Anda di halaman 1dari 29

GROUP A ALHAMBRA A Laurel vs. Misa 77 Phil 856 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs.

Lovedioro GR No. 112235, 11/29/95 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Mateo 25 Phil 324 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. De Jesus 145 SCRA 521 (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Laurel vs misa Facts: The Supreme Court, in a resolution, acted on the petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner anastacio laurel based on the theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason definedand penalized by article 114 of the revised penal code for the reason that 1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens therto was then suspended; and 2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine republic. Issues: Whether or not the allegiance of the accused as a Filipino citizen was suspended and that there was a change of sovereignty over the Phil Islands. Held: No, a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government of sovereign. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate governmentor sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby the occupier. Just as treason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Govt, in the same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the US as well as against the sovereignty of the Phil Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of govt from commonwealth to republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the commonwealth, bec it is an offense against the same govt and the same sovereign people. People of the Philippines vs. Elias Lovedioro y Castro FACTS: Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while Lucilo was walking along Burgos St. away from Daraga, Albay Public Market. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder, and subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro then appealed the decision, contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion. It was confirmed by the prosecutions principal witness that Lovedioro was a member of the New Peoples Army. ISSUES:

Was the RTC correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder, instead of rebellion?

HELD:

- Yes. Because, overt acts and purpose are essential components of the crime of rebellion, with either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist. - Political motive should be established before a person charged with a common crime- alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty- could benefit from the laws relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. If no political motive is established or proved, the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion. - In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice. - The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, offered no contribution to the achievement of the NPAs subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of the victims that can be considered as offending to the NPA. - Evidence shows that Lovedioros allegation of membership to the N.P.A was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto. Us vs alejandro mateo Facts: falsification of cedula; erroneous conviction; defendant acquitted. Mateo being required in October, 1911, for the purposes of an affidavit, to present his cedula for the year 1911 to a justice of the peace, produced also his cedula for the year 1910; on reading the cedula for the year 1910, something which he had not done before, mateo discovered that his age was stated incorrectly therein and he, fearing the result of presenting to a public official a cedula which contained an incorrect statement regarding his own age, changed his age, making it 25 instead of 23; the change having been discovered by the justice of the peace on the presentation of the cedula, mateo, without hesitation, detailed the part he had taken in the change and the reason therefor; it is admitted that the age in the cedula was incorrect and that the change made the cedula give his true age; mateo was tried for falsification of a cedula and was convicted. Held: In the case in hand, the change did not affect in the remotest degree the privileges or immunities which the accused could enjoy under the cedula. The judgment is reversed and the accused acquitted.

People vs De Jesus violation of the dangerous drugs act; possession of prohibited drugs inherent in the crime of selling them; which is punishable by life imprisonment to death. The appellants first assigned error, sustained by the Solicitor General, that the trial court erred i n penalizing De Jesus separately under the two information: as the solicitor general stated: the trial courts severe stand against traffic in drugs is understandable. But the assumption is that the legislature will not indulge in absurdities. Since possession of prohibited drugs is inherent in the crime of selling them, it is to be assumed that, in punishing selling, the legislature took into account the need to possess them first. The penalty for selling-life imprisonment to death- is already quite harsh. The legislature should not have intended to attach a further penalty of 12 years to 20 years for possession. It would be superfluous especially if the accused have been imposed a death sentence for selling. The judgment for the sale of prohibited drugs is affirmed. The judgment for possession, custody, and control of prohibited drugs is reversed. ALHAMBRA R People vs. Prieto 80 Phil 138 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Hernandez 99 Phil 515 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Batulanon vs. People GR 139857 9/15/2006 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE)

People v. Prieto G.R. No. L-399 | January 29, 1948 FACTS :- Prieto was prosecuted in the Peoples Court for 7 counts of treason. Initially, he pleaded not guilty to every charge. Later on, he entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7, and maintained his original plea to counts 4, 5 and 6. The prosecutor only presented evidence to count 4 as he admitted insufficiency of evidence as to counts 5 and 6. The court found him guilty to all counts except 5 and 6 of treason complexed by murder and physical injuries. ISSUE : What is the criminal liability of Prieto? DECISION (Not guilty of count 4, guilty of treason in counts 1, 2, 3 and 7):-Prieto is acquitted in count 4 as the of two-witness principle requirement was not satisfied. They failed to corroborate each other: Juanito Albano testified that the accused and other Filipino undercovers and Japanese officers caught an American aviator and had him carried to town on a sled pulled by acarabao. That on the way, Prieto walked behind the sled and the American was takento the Kempetai headquarters. Valentin Cuison testified that he saw the accused following the American whose hands were tied while walking and that he struck the flier with a rope. There was no mention of a sled and nor did he see Juanito Albano.-There is no crime of treason complexed with other felonies because these were not separate offenses from treason.

When a deed is charged as an element of treason, it becomes identified with it and cannot be subject of a separate punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty. Murder or physical injuries are charged as overt acts of treason and cannot be regarded separately under their general denomination. But the brutality which accompanied the killing and the physical injuries are taken as aggravating circumstances since it augmented the sufferings of the offended parties unnecessarily to the attainment of the criminal objectives. But there is a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, hence, the punishment shouldbe reclusion perpetua. People of the Philippines v. Hernandez , 99 Phil. Rep 515 (1956), Was a case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court which held that the crime of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is charged as a single offense, and that it cannot be made into a complex crime. While it was decided on an almost divided opinion, it nevertheless became a stable doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence. It was the height of the Government action against communists and the Hukbalahap guerillas. President Elpidio Quirino, through his Defense Secretary (and later, President) Ramon Magsaysay intensified the campaign against them, and the crackdown was on against communist organizations. Due to such government action, several communist leaders like Luis Taruc and the Lava brothers were soon in government custody. On January 20, 1951, the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) headquarters was raided. Writer (and future National Artist for Literature) Amado V. Hernandez, himself a labor leader, was arrested on January 26 for various rebellious activities with the CLO. Upon his arrest, he was charged in the criminal information of Rebellion with Murder, Arson and Robbery. Five years after his arrest, Hernandez asked for bail with the court where his case was pending, but was denied on the basis of the nature of the offense (if the crime was complexed, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed). Thus, he filed a petition to the Supreme Court. Arguments The government, headed by Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, argued that the gravity of the crime committed required the denial of the bail. Moreover, the complex crime charged by the government against Hernandez has been successfully imposed with other arrested communist leaders and was sentenced to life imprisonment. HELD: The Supreme Court, through then Associate Justice Roberto Concepcion, ruled that rebellion cannot be complexed with other crimes, such as murder and arson. Rebellion in itself would include and absorb the said crimes, thus granting the accused his right to bail. Murder and arson are crimes inherent and concomitant when rebellion is taking place. Rebellion in the Revised Penal Code constitutes one single crime and that there is no reason to complex it with other crimes. As basis, the Court cited several cases convicting the defendants of simple rebellion although they killed several persons.

