Anda di halaman 1dari 2

CASE DIGEST ON CRIMINAL LAW I

RIZOS, KRISTINE LARA E.


1
ST
YEAR L.L.B.
DEAN MANUEL BUSTAMANTE
JACINTO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILPPINES,
G.R. NO. 162540 JULY 13, 2009
FACTS:
Jacinto worked as a collector for Mega Foam International Inc., she did not
remit to her employer the check issued by the latters customer and, instead,
deposited it to the bank account of her brother-in-law. The check, however,
bounced. Jacinto was found guilty of the crime of qualified theft.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Jacinto was guilty of qualified theft.
HELD:
No. What Jacinto committed was an impossible crime defined and penalized
under Article $ paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code which provides, Article
4(2). Criminal Responsibility. - Criminal responsibility shall be incurred: 2. By
any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
on account of the employment of inadequate to ineffectual means. All the
requisites are present in this case: (1.) Jacinto performed all the acts to
consummate the crime of
qualified theft, which is crime against property; (2.) Jacintos evil intent
cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for
her employer showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched; and (3.) The
crime of qualified theft was not produced because of the extraneous
circumstance that the check was unfunded and was subsequently
dishonored.
RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS,
1
petitioner,vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent
G.R. No. 165483 September 12, 2006
FACT: On January 16, 1998, around 8:00 in the evening, brothers Servillano, Melton, and
MichaelFerrer were having their drinking spree at their house but later decided to proceed to Tidbits

VideokeBar to continue their drinking spree and to sing. Thereafter, Jaime Palaganas arrived together
withFerdinand Palaganas (nephew) and Virgilio Bautista. Later, when Jaime was singing, Melton
Ferrer
sang along with him as he was familiar with the song
My Way
. Jaime got irritated and insulted. He
felt he was being mock
ed by Melton Ferrer that caused him to go to Ferrers table and utter statementswhich
began the fight. With this, Ferdinand, Jaimes nephew, sought help to his brother,
Rujjeric
Palaganas, who was now the petitioner in this case. They went to the bar and upon seeing the Ferrer
soutside, Ferdinand, pointing at the Ferrers, instructed Rujjeric to shoot them. Rujjeric
Palaganas shot
Servillano, Melton, and Michael with the use of unlicensed firearm. As a result, Melton was
killed,Servillano was fatally wounded, and Michael was shot in his right shoulder.On October 28, 1998,
RTC of Pangasinan decided in 3 Criminal Cases finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of homicide and two (2) counts of frustrated homicide of Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code. On September 30, 2004, Court of Appeals AFFIRMED thedecision
of the lower court with modifications considering his voluntary surrender as ordinarymitigating
circumstance. However, on November 16, 2004, petitioner prayed for the reversal of thedecision
holding that the CA erred in affirming the judgment of conviction of RTC and in not aquiitinghim on the
ground of self-defense. Hence, this
certiorar
i.ISSUE:
Whether or not the use of the unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating
circumstancewhich should be appreciated by the court at the case at bar?
HELD: YES. An aggravating circumstance was provided for under PD No. 1866 as amended by
RA8294 which is a special law that was passed on June 6, 1997.
Its pertinent provision states: If homicide or murder is committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of anunlicensed firearm shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance
. This specialaggravating circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Voluntarysurrender of petitioner in this case is merely an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. Thus, it cannot offsetthe special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
firearm. In accordance with Article 64,paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposable
on petitioner should be in its maximumperiod. Therefore, decision was AFFIRMED by SC with certain
modifications appreciating the specialaggravating circumstance in the case at bar.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai