Ocreto, whom she and caused unnecessary physical pain before his
knew since childhood. Ludring repeatedly hit death.
Eusebio on the head and body with large stones
and boulders while the other accused looked on. PEOPLE V SANCHEZ
Eusebio remained lying on the ground, unmoving. GR NO 131116
When Ludring stopped hitting Eusebio, the 4 -
accused carried his body on their shoulders and FACTS:
boarded a tricycle and drove off. Amanda returned ​Antonio L. Sanchez​, Luis Corcolo, Landrito
to her house, frightened by what she saw. The Peradillas and ​Artemio Averion were convicted of
following morning, she learned that Eusebio was the complex crime DOUBLE MURDER. Averion
missing. That afternoon, the headless body of a voluntarily surrendered. Peradillas, a member of
man was found. Policemen identified the body as PNP, was said to have escaped while he was under
Eusebio’s. Postmortem examination of the body the custody of his superiors.
revealed that the victim sustained 13 stab wounds, State witness ​Vivencio Malabanan​, is a part
which the doctor opined, as being caused by 2 or of the security force of mayor Antonio L. Sanchez.
more assailants. Two days later, the decapitated He overheard Peradillas informing mayor Sanchez
head of Eusebio was found buried 1 foot deep, of a birthday party at Dr. Velecina’s house and
more than 100m away from where his body was assured that Peñalosa will be there. Dr. Velecina
found. When it was dug up, it was already in the was a political opponent of mayor Sanchez and
state of decomposition. Peñalosa was one of the political leaders of Dr.
The 4 accused were charged with the crime Velecina. Mayor Sanchez then replied, "Bahala na
of murder, with aggravating circumstances of kayo mga anak. Ayusin lang ninyo ang trabaho,"
superior strength, nighttime and cruelty, by and left. Peradillas, Corcolon and Averion
decapitating the victim. The RTC found Ludring understood this as an order to kill Peñalosa and
Valdez and Jose Taboac guilty of the crime of began their preparations.
murder. Only Ludring Valdez appealed. The three-accused acquired two-way radios
and a vehicle. Malabanan and the three-accused
drove to a poultry farm near Dr. Velecina’s house,
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in Peradillas then walked to his house (also near Dr.
appreciating cruelty so as to qualify the crime Velecina’s house) and checked if Peñalosa is
from homicide to murder present at the party. Peradillas used the two-way
radio to inform the others of Peñalosa’s jeep when
HELD: NO. The crime charged should be murder. the latter was leaving the party. They pursued
The SC agrees with the finding of the trial court that Peñalosa’s jeep and overtook it. Corcolon and
the killing was attended with cruelty, because the Peradillas, each armed with an armalite (3 shots),
deceased was stoned, stabbed and beheaded. fired at Peñalosa and his son. They went straight to
There is ​cruelty when the culprit enjoys and mayor Sanchez to report the death of Peñalosa.
 The three-accused set up the defense of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
alibi: when a single act constitutes two or more grave or
· Corcolon – spent the whole day less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
supervising the farm of his necessary means of committing the other, the
employers. Denied being a guard of penalty for the more serious crime in its maximum
mayor Sanchez. That he was period shall be imposed.
charged because he refused to Thus, the accused are criminally liable for as many
testify against mayor Sanchez offenses resulting from pressing the trigger of the
despite being tortured to do so. armalites.
· Averion – a godson of mayor Treachery was present: The attack was
Sanchez. Was at Lucena caring for sudden; the victims were unarmed and there was
his sick father. no opportunity to defend themselves. The presence
· Sanchez – was with his family. of treachery qualifies the crimes to murder.
They went to Batangas on April 12,
Tagaytay on April 13 and only went OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
home only on April 14. Conspiracy (mayor Sanchez is the mastermind),
thus, charged with 2 counts of Murder.
The three-accused contended that there are
material inconsistencies between Malabanan’s PEOPLE V HERNANDEZ
testimony and the physical and scientific evidence L-6025-26
which affect his credibility. -
FACTS:
ISSUE: Hernandez et al. (other 31 defendants), were
1. Whether or not the guilt of the accused was convicted by the lower courts of rebellion, w/
proven beyond reasonable doubt. multiple murder, arson and robberies.
2. Whether or not the crime committed is the Organizations they were found to be
complex crime of double murder. affiliated w/ and took part ‘rebellious’ activities w/
HELD: Congress of Labor Organization w/c is an
1. ​YES. ​Malabanan gave a detailed account instrumentality of the Communist Party of the PH,
of the planning, preparation and the HUKBALAHAP. Defendants apparently took arms
shooting incident. He positively identified w/ the Huks to make armed raids, sorties and
the three accused. ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and
The supposed inconsistencies between army detachments as well as innocent civilians,
Malabanan's statement and the autopsy and and, as a necessary means to commit the crime of
ballistic reports may be explained as follows: rebellion, in connection therewith and in
both vehicles were running at the time of the furtherance thereof, they also committed then and
ambush. It was only natural for the victims to there acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson,
shift positions as they were fired upon. Thus, it and planned destruction of private and public
was not impossible that the victims were hit properties.
from the right side of their bodies, even if Prosection maintains that respondents is
assailants were physically situated at the charged with rebellion complexed with murders,
victims' left side. The three-accused fired the arson and robberies, for which the captain
gun in ​automatic firing mode which caused the punishment may be imposed, although the lower
bullets to burst out in different directions court sentenced respondent merely to life
simultaneously. imprisonment. The defense contends that rebellion
cannot be complexed with murdr, arson, or robbery.
2. NO​. The crime committed is ​TWO COUNTS
OF MURDER.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a complex crime before the opportune moment came to carry it out.
rebellion with murder
PEOPLE V. GARCIA
HELD: GR NO 141125
YES. Court ruled that murder, arson and robbery are -
mere ingredients ofthe crime of rebellion. Rebellion FACTS:
constitutes only one crime. It is substantial that an Major Ines Opina and SPO4 Paterno Oriña
action to overthrow the government by means of went to Barangay Pugo, Bauang, La Union to serve
rebellion must be evident. Membership is not a Warrant of Arrest against Zaldy Garcia. Garcia
considered a criminal act of conspiracy unless lived in a house inside a fenced compound. They
transformed into an action of controversy, in the stood in front of the gate that was closed, then a
case at bar we find this of no binding. woman approached them. They told her that a
Hernandez Doctrine – rebellion cannot be Warrant of Arrest was issued for the arrest of her
complexed with common crimes such as killings husband.
or/and destruction of property committed in the When Major Opina saw Zaldy Garcia, he
occasion and in the furtherance thereof pointed his finger to Zaldy and said “Zaldy you
better surrender, you have a warrant of arrest.”
ENRILE V SALAZAR Zaldy just waived his hands indicating as if he
GR. NO 92163 refuses, who was then more or less 20 meters from
- the gate. After waiving his hands, he went inside
FACTS: the house. From the gate to the house, there were
The accused is a moro native of Zamboanga. One no obstruction and the ground was clear.
morning, he invited his common-law wife to go with At that instance, Oriña told Opina to call for
him to gather nipa for the repair of their house. a back up. Major Opina then ordered him to do so.
Romana then arrived and invited Maxima to As they were waiting for the back-up, they
accompany her to her house to get palay. Because discussed the strategy they would employ in order
of the invitation of Romana, Maxima refused to go to arrest Zaldy Garcia. After 15 to 20 minutes, 3
with her husband, which aroused his anger. At that policemen arrived.
time, the accused already entertained the suspicion Upon the arrival of the 3 policemen, Oriña
that his wife was having illicit relation with and Major Opina scaled the fence near the smaller
Fortunato, the husband of Romana, to the extent gate and the 3 policemen positioned themselves
that he believed that the child his wife was bearing outside the compound. Both the big and small
was the result of such illicit relation. This incident gates were closed. But even if someone is outside
started the accused on a killing rampage leaving in the gate, the whole of the house rented by Zaldy
its wake sixteen dead and some wounded. Garcia could still be seen.
Oriña and Major Opina were able to enter
ISSUE: W/N the accused may avail of mitigating the compound by scaling the fence. They
circumstance of obfuscation arising from jealousy? proceeded to Garcia’s house. While Oriña was
NO. walking side by side with Major Opina approaching
the door, Major Opina was on his left side, and was
HELD: NO. ​Such cannot be invoked in favour of the ahead of him. Suddenly, they were shot at. He was
accused considering that his relationship with his not hit but Major Opina who was about one meter
common-law wife was illegitimate. In addition, from the door was hit on the abdomen. After the
many days had already passed from the discovery shot was fired, Oriña dived and positioned himself
of the alleged infidelity of his common-law wife in a safety (sic) place. Major Opina fell down and
before he committed the crime allegedly in Oriña heard the sound of "ehhh" from him.
vindication of his honor. As a matter of fact he Oriña then traded shots with Garcia. He
admitted having planned his vengeance long called for the back-up to enter. Since they did not
come, and he had run out of ammo, he had to come at the spur of the moment. Not only was he
escape from the compound leaving Opina inside. forewarned, he had ample time to reflect on what to
Major Lunsad then arrived and was able to do. His immediate response was to arm himself
negotiate for Garcia’s surrender. Garcia asked the and to lie in wait – in ambush, literally - and to fire
back-up policemen to leave. After this happened, he from a position of concealment and relative safety
surrendered to Major Lunsad and they were able to at the two policemen who were fully exposed and in
retrieve Opina. the open at the time. The shooting distance of a
The RTC found Garcia guilty of murder little more than a meter effectively gave Major
qualified by treachery and with the special Opina no chance. This, in our view, is a classic
aggravating circumstance of "the use of unlicensed example of treachery under the definition of the
firearm" and sentenced him to death. RPC.

Issue: Whether or not the murder was qualified by BATULANON V. PEOPLE

treachery. GR NO 139857
-
Held: Yes. There was treachery. FACTS:
To constitute treachery, two conditions must Leonila was employed as a cashier/manager of
concur: (1) the employment of means, methods or Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI).
manner of execution that would ensure the She was in charge of receiving deposits from and
offender’s safety from any defense or retaliatory releasing loans to the members of the cooperative.
act on the part of the offended party; and (2) the During an audit in 1982 certain discrepancies were
offender’s deliberate or conscious choice of the discovered in relation to the release of loans. 4
means, method or manner of execution. information for estafa through falsification of
First, it is not disputed that the appellant commercial documents were filed against Leonila.
went out of his house to see for himself the two In summary, these information stated that Leonila
men who came. Second, by his own testimony, he falsified cash/check vouchers in the name of 4
returned to his house to get his gun. Third, no different persons, thereby making it appear that
immediate shooting took place. The two policemen these persons were granted loans when in fact they
still called for backup assistance, waited and did not even apply for them, and moreover, they did
conferred on what to do, and only after the backup not sign any of the said vouchers.
came did they scale the fence. Twenty minutes The witnesses testified that 3 out of the 4
must have elapsed from the time the appellant persons were not even members of PCCI and that
went inside the house up to the time of the actual one of them [the non-members] was the son of
shooting. Fourth, Major Opina was almost at the Leonila who was, at that time, only 3 years old.
door of the appellant’s house when the shot that Eventually, the TC found her guilty of estafa through
killed him rang out. Fifth, the shot came from inside falsification of commercial documents. On appeal
the house through a closed chicken wire screen however, the CA affirmed with modification, finding
door that effectively hid a man from inside the her guilty instead of falsification of private
house from someone from the outside. Sixth, the documents (Art. 172, par2).
first and fatal shot was sudden, immediately hitting
Major Opina. Issue:
Whether or not there is a complex crime of estafa.