Thus, the petition for bail was granted. On May 30, 1964, the Supreme Court acquitted Hernandez Leonila Batulanon, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. G.R. No. 139857 September 15, 2006 Criminal case: Falsification of private documents and Estafa FACTS: Petitioner Leonila Batulanon was employed as cashier/manager of Polomok (Polomok) Credit Cooperative Inc. from May 1980 up to December 1982 (so thats two years). She was in charge with the receiving of deposits and releasing loans to members of the said cooperative (Polomok). During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities were found out. Thereafter, four informations of estafa through falsification of commercial documents were filed against herein petitioner. 1. Criminal case 3625 petitioner Batulanon falsified CASH/CHECK VOUCHER of PCCI in the name of ERLINDA OMADLAO, making it appear that latter was granted loan where in truth and in fact said person never received, never granted a loan and never signed such document. 2. Criminal case 3626 same situation as above stated but this time in the name of GONAFREDA ORACION. 3. Criminal case 3453 Batulanon falsified commercial documents namely Individual deposits and ledger of FERLYN ARROYO making it appear that the said person made a fixed deposit and was granted a loan where in truth and in fact ARROYO never made such deposit and never received such loan. 4. Criminal case 3627 same situation as the next preceding case but this time in the name of his son Dennis Batulanon. In all cases, accused did then and there release to herself the same and received the loans and thereafter misappropriated and converted them into her own use and benefit. Also in all cases, she refused to bring back the same despite demands. These informations were filed in the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Prosecution presented its witnesses:

Modallo (posting clerk) testified that Batulanon released 4 cash vouchers. He also said that Omadlao, Oracion and Batulanon were not eligible and not members of Polomok Cooperative. Moreover, according to him, although Arroyo was a member but there was no proof that she applied for a loan. He also said he witnessed Petitioner Batulanon signed Oracion and Arroyo in cash vouchers. Jayoma (Vice chairman of the PCCI Board of directors) testified that laons to Omadlao and Oracion never passed through the PCCI board of directors.

Petitioner Batulanon denied charges against her. She contended that she did not sigh vouchers of Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo who according to her are nonetheless members of the cooperative. Lastly, she said that its been an accepted practice that she can release loan in the absence of Gopio Jr who is in charge with such responsibility.

RTC convicted her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner brought it to Court of Appeals (CA)but the latter affirmed with modifications the ruling of RTC. CA modification is that petitioner is guilty of falsification of PRIVATE documents. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but CA denied it. Issue: Petitioner brought it up to the Supreme Court (SC) and contended that: 1. Best witness is person whose signature is forged 2. Requires prejudice to 3rd person 3. PCCI not prejudiced by loan transactions because loans are accounts receivable by cooperative HELD: SC: Petition lacks merit. Although the offense charged is estafa through falsification of commercial documents, appellant could be convicted of falsification of private documents. Elements of falsification of private document are present in this case: 1. She made it appear that Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo were granted loans 2. She made it in private document ****(cash/check vouchers are not public documents because they are not notarized and not documents used by merchants to promote trade nor regulated by Code of commerce) 3. It caused damage to the cooperative. Regarding best witness SC cites sec. 22 of Rule 132 according to this rule handwriting may be proved by any person who believes it to be belonging to such person; or who acquired knowledge of such handwriting Regarding prejudice to Polomok such loans could have granted to other members but werent because of illegal acts done by Batulanon such constituted damage or prejudice to Polomok On complex crime of estafa through falsification: Falsification committed as means to commit estafa Estafa may be carried out even without falsification SC ruled that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd criminal cases herein fall within the purview of falsification of private documents but the 4th criminal case (with Dennis Batulanon) falls within the ambit of the crime of estafa. The latter having no untruthful statements but there was conversion and misappropriation; hence elements of estafa are present in the last criminal case.

ALONSABE People vs. Perez 83 Phil 314-315 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Enrile vs. Salazar 186 SCRA 217 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) E. Spinner, Co. Vs. New Hesslein Corp. 54 Phil 224 (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) BACHO People vs. Agpangan (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Manansala 105 Phil 1253 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Madarang 147 SCRA 123 (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs Felix Manansala Facts: Manansala was accused of altering the duplicate copy of the Traffic Violation Report (TVR) previously issued to him as a temporary drivers permit. He erased the originally written figure III and the word

three after the words pending cases, and superimposed thereon number I and the word one. The alterations made changed the meaning of the document. It was made to appear that he has only one pending case of traffic violation. The practice was proved to be to arrest a driver who commits a fourth traffic violation instead of merely issuing to him a TVR, which is usually done for the first, second and third violations. The accused had in his possession the falsified TVR and had been using it as a temporary drivers permit from its issuance to the time he was caught committing the fourth traffic violation. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of falsifying an official document. Ruling: It is an established rule that when a person has in his possession a falsified document and makes use of the same, the presumption is justified that such person is the forger. The circumstances that the accused made use of and benefited from the falsified TVR is a strong evidence that he either himself falsified it or caused the same to be falsified. People vs Michael Madarang Facts: Madarang, together with Cirilo Juan, was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675). The two were arrested in an entrapment operation, conducted by a combined team of Integrated National Police(INP)/Naval Intelligence Bureau(NIB) composed of Alejandro Basallo, Roberto Viloria, Eduardo Pascua and Douglas Abalos of Poro Point, La Union, for selling Eight Hundred (800) grams of dried Marijuana with flowering tops to the poseur buyer for 600.00 inside a jeepney. They were apprehended and brought to the police station in San Fernando, La Union, where they were investigated, detained and subsequently released. The Provincial Fiscal ordered that they be re-arrested wherein Madarang voluntarily surrendered and upon arraignment pleaded not guilty. Issue: 1. Whether or not the trial court erred in discrediting the eyewitness testimony of Felix Biwang. 2. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. Ruling: The lower court correctly rejected the testimony of Biwang. By his own admission, he was too far to hear what was being said by the persons inside the jeepney. His version therefore cannot prevail over that of the police officers who were actually present in the vehicle when Madarang, in conspiracy with Juan, negotiated the sale of the marijuana leaves for 600.00 a kilo. Madarangs defense that he only accompanied Juan and that he was completely unaware that the plastic bag actually contained illegal drugs cannot overcome the positive and unequivocal statements of the two peace officers that it was none other than Madarang who personally fixed the price of the marijuana leaves of 600.00 a kilo and who stood firm against Vilorias (who posed as buyer) attempts at haggling.

