1. U.S. v.

Go Chico This case is about a municipal mayor charged with illegal diversion of food int
Facts: On or about the 4th day of August, 1908, appellant Go Chico displayed ended for those suffering from malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconsiderati
in one of the windows and one of the show cases of his store in No. 89 Calle on projects affecting the homes of victims of calamities.
Rosario, Manila, a number of medallions, in the form of a small button, upon
which were printed the miniature faces of Emilio Aguinaldo and the flag or
Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of rice and boxes of sardines in
banner or device used during the late insurrection in the Phil. Islands to
its storeroom. And since she had already distributed food to the mother volun
designate and identify those in armed insurrection against the United States.
teers, what remained could be given to the CSAP beneficiaries.
On the day previous to the one set forth above, the appellant had purchased
the said medallion sold at a public sale under the authority of the sheriff of the
city of Manila. On the day in question, the appellant was arranging his stock of Garcia and Polinio went to petitioner Arnold James M. Ysidoro, the Leyte Mun
goods for the purpose of displaying them to the public, and in doing so, he icipal Mayor, to seek his approval. After explaining the situation to him, Ysidor
placed the medallions in his showcase and on one of the windows of his store. o approved the release and signed the withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice an
The appellant was ignorant of any law against the display of such medallions d two boxes of sardines worth P3, 396.00 to CSAP.
and had consequently no corrupt intention. The facts stated above are
admitted. The appellant has two propositions for his acquittal: first is that before
She also pointed out that the Supplemental Feeding Implementation Guidelin
a conviction can be had, a criminal intent upon the part of the accused must be
es for Local Government Units governed the distribution of SFP goods. Thus,
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Second is that the prohibition of law is
Ysidoro committed technical malversation when he approved the distribution o
directed against the use of identical banners, devices or emblems actually used
f SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries.
during the Philippine insurrection by those in armed rebellion against the United
States.
The evidence shows that on November 8, 2000 the Sangguniang Bayan of Le
Issue: Whether or not criminal intent is necessary in crimes punishable by yte enacted Resolution 00-
special laws. 133 appropriating the annual general fund for 2001. This appropriation was ba
sed on the executive budget which allocated P100,
Held: The court ruled that the act alone, irrespective of its motive, constitutes 000.00 for the SFP and P113,
the crime. The words used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands 957.64 for the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services whic
to designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States h covers the CSAP housing projects.
mean not only the identical flags actually used in the insurrection, but any flag
which is of that type. The description refers not to a particular flag, but to a type
The Sandiganbayan held that Ysidoro applied public property to a pubic purpo
of flag. The literal interpretation of a statute may lead to an absurdity, or
se other than that for which it has been appropriated by law or ordinance.
evidently fail to give the real intent of the legislature.

ISSUE 1:

Whether or not he approved the diversion of the subject goods to a public pur
pose different from their originally intended purpose

RULING 1:
2. Ysidoro vs People of the Philippines, GR 192330 (Partial Digest)
Posted on September 17, 2016 The crime of technical malversation as penalized under Article 220 of the Revi
FACTS:
sed Penal Code has three elements: a) that the offender is an accountable pu
blic officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration
 to some public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or propert ISSUE 3:
y were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appr
opriated by law or ordinance.
Whether or not good faith is a valid defense for technical malversation

The creation of the two items shows the Sanggunians intention to appropriate
RULING 3:
separate funds for SFP and the CSAP in the annual budget.

Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes t

Since the municipality bought the subject goods using SFP funds, then those
he act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particul
goods should be used for SFPs needs, observing the rules prescribed for ide
ar public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, me
ntifying the qualified beneficiaries of its feeding programs. The target clientele
aning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal
of the SFP according to its manual are: 1) the moderately and severely under
offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations
weight pre-
of public policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defi
school children aged 36 months to 72 months; and 2) the families of six memb
ned by the law, and not the character or effect thereofthat determines whether
ers whose total monthly income is P3, 675.00 and below.
or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is com
pletely irrelevant.
Ysidoro disregarded the guidelines when he approved the distribution of the g
oods to those providing free labor for the rebuilding of their own homes. This i
3. U.S. v. Sweet, 1 Phil. 18 (1901)
s technical malversation. If Ysidoro could not legally distribute the construction
materials appropriated for the CSAP housing beneficiaries to the SFP malnou
rished clients neither could he distribute the food intended for the latter to CS FACTS: Sweet was employed by the United States military who committed an
AP beneficiaries. offense against a POW. His case is filed with the CFI, who is given original
jurisdiction in all criminal cases for
which a penalty of more than 6 months is imposed. He is now contending that
ISSUE 2:
the courts are without jurisdiction because he was acting in the line of duty.

Whether or not the goods he approved for diversion were in the nature of savi
ngs that could be used to augment the other authorized expenditures of the m
unicipality
RULING 2:
The subject goods could not be regarded as savings. The SFP is a continuing
program that ran throughout the year. Consequently, no one could say in mid
- acts are within the jurisdiction of the CFI because he failed
June 2001 that SFP had already finished its project, leaving funds or goods th
at it no longer needed. The fact that Polinio had already distributed the food it
ems needed by the SFP beneficiaries for the second quarter of 2001 does not
mean that the remaining food items in its storeroom constituted unneeded sa
vings. Since the requirements of hungry mouths are hard to predict to the last
sack of rice or can of sardines, the view that the subject goods were no longer
needed for the remainder of the year was quite premature.
ISSUES:
1. WON this case is within the jurisdiction of the CFI.
Yes. By Act No. 136 of the US-Phil Commission, the CFIs are given original
jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which a penalty more than 6 months
imprisonment or a fine greater
than $100 may be imposed. Furthermore, CFIs have jurisdiction to try
offenders charged with violation of the Penal Code within their territorial limits,
regardless of the military character of the accused. The defendant and his
to prove that he was indeed acting in the line of duty.
2. WON an assault committed by a soldier or military employee upon a
prisoner of war is not an offense under the penal code?
Yes. Though assault by military officer against a POW is not in the RPC,
physical assault charges may be pressed under the RPC.
3. Assuming that it is an offence under the penal code, whether or not the was arrested and imprisoned for the service of his sentence. On October 9,
military character sustained by the person charged with the offence at the 2001, Dimagiba filed with the RTC of Baguio city a petition for writ of habeas
time of its commission exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil
tribunals? corpus which was granted by the said court after hearing the case.

No. The application of the general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil
tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character brought before
them for trial (R.A. Issues:
No. 7055). Appellant claims that the act was servicebut this cannot affect the
right of the Civil Court to takes jurisdiction of the case.
(1) Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy.
Judgment: Judgment thereby affirmed An offense charged against a military
officer in consequence of an act done in obedience to an order is clearly
shown on the face, where such offense is against the military law, is not within
the jurisdiction of the courts of the Civil Government. (2) Whether or not SC-AC No. 12-2000 can be given retroactive application.

4. Go vs. Dimagiba
Post under case digests, Criminal Law at Wednesday, February 29,
2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Held:

Facts: Fernando Dimagiba issued to Susan Go thirteen checks which, when (1) No. The respondent had previously sought the modification of his sentence

presented to the drawee bank for encashment or payment on the due dates, in a Motion for Reconsideration and in a Motion for the Partial Quashal of the

were dishonored for the reason account closed. Subqequently, Dimagiba was Writ of Execution. The remedy should have been an appeal of the MTCC Order

prosecuted for 13 counts of violation of BP 22 (An Act Penalizing the Making or denying these motions. His petition for writ of habeas corpus was clearly an

Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for attempt to reopen a case that had already become final and executory, an

Other Purposes, approved on April 3, 1979). He was found guilty by the MTCC, action deplorably amounting to forum shopping.