We conclude from all these established
facts that indeed treachery had attended the killing HELD:
of Major Opina. While the original initiative 3 counts of falsification of private documents and
originated from the police who sought to arrest the one estafa.
appellant, the latter’s response was an attack which
showed, by its method and manner, that it did not Elements of the crime:
 1. Offender committed any of the acts of PEOPLE V. MADRIGAL-GONZALES
falsification enumerated in Art. 171, except L-16688
par7; -
2. Falsification was committed in any private FACTS:
document; and Aug 23, 1956, accused Pacita Madgrigal-Gonzales
3. Falsification caused damage to a 3rd party was charged with malversation of public funds in
OR at least the falsification was committed the amount of 104,000.00. It was alleged that while
with intent to cause such damage. she was an administrator of the Social Welfare
Administration, she appropriated, took, and
Re: first element; misappropriated the said amount on 5 different
Leonila’s act falls under par2 of Art. 171 – occasions. On the same date she was charged,
causing it to appear that persons have participated with 7 others with the crime of falsification of
in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact Public documents. They were alleged to have
so participate. conspired in the commission of the crime to make
it appear that the cash aids were given when no
Re: third element such aid was distributed. In addition, Gonzales also
PCCI only grants loans to its bona fide made it appear that he bought relief supplies. In
members with no subsisting loans. As mentioned total, 27 separate informations for falsification and
earlier, 3 out of the 4 persons were not members. 1 information for malversation were filed against
The remaining one had actually settled the loan but Gonzales. The cases were petitioned by the
only for the purpose of avoiding legal prosecution, prosecution to be consolidated for the reason that
with the understanding however that she will be the alleged information were connected- that the
reimbursed once the money is collected from falsification were committed to conceal the
Leonila. malversation.
One reason advanced by the trial court and the
Re: second element Solicitor General in holding that the falsifications
The vouchers were indeed private constituted a continuing offense, proceeding from,
documents because they were not documents used a single criminal intent is that, according to the
by merchants or businessmen to promote or manifestation of the City Fiscal and Special
facilitate trade or credit transactions, nor are they Prosecutor, the motive for these falsifications, was
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or to conceal the malversation. The appellees seem to
other commercial laws. Rather they are private confuse motive with criminal intent. Motive is not
documents, which have been defined as deeds or an element of a felony; it.is merely a prospective
instruments executed by a private person without circumstantial evidence. Criminal intent renders an
the intervention of a public notary or of other act a felony.
persons legally authorized, by which some
disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced, or ISSUE:
set forth. Whether or not there is a complex crime of
falsification and malversation.
No there is no complex crime of estafa through
falsification of private document. If the falsification HELD:
is done as a means to commit estafa, then the ​The existence of a motive, not having been alleged
crime would be falsification. On the other hand, if in the informations for falsification, in order to be
estafa could have been committed without the available to the accused in his defense of double
necessity of falsifying the document, the proper jeopardy, or any ground for that matter, must have
crime would be estafa. to be proven, being, aa heretofore stated, a
prospect&nt circumstantial evidence. In other
words, the existence of the motive to conceal the
malversation, in the cases at bar, is a question of Haycu initiated discharging the business functions
fact which should be ventilated in a formal trial, in and prerogatives of the company thru deceit and
connection with the "defense of double jeopardy. machinations that the owner affixing his signature
The Court cannot assume that the purpose of to the power of attorney to open an account in the
committing the tweixty-seven (27) falsifications bank.
was to conceal the malversation. This is so
because there is no showing that for every Haycu appealed to the CA to reversed the
particular amount they had malversed on a certain order of the lower court.asserting that the 75
period, they had purposely perpetrated the criminal cases is not only oppressing but also out
corresponding falsification, to cover up such of the jurisdiction of the city fiscal of manila.
amount, until the whole amount proposed to be asserting also that the 75 were mere components
malversed, shall have been completely of only one crime.
misappropriated. In the absence of such showing, it
is to be presumed that in the falsification of each CA ruled that, with intent Haycu defraud his
document, the criminal intent was separate and employer to sign the power of attorney, and the
distinct. series of deposits made by Haycu constitutes one
Under the facts and circumstances crime of estafa, there being one criminal resolution
appearing In the record, the grounds upon which and the different acts were aimed at accomplishing
the appellees their defense of double jeopardy in the purpose of defrauding his employer.
the motion to quash, are not clear and indubitable.