Ownership and possession are not indispensable elements of the crime under consideration. The mere act of selling or even acting as broker in a sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs consummates the crime under Section 4. When Madarang negotiated the sale without authority of Juans marijuana leaves to Viloria, he took a direct and active part in the crime. His guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. People vs Nemesio L. Agpangan Facts: Agpangan stands accused of Treason, committed between December 1944 and January 1945, in the province of Laguna. It was alleged that the accused was a member of the Ganap, a subversive proJapanese organization, joined the Pampars, a military organization supporting the Imperial Japanese Army, and was equipped with a 1903 Springfield rifle, caliber .30 and was made to undergo training. That from or about January 12, 1945 to March 15, the accused was assigned to guard duty once a week, armed with a rifle with orders to shoot any Filipino prisoners who might attempt to escape and also any guerrilla or American soldier who might approach the Japanese garrison. Three witnesses testified for the prosecution namely, Tomas C Serrano, a farmer who saw the accused doing guard duty at the entrance of the garrison with a rifle and bayonet at his side. Serrano saw the accused confiscating foodstuffs for the support of Japanese soldiers and accompanying the latter in arresting suspected guerrillas. Mauricio Adaro, another farmer was the second witness who testified that he saw the accused mounting guard, getting food supplies from the civilians and giving them to the Japanese. The last witness was Delfin Redor, mayor of Siniloan who testified that the accused belongs to Pampar Makapili, detailed as guard in front of the garrison with arms and ammunitions. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of treason. Ruling: None of the several overt acts alleged in the information has been proved in accordance with the twowitness rule provided in Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. To meet the test under two-witness rule, it is necessary that, at least, two witnesses should testify as to the perpetration of the same treasonous overt act, and the sameness must include not only identity of kind and nature of the act, but as to the precise one which has actually been perpetrated. The decision to acquit him is not only based on the reasonable doubt as to his guilt, because the prosecution has not satisfied the requirements of the two-witness rule, but was rather inclined to believe in his testimony to the effect that he might have the same fate that befell Vicente Auxilio, a guerrilla member. The Court believed that the accused could have adhered to the Japanese, the same who tortured and killed his own son, Bienvenido Agpangan. The decision is reversed and the appellant is acquitted.

GROUP B BELMONTE People vs. Perez 83 Phil 314-315 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE)

Enrile vs. Amin 189 SCRA 573 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Koh Tieck Heng vs. People 192 Phil 533 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Nicolas GR 170234 (2/8/07) (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) PEOPLE VS PEREZ - (TREASON) Accused Perez was charged with treason and rape. The accused kidnapped several women in order to present them to a Japanese Commander to satisfy the latters carnal pleasure against the will of the women. In some instances, the accused himself raped several women. The accused was acquitted in relation to the crime of treason; but he was found guilty of rape. The acts of the accused in relation with the Japanese didnt directly and materially tend to improve the war efforts or to weaken the power of the U.S. Moreover, intent of disloyalty which is essential in the crime of treason is lacking. Nevertheless, the accused can be held liable for the several counts of rape he committed. ENRILE VS AMIN (REBELLION COMPLEXED WITH MURDER) An information was charged against Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile for having committed rebellion complexed with murder with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Another information was subsequently filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, charging the former with a violation of PD 1829 for willfully and knowingly obstructing or delaying the apprehension of Ex, Lt. Col. Gregorio Gringo Honasan. Allegedly, Sen. Enrile entertained and accommodated Col. Gringo Honasan by giving him food and comfort on Dec. 1, 1989 in his house and not doing anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended. It was the prosecutions contention that harboring or concealing a fugitive is punishable under a special law while rebellion is based on RPC; thus, the two crimes can be separately punished. Can a separate crime of a violation of PD 1829 be charged against the petitioner? No. SC used the doctrine that if a person cannot be charged with the complex crime of rebellion, he can neither be charged separately for two different offenses, where one is a constitutive or component element or committed in furtherance of rebellion. It was also noted that petitioner was already facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with Honasan. Being in conspiracy thereof, the act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of rebellion. It cannot be made the basis of a separate charge. Also, the SC reiterated that in cases of rebellion, all crimes committed in furtherance thereof shall be absolved. Hence, the other charge of rebellion complexed with murder cannot prosper. All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance of rebellion, become absorbed and it cannot be charged as separate crimes. KOH TIECK HENG VS PEOPLE Koh Tieck Heng, alias Teddy Koh, alias Tomas P. Flores was charged of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document in the following manner: after opening a savings account with SBTC under the name Tomas P. Flores and somehow illegally obtained a PBC check issued by one F. Dycaico, accused making or causing alterations and changes in a genuine document w/c changed its meaning and thereby affixing his signature at the back of the check, which check was cleared by the PBC. On the second instance, accused did not perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of estafa thru

falsification of a commercial document by reason of some cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is, by timely discovery made by officials/employees of said bank of the forgery and falsification made on the aforesaid check before payment could be made which led then and there to the apprehension of said accused. Under the two Informations, the mode of falsification attributed to the accused is that of having erased and altered the dates and amounts of the checks in question, and superimposing over the original dates and amounts, thereby making alterations and changes in genuine documents which changed their meaning. Accused misappropriated, misapplied and converted to his own personal use and benefit checks in various amounts. Did accused committed the crime of attempted estafa in the absence of deceit and damage? Yes. The fact that appellant was the possessor and utterer of the checks in question and having benefited from the subsequent withdrawals, as well as having attempted to gain by trying to withdraw an amount thereon. The use of the spurious checks is by itself fraud or deceit. The appellant made use of and benefited from the falsified document is a strong evidence that he either himself falsified it or caused the same to be falsified, he being criminally responsible in either case. Since Heng is the only person who stood to be benefited by the falsification of the document that was found in his possession, it is presumed that he is the material author of such falsification. PEOPLE VS NICOLAS - (DRUGS) [GR No. 170234 (BUY BUST OPS; Prior Surveillance)] Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test -buy d o e s n o t a f f e c t the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f p o l i c e a u t h o r i t i e s t h e s e l e c t i o n o f e f f e c t i v e means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a t r a i t o f g o o d p o l i c e w o r k . I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , t h e b u y - b u s t operation was conducted without need of any prior surveillance for the reason that the informant accompanied the policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous drugs.