was sentenced three months imprisonment, and was ordered to pay the
offended party the amount he owed plus interest. On February 27, 2001,
(2) No. The rule on retroactivity states that criminal laws may be applied
Dimagiba filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for the Partial
retroactively if favorable to the accused. SC-AC No. 12-2000 cannot be given
Quashal of the Writ of Execution, praying for the recall of the Order of Arrest
retroactive application for it is not a law that deletes the penalty of imprisonment.
and the modification of the final decision. Citing SC-AC No. 12-2000, he pointed
It is merely a rule of preference as to which penalty should be imposed under
out that the penalty of fine only, instead of imprisonment also, should have been
the peculiar circumstances of the case.
imposed on him. The MTCC denied the motion for reconsideration; Dimagiba
5. US vs. Divino, 12 Phil 175
Post under case digests, Criminal Law at Wednesday, February 22,
2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
Facts: The Court of First Instance convicted Feliciano Divino for the crime of
lesions graves and was sentenced to two years and eleven months and
suspension from public office.
A girl named Alfonsa, about 13 years of age when the incident happened, was
a servant for Feliciano Divino and his family. She is a member of the Bagobo
tribe, and because of lack of proper nutrients in the tribe, her body was full of
scars. Her feet were the focus in this case because it is said that Feliciano
Divino burned her feet, in a very unorthodox and harmful way in a sense, by
setting her feet on fire after applying petroleum to it and tying her down to the
floor. He argued in the court that when Alfonsa came to their home, her body
was full of scars and ulcers, and that the ulcer in her body was cured, through
his efforts, except those on her feet. He tried many times to cure her feet but
failed because the girl would always walk barefoot outside and that she would
run whenever she was being cured because of the pain being inflicted in the
process. On the day of the incident, Feliciano said to have tied her up so she
wont run during the process and then left her feet burning for about an hour
and then afterwards locked her up. He argued that the ulcer was getting worse
and smelled quite offensively.
Issue: Whether Feliciano Divino can be acquitted because he argued that he
acted in good faith and did not mean any harm to the girl, except to help her get
cured.
Held: Medical arguments were brought in the light of the decision and that a
doctor clearly identified that the scars on Alfonsas feet were indeed because
of burns and that the wounds became worse on account of Felicianos efforts
to cure them. Certainly it was found certain that the acts of the guilty person do
not seem to have been intended to cause an evil, but rather as a remedy.
However, article 568 or the Penal Code clearly states that a person that
undertakes medical assistance to another person is liable for any injuries
resulting from such treatment, and the fact that he acted in good faith and
according to the best of his ability does not relieve him from responsibility,
although his ignorance may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. In lieu,
the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of First Instance and sentence Divino
to simple imprudence to the penalty of four months and suspension from office
and right to suffrage and to pay the costs of both instances.
6. Case Title: US vs Bull, 15 Phil 7
Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code
Facts:
On December 2, 1908, a steamship vessel engaged in the transport of animals
named Stanford commanded by H.N. Bull docked in the port of Manila,
Philippines. It was found that said vessel from Ampieng, Formosa carried 674
heads of cattle without providing appropriate shelter and proper suitable means
for securing the animals which resulted for most of the animals to get hurt and
others to have died while in transit.
This cruelty to animals is said to be contrary to Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the
Philippine Constitution. It is however contended that cases cannot be filed
because neither was it said that the court sitting where the animals were
disembarked would take jurisdiction, nor did it say about ships not licensed
under Philippine laws, like the ships involved.
Issue:
Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a
foreign ship while inside the territorial waters of the Philippines.
Held:
Yes. When the vessel comes within 3 miles from the headlines which embrace
the entrance of Manila Bay, the vessel is within territorial waters and thus, the
laws of the Philippines shall apply. A crime committed on board a Norwegian
merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts
of the Philippines if the illegal conditions existed during the time the ship was
within the territorial waters - regardless of the fact that the same conditions
existed when the ship settled from the foreign port and while it was on the high
seas,
In light of the above restriction, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced
to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
7. Case Title: US vs Look Chow, 18 Phil 573
Subject Matter: Applicability of the provisions of Art 2 of the Revised Penal Code
Facts:
Between 11 and 12 o'clock a.m. in August 19, 1909, the Port of Cebu and
internal revenue agent of Cebu, respectively, went aboard the steamship Erroll
to inspect and search its cargo, and found two sacks containing opium. The
defendant stated freely and voluntarily that he had bought these sacks of opium
in Hong Kong with the intention of selling them as contraband in Mexico or Vera
Cruz, and that as his hold had already been searched several times for opium
he ordered two other chinamen to keep the sack. All the evidence found
properly constitutes corpus delicti.
It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it
came from Hong Kong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports in
Manila and Cebu.
Issue:
Whether or not courts of local state can exercise its jurisdiction over foreign
vessels stationed in its port.
Held:
Yes. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the matter. The mere
possession of a thing of prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel
in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime
triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being considered
as an extension of its own nationality. However, the same rule does not apply
when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippines, in the present
case, a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon the Philippine soil, thus
committing an open violation of the penal law in force at the place of the
commission of the crime. Only the court established in the said place itself has
competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international
treaty.
8. CASE DIGEST: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981
Title: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 11(1) and Art. 14 of the
Revised Penal Code
Facts:
Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and wounded
his husband which ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant, she
did not provoke her husband when she got home that night and it was her
husband who began the provocation. The appellant said she was frightened
that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver
her baby safely.
The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her
husband at least five times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would
reconcile. The appellant said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive
towards her that night was because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend,
Lulu Rubillos. The appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been
shown to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a
plea of self-defense admitted the killing of her husband. She was found guilty
of the crime of parricide, with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the
husband was attacked while asleep.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense.
(2) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.
Held:

For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the
elements of self-defense arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit: (a)
Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have
characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of
the batterer must have produced in the battered persons mind an actual fear
of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to
use force in order to save her life, and; (c) At the time of the killing, the batterer
must have posed probable not necessarily immediate and actual grave
harm to the accused based on the history of violence perpetuated by the former
against the latter.
For the second issue, the SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating
circumstance because the quarrel or argument that preceded the killing must
have forewarned the victim of the assailants aggression.
9. Case Title: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729
Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code
Facts:
The appellant, in representation of the Attorney General, filed an appeal that
urges the revocation of a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance of
Manila presented by the defendant. The defendant, accused of having illegally
smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality
while the said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from
the shores of the city. In the said demurrer, the defendant contended the lack
of jurisdiction of the lower court of the said crime, which resulted to the dismissal
of the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime committed
aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional waters.
Held:
Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in our internal waters thus the
Philippine courts have a right of jurisdiction over the said offense. The Court
said that having the opium smoked within our territorial waters even though
aboard a foreign merchant ship is a breach of the public order because it causes
such drugs to produce pernicious effects within our territory. Therefore, the
demurrer is revoked and the Court ordered further proceedings.
10. CASE DIGEST: People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19
Title: People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal
Code
Facts:
On June 30, 1920, sixer vintas intercepted two Dutch boats which were on its
way in the midst of the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies.
The six vintas were manned by 24 armed Moros. The said Dutch boats were
carrying men, women and children. At first, the Moros asked for food. But when
they got on the Dutch boats, they asked for themselves all the vessels cargo,
attacked nearly all of the men and brutally violated two of the women by
methods too tremendous to be described. All of the persons on the Dutch boat,
except the two young women, were again placed on it and holes were made in
it, the idea that it would submerge. 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.
They were arrested there and were charged in the Court of First Instance of
Sulu with the crime of piracy.
Issue:
Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of piracy
alleged in this case.
Held:
Yes, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction on the case. Piracy is a villainy not
against any particular state but against all mankind. It should be tried and
punished in the sufficient 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.