CASE DIGEST: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No.

168852

Title: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852

Subject Matter: Applicability of the doctrine of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code to R.A. 9262
(Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004)

Facts:

On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this union, two female
children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the
marriage, petitioner Go-Tan filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective
Order (TPO) against Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological, and
economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5) and (i) of Republic
Act No. 9262.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be included
in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA 9262.

Held:

Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the
offender be ralted or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. In Section
47 of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal principles
developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under
special laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.
PEOPLE vs DELANTAR Case Digest
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SIMPLICIO DELANTAR
G.R. No. 169143 February 2, 2007

FACTS: An information for violation of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 was filed
against appellant Simplicio Delantar y Redondo. The testimony of AAA shows that appellant procured
her as a child prostitute for at least two clients: the first, an Arab national named Mr. Hammond and
the second, then Congressman Romeo Jalosjos. AAA testified that she was brought to the first client
at least eleven (11) times between the period 1994 to June 1996. Once left alone with AAA, the client
would perform lascivious acts on AAA, the recurrent salient points of her harrowing experience
revolved around the client's kissing her, touching her breasts, embracing her, and inserting his finger
in her private parts. After their first visit to the client, AAA told appellant that she did not want to go
back because the client was "bastos." Appellant promised her that they would no longer go back but
the promise was broken as they went back a few more times.

As with the first client, appellant would tell AAA that they had to go to the second client because they
had obligations to pay. During each of these visits, the client would give AAA money ranging from
P2,000.00 to P10,000.00. The details of what transpired when AAA was left alone with the second
client were vividly recounted in People v. Jalosjos, where the second client was convicted of two (2)
counts of rape and six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness, all committed against AAA on various
dates.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Section 5 (a),
paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of Article III of R.A. No. 7610. On appeal, the CA found the appellant guilty of
only one count of violation of Section 5 (a), paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of Article III of R.A. No. 7610.

ISSUE: Was the accused guilty for violation of R.A. No. 7610?

HELD: Yes. There is no doubt, drawing from the evidence, that AAA was a child who was exploited in
prostitution as defined in Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610. The law punishes not only the person
who commits the acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with the child but also those who
engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution. Appellant is one such person. Appellant,
in his brief, does not deny that he brought AAA to the clients. He, however, attempts to exculpate
himself by stating that he did not coerce or influence AAA to go to the two clients to be exploited in
prostitution. Verily, it was against AAA's will and consent to see the two clients. But even if AAA had
in fact consented, appellant may still be prosecuted for child prostitution under Section 5, Article III of
R.A. No. 7610 because the child's consent or lack of it is not an element of the offense.
2. Jose Jinggoy Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002)

FACTS: In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against the former President
of the Philippines Joseph Ejercito Estrada, five criminal complaints against the former President and
members of his family, his associates, friends and conspirators were filed with the respondent Office of
the Ombudsman.

On April 4, 2001, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause warranting the filing
with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal charges against the former President and the other
respondents therein. One of the charges was for the plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among
the respondents was the formers presidents son the petitioner in this case Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, then
mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.

The charge was amended and filed on April 18, 2001. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558, the case was
assigned to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The arraignment of the accused was set on July 10,
2001. No bail for petitioner's provisional liberty was fixed. On April 24, 2001, petitioner filed a "Motion
to Quash or Suspend" the Amended Information on the ground that the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act
No. 7080, is unconstitutional and that it charged more than one offense. Respondent Ombudsman
opposed the motion.

On April 25, 2001, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner and his co-accused. On
its basis, petitioner and his co-accused were placed in custody of the law. On April 30, 2001, petitioner
filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: (1) no probable cause exists to put him on trial and
hold him liable for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and not in
a "series or combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled to
bail as a matter of right.

On July 9, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner's "Motion to Quash and
Suspend" and "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion." Petitioner's alternative prayer to post bail was set for
hearing after arraignment of all the accused.

The Amended Information is divided into three parts: (1) the first paragraph charges former President
Joseph E. Estrada with the crime of plunder together with petitioner Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie
"Atong" Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda Ricaforte and others; (2) the second paragraph spells out in
general terms how the accused conspired in committing the crime of plunder; and (3) the four sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts constitutive of the crime of plunder pursuant
to items (1) to (6) of R.A. No. 7080, and state the names of the accused who committed each act.

Pertinent to the case at bar is the predicate act alleged in subparagraph (a) of the Amended Information
which is of "receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances, money in the aggregate
amount of P545,000,000.00 for illegal gambling in the form of gift, share, percentage, kickback or any
form of pecuniary benefit" In this subparagraph (a), petitioner, in conspiracy with former President
Estrada, is charged with the act of receiving or collecting money from illegal gambling amounting to
P545 million
ISSUES: (a) Whether the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act No. 7080, is unconstitutional; (b) whether
petitioner Jose Jinggoy Estrada may be tried for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly
involved in one act or offense that is illegal gambling and not in a "series or combination of overt or
criminal acts" as required in R.A. No. 7080.

RULING: Regarding the first issue, the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7080 has already been settled
in the case of Joseph Estrada v. Sandiganbayan.

With respect to the second issue, while it is clear that all the accused named in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d)
thru their individual acts conspired with the former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17, as the Amended
Information is worded, however, it is not certain whether the accused persons named in sub-paragraphs
(a) to (d) conspired with each other to enable the former President to amass the subject ill-gotten
wealth.

In view of the lack of clarity in the Information, the Court held petitioner Jose Jinggoy Estrada cannot
be penalized for the conspiracy entered into by the other accused with the former President as related
in the second paragraph of the Amended Information in relation to its sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). Instead,
the petitioner can be held accountable only for the predicate acts that he allegedly committed as
related in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information which were allegedly done in conspiracy with
the former President whose design was to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than P4 billion.

However, if the allegation should be proven, the penalty of petitioner cannot be unclear. It. will be no
different from that of the former President for in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of the other. The
imposable penalty is provided in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, viz.:

"Section 2. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with the members of his family, relatives
by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in
Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) (now P75,000,000.00 under RA 7080, as amended) shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by reclusion Perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the
said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be
punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance
of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered
by the court."

The Court added that it cannot fault the Ombudsman for including the predicate offenses alleged in sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Amended information in one and not four separate Informations.