BERNABE People vs. Agpangan (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Umil vs. Ramos GR 81567 10/3/91 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Infante 36 Phil 146 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) CAJUDAY People vs. Escleio 84 Phil 121 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Santiago vs. Garchtorena GR 109266 12/2/98 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE)

Quelnan vs. People GR 166061 (7/6/07) (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) SANTIAGO VS. GARCHITORENA (Case Digest) G.R. No. 109266 December 2, 1998 FACTS: On May 1, 1991, petitioner Santiago was charged by the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended , otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by her favoring unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien Lega lization Program. On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with criminal case on the ground that said case was intended solely to harass her as she was then a presidential candidate. She alleged that this was in violation of Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution which provides that bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination. The petition was dismissed on January 13, 1992. On October 16, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, which motion was set for hearing on November 13, 1992, ten days after, the Sandiganbayan, of which the Presiding Justice Garchitorena is a member, set the criminal case for arraignment on November 13, 1992. On November 6, 1992, petitioner moved to defer the arraignment on the grounds that there was a pending motion for inhibition, and that petitioner intended to file a motion for a bill of particulars. However, on November 9, 1992, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to defer the arraignment.

More so, the petitioner cannot accept the legal morality of Sandiganbayan Justice Francis Garchitorena who would her from going to abroad for a Harvard scholarship because of graft charges against her. It appears that petitioner tried to leave the country without first securing the permission of the Sandiganbayan, prompting it to issue the hold-departure order which. The letter of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, written in defense of the dignity and integrity of the Sandiganbayan, merely stated that all persons facing criminal charges in court, with no exception, have to secure permission to leave the country.

The court issued the Resolution dated March 25, 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 March 11, 1993, ordering petitioner to post bail bonds for the 32 Amended Informations and from proceeding with the arraignment on April 12, 1993. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is charged with continued crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? HELD:

The 32 Amended Informations charged to the petitioner is known as delito continuado or continued crime and sometimes referred to as continuous crime. In fairness to the Ombudsmans Office of the Special Prosecutor, it should be borne in mind that the concept of delito continuado has been a vexing problem in Criminal Law difficult as it is to define and more difficult to apply. In the case at bench, the original information charged petitioner with performing a single criminal act that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The original information also averred that the criminal act: (i) committed by petitioner was in violation of a law Executive Order No. 324 dated April 13, 1988, (ii) caused an undue injury to one offended party, the Government, and (iii) was done on a single day, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed and its Resolution dated March 11, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 is modified in the sense that the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32 Amended Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371 to 18402) into one information charging only one offense under the original case number, i.e., No. 16698. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court on March 25, 21993 is lifted insofar as to the disqualification of Presiding Judge Francis Garchitorena is concerned. QUELNAN VS. PEOPLE (case digest) G.R. No. 166061 July 06, 2007 FACTS: Sometime in 1996, the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) was tasked to implement a search warrant to a certain Berard Lim for probably possessing MA HCI (Shabu). The team was escorted to the unit by the security officer (Punsaran), upon arrival at the place to be searched, a male person naked from the waist up opened the door, which was later identified as Quelnan. The team presented the search warrant and proceeded with the search. In the presence of Quelnan and Punsaran, they found on top of a bedroom table 3 pieces of transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which was later examined as Shabu. The next day, Quelnan was arrested for violation of Sec. 16 Art. III of RA 6425. Quelnan in his defense averred that he is not residing in the said unit, but he is the registered owner of the said unit, which he lwased to Sung Kok Lee beginning May 1996. That he was there during the search for he was collecting the rent. That he was forced to sign some documents at gunpoint, handcuffed and brought to PARAC Office. Two days later, he was brought to Makati Prosecutors Office for inquest and a case was filed against him. ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant was properly enforced provided that he was not the subject of the search warrant. Whether or not Quelnan was validly arrested.

RULING: Yes. There is no provision of law that requires the search warrant must name the person who occupies the described premises, that where the search warrant is issued for the search of a specifically described premises only and not for the search of a person, and failure to name to owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and search warrant does not invalidate the warrant. Yes. Quelnan was arrested inflagrante delicto. In the prosecution of illegal possession of shabu the following requisites must be present: 1. 2. 3. the accused is found in possession of regulated drug. the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.

That there must be intent to possess the drug, which includes actual possession or constructive possession. Actual possession exist when the drug is immediate physical possession or control of the accused, while constructive possession exist when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion over the place where it is found. Quelnan was found and caught in flagrante when the shabu was found in his constructive possession. CALIZO US vs. Bautista 6 Phil 681 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan GR 68203 9/13/1989 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Orteza GR 173051 (7/31/07) (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE)

GROUP C CAPUZ People vs. Escleio 84 Phil 121 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Cabrera GR 17855 3/4/1922 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Dizon 47 Phil 350 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) CASTANEDA US vs. Bautista 6 Phil 681 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Tolentino GR 1451 3/6/1906 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Ponte 20 Phil 379 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) CRUZ Govt. of Hongkong vs. Hon. Otalia GR 153675, 4/19/07 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Martinez vs. Morfe GR L-34022 3/24/1972 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Government of Hong Kong vs. Olalia GR 153675 April 19, 2007 Defendant Munoz was charged in Hong Kong and was being extradited to HK. However, he was granted bail by Olalia during the pendency of the extradition case.

Issue: Whether or not bail is applicable in extradition cases? Held: Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. Martinez vs. Morfe GR L-34022 March 24, 1972 Martinez and Bautista was part of the Constitutional Convention and was arrested for criminal offenses with penalty of prision mayor or higher. Issue: Martinez and Bautista was claiming immunity due for being part of Constitutional Convention along with Art. 145 of RPC. Held: When it comes to freedom from arrest, however, it would amount to the creation of a privileged class, without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal offense, they would be considered immune during their attendance in Congress and in going to and returning from the same. There is likely to be no dissent from the proposition that a legislator or a delegate can perform his functions efficiently and well, without the need for any transgression of the criminal law. Should such an unfortunate event come to pass, he is to be treated like any other citizen considering that there is a strong public interest in seeing to it that crime should not go unpunished.