One cannot build up the defense of double jeopardy But the characterization of the estafa as continuing
on mere hypothesis. offense cannot be validly seize by haycu because
Wherefore, the Order of the lower court (Branch the elements of estafa may separately take place in
XVIII) dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 36894, different jurisdictions until the crime is
36899 and 36904 on the ground of double jeopardy consummated. and the series of deposits of the
is set aside and another entered remanding the company's funds to his personal account is treated
said case for further proceedings. separately from that of the case of the power of
attorney.
GAMBOA V COURT OF APPEALS
L-41054 CA is hereby set aside and reversed.
-
FACTS and HELD: PEOPLE V MALLARI
This is a petition to review on the judgment of CA GR NO L-58886
involving the theory of continuous crime. -
FACTS:
Haycu was a former employee of Units optical with Facts: Consuelo Mallair together with 3 others were
124 complaints of estafa filed against him by the charged with Estafa thru Falsification of Public
company with the office of city fiscal of manila. Document due to the acts they committed when
after the procedural PI, fiscal filed 75 cases of they feloniously defraud Julia S. Saclolo by offering
estafa against Haycu, except as to the dates and her the title of the land owned by Leonora Balderas
amounts of conversions, the 75 information as a collateral who was then in need of money. The
commonly charge that Haycu having collected and said title was forged and falsified before Celestino
received customers of the company the purchase Hallazgo, notary public, by making it appear that
of goods has converted the sum of money he Balderas signed the document which Julia Saclolo
collected to his own personal account with a bank. paid for the amount of 1,500. The same also
happened to Remegio Tapawan. It was when
A civil action for accounting was filed by the owner Tapawan found out that he was tolled because the
of the company against Haycu complaining that person who posed as Leonora Balderas was a man
by the name of Carlos Sunga that led to file the same date, in the same place, at the same time and
case against Mallari and 3 others involved. on the same occasion. In the case of People v. de
Petitioner Consuelo Mallari was sentenced to Leon, 10 the court held that the act of taking two or
imprisonment before the CFI. Mallari appealed more roosters in the same place and on the same
before the Court of Appeals who affirmed the RTC’s occasion is dictated by only one criminal design
decision with modification as to the penalty. She and therefore, there is only one crime of theft even
then contended that the said decision of CA put her if the roosters are owned by different persons.
twice in double jeopardy.
SANTIAGO V. GARCHITORENA
Issue: GR NO 109266
Whether or not the acts done by Mallari constitute a -
continuing crime FACTS:
On May 1, 1991, petitioner Santiago was charged by
Held: The court set aside the assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of
CA on the ground of double jeopardy. R.A. No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as
A continued crime is a single crime consisting of a the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly
series of acts but all arising from one criminal committed by her favoring "unqualified" aliens with
resolution. It is a continuous, unlawful act or series the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program.
of acts set on foot by a single impulse and
operated by an unintermittent force. And although On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for
there are series of acts, there is only one crime certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the
committed hence only one penalty shall be Sandiganbayan from proceeding with criminal case
imposed. on the ground that said case was intended solely to
The crime of estafa thru falsification of public harass her as she was then a presidential
document committed by Consuelo Mallari, although candidate. She alleged that this was in violation of
consummated through a series of acts, was done Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution which
by the single intent or impulse to defraud Remegio provides that "(b)ona fide candidates for any public
Tapawan. And contrary to the appellate court's office shall be free from any form of harassment
observation, there was only one deceit practiced by and discrimination." The petition was dismissed on
petitioner on the two (2) victims, that being in need January 13, 1992.
of money, Leonora Balderas was willing to
mortgage two (2) lots as security for a loan. It was, On October 16, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for
in fact, by mere play of fate that the second victim, inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, which
Julia Saclolo, should be dragged into the swindle by motion was set for hearing on November 13, 1992.
reason of Tapawan having only P1,500.00 at that ten days later, the Sandiganbayan (First Division),
time. That there were two (2) victims, however, did of which Presiding Justice Garchitorena is a
not accordingly convert the crime into two separate member, set the criminal case for arraignment on
offenses, as the determinative factor is the unity or November 13, 1992. On November 6, 1992,
multiplicity of the criminal intent or of the petitioner moved to defer the arraignment on the
transactions for "the fact should not be lost sight of grounds that there was a pending motion for
that it is the injury to the public which a criminal inhibition, and that petitioner intended to file a
action seeks to redress, and by such redress to motion for a bill of particulars. However, on
prevent its repetition, and not the injury to November 9, 1992, the Sandiganbayan (First
individuals. Division) denied the motion to defer the
The singularity of the offense committed by Mallari arraignment.
is further demonstrated by the fact that the
falsification of the two (2) public documents as a The court issued the Resolution dated March 25,
means of committing estafa were performed on the 1993, ordering Presiding Justice Garchitorena "to
CEASE and DESIST from sitting in the case until the
question of his disqualification is finally resolved by
this Court and from enforcing the resolution dated IVLER V SAN PEDRO
March 11, 1993, ordering petitioner to post bail GR NO 172716
bonds for the 32 Amended Informations and from -
proceeding with the arraignment on FACTS:
April 12, 1993. Following a vehicular collision in August
2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was
Issue: charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Whether or not the petitioner is charged with Pasig City (MTC), with two separate offenses: (1)
continued crime (delito continuado) under Article Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical
48 of the Revised Penal Code? Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent
Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2)
Held: Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
The 32 Amended Informations charged to the Damage to Property for the death of respondent
petitioner is known as delito continuado or Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to
"continued crime" and sometimes referred to as the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.
"continuous crime." In fairness to the
Ombudsman's Office of the Special Prosecutor, it Petitioner posted bail for his temporary
should be borne in mind that the concept of delito release in both cases. On 2004, petitioner pleaded
continuado has been a vexing problem in Criminal guilty to the charge on the first delict and was
Law — difficult as it is to define and more difficult meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking
to apply. this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the
Information for the second delict for placing him in
In the case at bench, the original information jeopardy of second punishment for the same
charged petitioner with performing a single criminal offense of reckless imprudence.
act that of her approving the application for
legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to The MTC refused quashal, finding no
enjoy such privilege. The original information also identity of offenses in the two cases.
averred that the criminal act : The petitioner elevated the matter to the
1. committed by petitioner was in violation of Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC), in a
a law - Executive Order No. 324 dated April petition for certiorari while Ivler sought from the
13, 1988, MTC the suspension of proceedings in criminal
2. caused undue injury to one offended party, cases, including the arraignment his arraignment
the Government, and as a prejudicial question.
3. was done on a single day, i.e., on or about
October 17, 1988. Without acting on petitioner’s motion, the
MTC proceeded with the arraignment and, because
The Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal of petitioner’s absence, cancelled his bail and
Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan (First ordered his arrest.
Division) is affirmed. Seven days later, the MTC issued a
resolution denying petitioner’s motion to suspend
proceedings and postponing his arraignment until
after his arrest. Petitioner sought reconsideration
but as of the filing of this petition, the motion
remained unresolved.

ISSUES:
Whether or not petitioner’s constitutional right
under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further
proceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of
respondent Ponce’s husband.

RULING:
The accused negative constitutional right not to be
"twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense" protects him from, among others,
post-conviction prosecution for the same offense,
with the prior verdict rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction upon a valid information
The two charges against petitioner, arising
from the same facts, were prosecuted under the
same provision of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, namely, Article 365 defining and
penalizing quasi-offenses.
The doctrine that reckless imprudence
under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself
and not merely a means to commit other crimes
such that conviction or acquittal of such
quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the
same quasi-offense, regardless of its various
resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s unbroken
chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as
applied to Article 365.
Our ruling today secures for the accused
facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler
protection of their constitutional rights under the
Double Jeopardy Clause. True, they are thereby
denied the beneficent effect of the favorable
sentencing formula under Article 48, but any
disadvantage thus caused is more than
compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution
for quasi-crime effects qualifying as "light offenses"
(or, as here, for the more serious consequence
prosecuted belatedly).