DUMLAO People vs. Lol-lo 43 Phil 19 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Adelfo vs. Judge Intia 70 SCRA 460 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) SJS vs. Dangerous Drugs Board GR 157870 (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs Lol-lo Facts: It was on June 30, 1920 when two boats left Matuta, a Dutch possession for Peta another Dutch possession. One of the boat carried a Dutch subject while the other carried men, women, children, who are all subjects of Holland. After number of days of navigation, the second boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty four Moros all armed. The Moros asked for the cargo, attacked some men and brutally violated two women by methods too horrible to describe. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, with the exception of the two women, were again placed in the boat with holes made on it, on the idea that it wouold submerge, although as a matter of fact, these people were succored after eleven days. Two of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro the two women were able to escape. Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-taw, Sulu, Philippine Islands. They were arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy. A demurrer was interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros, based on the grounds that the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor any court of the Philippine Islands, that the facts did not constitute a public offense, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands.

Issue: Whether or not the crime of piracy committed by Lol-lo and Sarraw lack should be dismissed on the ground that the Court of First Instance lack jurisdiction to try the case Ruling: No. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. Piracy is not a crime against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the component tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. Alfelor vs Intia Facts: The principal petitioner, Felix Alfelor, and respondent Felix Funtebella were congressional candidates in the second district of Camarines Sur in the 1965 election with the latter being proclaimed as the winner resulting in the filing of an electoral protest by the former. Felix Funtebella charged his opponent and the other petitioners in the municipal trial court of Tigaon, Camarines Sur presided by the respondent Judge Intia, with falsification of public or official document contained in the ballot box of a precint in Parubcan, Camarines Sur, the alleged criminal act having taken place in still another municipality, Iriga, Camareines Sur. There was on the part of petitioners a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the situs of the alleged falsification being in another municipality. Respondent Judge in the challenged order issued on April 1967, denied the motion on the ground that falsification is a continuing offense. Another motion for reconsideration was filed but it was denied. Hence, this is a petition for certiorari and prohibition. Issue: Whether or not falsification of document is a continuing offense? Ruling: No. Falsification is not a continuing offense. Where public documents inside a ballot box were falsified in one municipality, the fact that said ballot box was carried to another municipality does not confer the municipal court of the latter any jurisdiction to try case of falsification of said documents placed in the said ballot box. It is a settled rule in criminal actions that the place where the criminal offense was committed not only determines the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is granted and the order of the respondent Judge is reversed. GROUP D FERNANDEZ D Govt of Hongkong vs. Hon. Otalia GR 153675, 4/19/07) (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Ferrer 48 SCRA 382 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Marasigan GR 6040 10/18/1940 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Ferrer Facts: On March 10, 1970, a prima facie case was filed against Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance in Tarlac concerning the Anti-Subversion Act. He was accused of being an officer or a ranked leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an outlawed and illegal organization aimed to overthrow the government of the Philippines by means of force, violence, deceit, subversion or any other illegal means. Co claimed that the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder. On May 25, 1970, Nilo Tayag and five others were also charged in the same court with subversion. Tayag copied Cos attack on the law. The court ruled

the statute void on the grounds that it is a bill of attainder and that it is vague overbroad. Government appealed to the SC as a special civil action for certiorari. Issues: WoN the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder WoN it is vague and overbroad WoN it denies the defendants the due process of the law Held And Ratio: No. Only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial does it become a bill of attainder. (US v. Lovett 328 US 303 1946) No. The contention about the word overthrow regarding the government (peaceful o verthrowing) is clarified by the provision of the clause: by means of force, violence, deceit, subversion or any other illegal means. No. The freedom of expression and freedom of association is superseded by the right of the state to selfpreservation. Govt of Hong Kong vs. Olalia, Jr. Fact: Private respondent was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of accepting an advantage as agent in violation of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. On Sept 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. The DOJ then forwarded the request to the NBI which, in turn, filed with the RTC of Manila. Then RTC issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him. However, the CA rendered its decision declaring the Order of Arrest void. Meanwhile, petitioner filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition and petition for bail of private respondent. After hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high flight risk. Issue: Whether or not a prospective extraditee may be granted bail? Held: Yes, the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.

The exercise of the States power to deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administrative proceedings, such as deportation and quarantine, have likewise been detained. Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights.

FERNANDEZ R People vs. Lol-lo 43 Phil 19 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Asuncion 208 SCRA 231 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Samson vs. CA 103 Phil 277 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Asuncion, 208 SCRA 231 G.R. Nos. 83837-42. April 22, 1992 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge of Branch 104, RTC, Quezon City, PATERNA RUIZ, NOLI G. NARCA, FR. NICK RUIZ, LYDIA R. NARCA, RODOLFO CORTEZ and TOMAS DOMINADO, respondents. FACTS: in February 1988, elements of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines apprehended the Paterna Ruiz, Noli Narca, Fr. Nick Ruiz, Lydia Narca, Rodolfo Corteza, and Tomas Dominado in separate operations. Ammunitions, firearms, and explosives were found in their possession, while subsequent searches in their respective hide outs resulted in the confiscation of several subversive materials, including documents showing that they are ranking members of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army. The respondent were then charged with illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives and violation of R.A. 1700 or the Subversive Act. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused have committed the complex crime of the absorption of the crime of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives to the crime of subversion. RULING: Petition was found meritorious with the following rationale: The dictum in the Hernandez case is not applicable in that case, considering that the legislature deemed it fit to provide for two distinct offenses: (1) illegal possession of firearms qualified by subversion (P.D. 1866) and (2) subversion qualified by the taking up of arms against the Government (R.A. 1700).

People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw, 43 Phil. 19 No. 17958. Feb 27, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. LOL-LO and SARAW, defendants and appellants. FACTS: On or about June 30,1920, A boat of Dutch possession was surrounded by vintas manned by armed Moros. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, took for themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of the women by methods too horrible to be described. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, with the exception of the two young women, were again placed on it and holes were made in it, with the idea that it would submerge, although as a matter of fact, these people, after eleven days of hardship and privation, were succored. Taking the two women with them, and repeatedly violating them, the Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. Two of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw, At Maruro the two women were able to escape. Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. There, they were arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy. ISSUE: Whether the CFI of Sulu has jurisdiction for the crime of piracy committed in other territories apart from the Philippines. RULING: Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. Samson vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 103 Phil. 277 Nos. L-10364 and L-10376. March 31, 1958 RUFINO T. SAMSON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents. FACTS: A couple alleging to be Espiridion Lascao and Rosalinda Paras were processing their claim papers as benefieries of Felipe Lascao, who is the son of Espiridion and who died during World War II. In October 2, 1948, Amado L. Cruz with the couple, asked the help of his former classmate Rufino T. Samson to get the checks of the claimants in Camp Murphy. Samson relied on the assurance of Cruz and the presented residence certificates presented by the couple and assisted the couple in obtaining their checks through the following means: (a) He asked Lt. Manuel Valencia to be the guarantor to secure the claimants checks, for which Valencia asceded because he knew Samson; (b) facilitated the encashment of the checks since the teller of the bank also relying on the representation of Samson; (c) at the front of the checks Samson signed as witness and at the back as endorser. It was later found that the couple identities were not true. Samson was jointly charged with Cruz and Bonifacio Vergara and two others involve with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of the two checks. The CFI of Manila found them guilty. They appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the same.

Samson was only found guilty of committing the crime through gross imprudence. Samson petitions the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not Samson is guilty of the complex crime of falsification through gross imprudence. RULING: The court affirms the decision appealed on the following rationale: 1. Acts of appellant constitute in each case the crime of estafa through falsification of a mercantile document by reckless imprudence, because of his acts of endorsing the respective checks by way of identification of the signatures of the payees entitled to said checks and their proceeds, constituted a written representation that the true payees participated in the indorsement and cashing of the checks aforesaid, when in truth and in fact the true payees had no direct intervention in the proceedings Even if such indorsement and identification were extraneous to the official duties of appellant, he would be nevertheless liable as a private person under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. Supreme Court of Spain assert the juridical standing of the crime of falsification by imprudence since in falsifying public or mercantile documents the element of intent to cause damage is not required because what the law seeks to repress is the prejudice to the public confidence in these documents. GALLARDO Astorga vs. People 154131, 10/1/03 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Justo vs. CA 99 Phil 453 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Laserna Jr., vs. Dangerous Drugs Board GR 158633 (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) LAO Milo vs. Salonga 152 SCRA 113 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Villalon 192 SCRA 521 (DEC. 14 AND JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Pimentel Jr. vs. COMELEC GR 161658 (JAN 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) GROUP E LUQUIAS Astorga vs. People 154131, 10/1/03 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Acierto 57 Phil 614 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Reyes 56 Phil 286 (DEC. 14, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Jurado 31 Phil 491 (JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MELECIO A. REYES G.R. NO. 34516, November 10, 1931

Main Principle: The defendants falsification of the time book with the intent to gain at the expense of the injured party, constitutes the crime of falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person, defined and penalized in article 304 of the Penal Code, and the accused and must suffer the corresponding penalty.

FACTS: Melecio A. Reyes was charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of a private document. The accused in this case was in charge of entering the laborers workdays in the time book of the C alamba Sugar Estate. He is accused of having falsified the time book by making it appear that the laborer Ciriaco Sario worked twenty-one days, when in reality he had only worked eleven; and having charged the wages of said laborer for twenty-one days, at the rate of P1 a day, he prejudiced the Calamba Sugar Estate in the amount of P10. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of estafa through falsification of a private document. The accused appealed from the judgment. ISSUE: Whether defendant is guilty of the crime estafa through falsification of a private document. RULING: The Supreme Court held that where the defendant is accused of estafa with falsification of a private document, or falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person, the weight of authority favors the doctrine that there are not two distinct crimes committed, estafa and falsification, and that article 89 of the Penal Code is not applicable. The Supreme Court held that they are of the opinion and so hold that the defendants falsification of the time book, with the intent of gain at the expense of the Calamba Sugar Estate constitutes the crime of falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person, defined and penalized in article 304 of the Penal Code. MEDINA Milo vs. Salonga 152 SCRA 113 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Arnault vs. Balagtas 97 Phil 358 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Castillo 6 Phil 453 (DEC. 14, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE)

TOPIC: ASSAULT UPON AN AGENT OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY G.R. No. L-36595 November 28, 1932

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEON ACIERTO, defendant-appellant. FACTS: At about 10 o'clock on the morning of March 2, 1931, while the offended party, Hipolito Velasco, duly appointed postmaster for the municipality of Bacarra, Province of Ilocos Norte, was in his office situated in the municipal building, counting two rolls of twenty-peso bills amounting in all to P4,000, the accused, Leon Acierto, entered the office without the postmaster's noticing it, and stood behind him. Without saying a word, the accused took one of the rolls, but the postmaster caught hold of his hand and took away the money, saying: "Get out of here, Lawyer, because we have plenty of work" the accused came back to his side, and as he did not want to be disturbed, he put the money in the safe, took the key to the office, and as he was going towards the door, said to the accused: "Be so good as to leave now, Lawyer".

the offended party approached the defendant quietly, and took hold of his left hand to conduct him outside. Whereupon the lawyer hit him in the right eye with his fist, leaving him stunned, and making him lose his balance. When he recovered, the accused again hit him, first in the right frontal region, and then below the left eye. As a result of the blows he had sustained, the offended party suffered an ecchymosis in the orbit of the left eye, and another in the frontal region, which took seven days to heal completely. ISSUE: Whether one offended party, Hipolito Velasco, as postmaster of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, who was discharging his duties at the time of the assault, is merely a public officer, or is an agent of authority besides. RULING: The postmaster of a municipality is an agent of the Director of Posts, and as such is in charge of the custody of the Government funds that come into his hands by virtue of the transactions with the public in postal matters, telegrams, savings bank, and so forth, and like a municipal treasurer is an agent of a person in authority in addition to being a public officer, inasmuch as the Director of Posts is a person in authority who by law exercises jurisdiction of his own in postal and telegraphic matters. Since the offended party, Hipolito Velasco was an agent of a person in authority when he was attacked, the defendant herein having laid hands upon him, the crime of which the latter is guilty is assault upon an agent of a person in authority In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold: (1) That a postmaster is an agent of a person in authority; and (2) that the slight physical injuries sustained by such an agent as a result of the defendant's laying hands upon him, are inherent in the offense of assault upon an agent of a person in authority

G.R. No. L-6749

July 30, 1955

CONTEMPT

JEAN L. ARNAULT, petitioner-appellee, vs. EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS, as Director of Prisons, respondent-appellant. FACTS: Petitioner-appellee was an attorney in-fact or Ernest H. Burt in the negotiations for the purchase of the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines. The purchase was effected on October 21, 1949 and the price paid for both estates was P5,000,000. On February 27, 1950, the Senate of the Philippines adopted Resolution No. 8, whereby it created a Special Committee to determine "whether the said purchase was honest, valid and proper, and whether the price involved in the deal was fair and just, the parties responsible therefor, any other facts the Committee may deem proper in the premises." In the investigation conducted by the Committee in pursuance of said Resolution, petitioner-appellee was asked to whom a part of the purchase price, or P440,000, was delivered. Petitioner-appellee refused to answer this question.

hereupon the Committee resolved on May 15, 1950, to order his commitment to the custody of the Sergeant at-arms of the Philippines Senate and imprisoned in the new Bilibid Prison in Rizal until such time when he shall reveal to the Senate or to the Special Committee the name of the person who received the P440,000 and to answer questions pertinent thereto. ISSUE: Whether of Not the Senate has the authority to commit a witness who refuses to answer a question pertinent to a legislative inquiry RULING: The Senate found as a fact that petitioner "has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to reveal the person to whom he gave the amount of P440,000" and that the situation of petitioner "has not materially charged since he was committed to prison." The Senate has the authority to commit a witness if he refuses to answer a question pertinent to a legislative inquiry, to compel him to give the information, i.e., by reason of its coercive power, not its punitive power.

PAGSANJAN US vs. Samonte 16 Phil 516 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Negros Oriental II Electric Coop vs. Sang. Panglungsod of Dumaguete 156 SCRA 421 (DEC. 7 AND DEC. 14 ASSIGNED CASE) Hock Lian vs. Republic 17 SCRA 188(JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) United States vs. Jurado 31 PHIL 491 Perjury- if the false testimony of the witness is not important, essential or material to the principal matter under investigation, it can not properly be held that the crime of perjury has been committed. Facts: This a case against Francisco Jurado with the crime of perjury. Dionisio Jacosalem, provincial fiscal of Cebu investigated the matter of robbery of some tins of opium committed in the house of Jurado by Alejandro Albao, a policeman. The opium involved belonged to Vicente Lizarraga who had taken it to the said house to sell it to the residents of the town. Lizarraga stated that Jurado was present at the time of the robbery but when Jurado was called to testify as an eyewitness to the crime he denied under oath that he was at home the night of the robbery as he was in the cinematography together with his family. He also said that he did not know either Lizarraga or Albao. But in the proceedings brought against Ciriaco Singson for robbery, commenced on September 24, 1913, Jurado testifying as a witness for the defense, stated under oathe that he had known Vicente Lizarraga since the month of June and thate he was already acquainted with Albao. Issue: Whether or not Francisco Jurado commits perjury Ruling: The court said that in order that a witness, in testifying under oath before a public official authorized to administer same commit the crime of perjury and incur the penalty prescribed by section 3 of Act No. 1697, it is necessary and indispensable that he testify to and declare under oath with regard to some material matter which he does not believe to be true, or that such false testimony tend to establish something which conflicts with the truth of an essential or important fact which has been proven by the

evidence; because, if the false testimony of the witness is no important, essential or material to the principal matter under investigation, it can not properly be held that the crime of perjury has been committed. In the case at bar the principal object of the investigation held by Jacosalem was to find out whether Alejandro Albao had actually been in Jurados house where Lizarraga was that night with several tims of opium for sale, and whether on that occasion Albao succeeded in compelling Lizarraga to deliver to him the tins of opium which Lizarraga was carrying and which Albao seized, took away with him and appropriated to himself and which have not yet been recovered. The defendant testified that he learned from Isabelo Alburo that Lizarraga had in fact been it the house with tis of opium for sale, but that witness did not see them because he was that ight in the cinematograph with his family. The testimony did not contradict any evidence in the record. Thus, for lack of sufficient proof of the falsity of that statement by the owner of the house, the defendant Jurado, for it was not proven that it was false and, as he certainly was in his own house on the said night of the robbery, it cannot be held that, in testifying he did, he perjured himself.

PASION Sanchez vs. Hon. Dimetriou GR 111771-77, 11/9/93 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Ramayrat 22 Phil 183 (DEC. 7 AND DEC. 14 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Hernandez GR 15619-R (11/20/60) (JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) GROUP F SERRANO US vs. Samonte 16 Phil 516 (NOV 23 AND DEC 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Abad Santos GR L-976 10/22/1902 (DEC. 14, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Diaz vs. People 191 SCRA 86 (JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) SIA Sanchez vs. Hon. Dimetriou GR 111771-77, 11/9/93 (NOV 23 AND DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Giron vs. Sandiganbayan GR 145357-59 8/23/2006 (DEC. 14, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Padol 68 SCRA 365 (JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) TARCA People vs. Herson Tan GR 117321, 2/11/98 (NOV 23 AND DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Nicasio Capule 24 Phil 13 (DEC. 14, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) TUALLA Marcos vs. Manglapus GR 88211, 9/15/89 (DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Capistrano 40 Phil 491 (JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) Marcos vs Manglapus Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, specifically Sections 1 and 6. They contended that Pres. Aquino is without power to impair the

liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so within the limits prescribed by law. Nor the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. They further assert that under international law, their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution, the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Held: "It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's country, a distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave the country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state". On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any country, including his own. Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national security, public order, public health or morals or the separate rights of others. However, right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived. It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to ones country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel. The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of International Law and under our Constitution as part of the law of the land. The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime. The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. GROUP G TUPAZ People vs. Herson Tan GR 117321, 2/11/98 (NOV 23, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Quasha 93 Phil 333 (DEC. 14 AND JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) La Chemise Lacoste vs. Hon. Fernandez GR 6379-97 (5/21/84) JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERSON TAN y VERZO, accused-appellant. FACTS: Tricycle driver Freddie Saavedra went to see his wife, Delfa, a to inform her that he will drive Lito Amido and appellant Herson Tan to Barangay Maligaya. It was the last time that Freddie was seen alive. His body was later found sprawled on a diversion road with fourteen stab wounds.

Subsequently, Lt. Santos, Cpl. Numeriano Aguilar and Pat. Rolando Alandy invited appellant in connection with the instant case and with respect to two other robbery cases reported in Lucena City. During their conversation, appellant allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually transpired in the case at bar. He narrated that he and co-accused Amido were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle and the consequent death of Saavedra. Moreover, he averred that they sold the motorcycle to a certain Danny Teves of Barrio Summit, Muntinlupa. With the help of appellant as a guide, the Lucena PNP immediately dispatched a team to retrieve the same. Tan and Amido were charged with the crime of highway robbery with murder Lt. Carlos, on cross-examination, testified that when he invited appellant to their headquarters, he had no warrant for his arrest. In the course thereof, he informed the latter that he was a suspect, not only in the instant case, but also in two other robbery cases allegedly committed in Lucena City. In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station, he admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel; nor did he reduce the supposed confession to writing. In a decision dated April 21, 1994, the trial court convicted appellant. ISSUE: Whether or not the confession of the appellant, given before a police investigator upon invitation and without the benefit of counsel, is admissible in evidence against him. HELD: No. It is well-settled that the Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived there from shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant. R.A. No. 7438 reinforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial investigation, a pertinent provision of which reads: As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

People V. Quasha (1953) G.R. No. L-6055 FACTS: William H. Quasha a member of the Philippine bar, committed a crime of falsification of a public and commercial document for causing it to appear that Arsenio Baylon, a Filipino citizen, had subscribed to and was the owner of 60.005 % of the subscribed capital stock of Pacific Airways Corp. (Pacific) when in reality the money paid belongs to an American citizen whose name did not appear in the article of incorporation, to circumvent the constitutional mandate that no corp. shall be authorize to operate as a public utility in the Philippines unless 60% of its capital stock is owned by Filipinos. Found guilty after trial and sentenced to a term of imprisonment and a fine June 12, 1953

Quasha appealed to this Court Primary purpose: to carry on the business of a common carrier by air, land or water Baylon did not have the controlling vote because of the difference in voting power between the preferred shares and the common shares ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. ART. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum period and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document.

ISSUE: W/N Quasha should be criminally liable

HELD: NO. Acquitted. falsification consists in not disclosing in the articles of incorporation that Baylon was a mere trustee ( or dummy as the prosecution chooses to call him) of his American co-incorporators, thus giving the impression that Baylon was the owner of the shares subscribed to by him For the mere formation of the corporation such revelation was not essential, and the Corporation Law does not require it The moment for determining whether a corporation is entitled to operate as a public utility is when it applies for a franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for that purpose. that can be done after the corporation has already come into being and not while it is still being formed so far as American citizens are concerned, the said act has ceased to be an offense within the meaning of the law, so that defendant can no longer be held criminally liable therefor. VILLAREAL Marcos vs. Manglapus GR 88211, 9/15/89 (NOV 23 AND DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Po Giok To 96 Phil 917 (DEC. 14 AND JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Manuel 7 Phil 221 (JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE)

U.S. vs. Manuel, 7 Phil. 221 Facts: The soda water, lemonade, and other aerated waters manufactured by A. S. Watson & Co., were sold in bottles specially made for the purpose, with their trademark blown on the side in large raised letters and figures. On those bottles labels were pasted also bearing the said trademark. The accused manufactured and sold a number of bottles of aerated waters in bottles identical in form and appearance with those used by A. S. Watsons & Co., with the trademark of that firm blown on the side of the bottles. On the bottles sold by the accused there were pasted labels with his name, the printed matter contained in these labels bearing different from that contained in the labels of A.S. Watsons & Co. Issue: Whether or not the accused Manuel is guilty of Unfair Competition under Article 189 of the RPC Held: The accused was found guilty for violating Unfair competition under article 189 as selling of his soft drinks in the bottles of A.S. Watson & Company gave his goods the general appearance of the soft drinks manufactured by that firm, in a way which would likely to influence purchasers to believe that goods offered were those of A. S. Watsons & Co. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs PO GIOK TO, defendant-appellee. Facts: On 7th of January 1952 the clerk of the treasurers office in Cebu issued a residence certificate to Po Giok To, stipulating false information on the document as to his full name, place of birth, citizenship, civil status, length of residence in the city, occupation which are required to appear in the residence certificate of which. The defendant- appellee was charged with violation of article 171 of the Revised Penal Code in falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesial minister, under its paragraph 4, to wit, Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The defendant appellee argues that (1) it is essential that there is intent to injure a third person in committing the violation, (2) and that a resident certificate is a document which does not require legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts, and therefore with the absence of these requisites, he did not violate the law. Issue: Whether or not the defendant-appellee is guilty of falsification of a public officer, employee or ecclesial Minister under Article 171 of the RPC. Held: The defendant-appellee is guilty. CA No. 465 is a law that mandates the establishing of facts of information on the residence certificate which serves as the legal obligation for the accused to stipulate in his residence certificate. Likewise, the court also ruled that the wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure a third person is not essential element of the crime of falsification of public document. The residence certificate is a public document, wherefore to injure a third person is not necessary in the case. Wherefore, the accused met all the requirements in violation of Article 171 of the RPC.

Marcos vs. Manglapus GA No. 88211 Facts: After Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from the presidency, he and his family fled to Hawaii. Now in his deathbed, petitioners are asking the court to order the respondents to issue their travel documents and enjoin the implementation of the Presidents decision to bar their return to the Philippines. Petitioners contend under the provision of the Bill of Rights that the President is without power to impair their liberty of abode because only a court may do so within the limits prescribed by law. Nor, according to the petitioners, may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. Issue: Does the president have the power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines? Ruling: The President has the obligation, under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance national interest. This case calls for the exercise of the Presidents power as protector of the peace. The president is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country bolsters the conclusion that their return at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the state and instigate more chaos. The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking preemptive actions against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct protection of the people is the essence of the duty of the government. The Supreme Court held that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining the return of the petitioners at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare prohibiting their return to the Philippines. The petition is DISMISSED. Related to Article 127: Expulsion ZACARIAS People vs. Elamparo GR 121572, 3/31/2000 (NOV 23 AND DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) People vs. Montana and Cabagsang 57 Phil 599 (DEC. 14 AND JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) ZAFE People vs. Baes 68 Phil 203 (NOV 23 AND DEC. 7, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) US vs. Kyburz 28 Phil 475 (JAN. 11, 2013 ASSIGNED CASE) OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS People vs. Baes

The case where the funeral passed thru theCatholic churchyard. The court held that WON the act complainedof is offensive to the religious feelings of theCatholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings of theCatholics and not those of other faithful ones,for it is possible that certain acts may offendthe feelings of those who profess a certainreligion, while not otherwise offensive to thefeelings of those professing another faith. Laurel Dissenting: Offense to religiousfeelings should not be made to depend uponthe more or less broad or narrow conceptionof any given particular religion but should begauged having in view the nature of the actscommitted and after scrutiny of all the factsand circumstances which should be viewedthrough the mirror of an unbiased judicialcriterion. Otherwise, the gravity of leniency of the offense would hinge in the subjectivecharacterization of the act from the point of view of a given religious denomination or sectand in such a case, the application of the laww o u l d b e p a r t i a l a n d a r b i t r a r y, w i t h a l , dangerous, especially in a country said toonce the scene of religious intolerance andprosecution.