CRIMINAL LAW 2

CASE DIGESTS

Submitted to:
Professor Dennis Villa-Ignacio

Submitted by:
SERAPIO, Stephanie A.
Block C
 PEOPLE v. DIMA MONTANIR, RONALD NORVA AND EDUARDO CHUA.
G.R. No. 187534 | April 4, 2011 | Ponente: Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Receiving a tip from a certain Josie Herrera, herein appellants decided to kidnap the victim
Rafael Mendoza and conducted surveillance on him and his partner, Rosalina Reyes. After several
failed attempts, they decided to just lure the victims. In conspiracy with Alice Buenaflor, they
called Rosalina and told her that Alice wants to meet with them in order to settle her loan. The two
went at the meeting place where they were told to board the car. Alice introduced appellant Ronald
Norva as her cousin and told the victims they would go to her house to settle the loan. However,
the victims were brought into a house in Ciudad Grande Valenzuela City. The appellants then
decided to execute their plan and forcibly dragged Rafael into a room. Rosalina begged and told
them that if they want money, they should untie Rafael who was then on the verge of a heart attack.
While she was performing CPR, appellant Dima was busy removing the things of Rafael from his
body. After which, Rosalina was brought to another room in which she begged Jonard to help her.
Without knowing that Rafael already died, Rosalina was then brought to another safe house in
which she positively identified the voice of Robert.
By 10:00pm, they arrived at a house located in Pandi, Bulacan. Sensing that Jonard was
quite sympathetic to her, Rosalina begged the latter to help her escape. Jonard then told his
companions about this and Rosalina proposed that they should just escape together. They all agreed
to escape and parted ways at Ali Mall, Cubao. Rosalina then called Rafael’s brother to inform him
of what happened. The following day, two groups of DILG were formed to arrest the appellants.
Rosalina positively identified appellants Ronald and Dima as her kidnappers. Two information
were then filed with Branch 171 of Valenzuela RTC charging the appellants with kidnapping.
After trial, the RTC found the appellants guilty of the crime of kidnapping and imposed the penalty
of death on accused Norva and Montanir pursuant to Art. 267 of the RPC. The CA affirmed the
conviction but modified the penalty of death to reclusion perpertua pursuant to RA 9346.

ISSUE/S: W/N the trial court erred in giving credence to the inconsistent testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and for holding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite this error

RULING: The contention has no merit.

1. The crime committed was the special complex crime of Kidnapping with Homicide.
Under Article 267 of the RPC as amended by RA 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death will be imposed upon any private individual who shall kidnap or detain any person
contrary to his will. In the event that the victim was killed or dies as a consequence, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed. In a special complex crime, the prosecution must
necessarily prove each of the component offenses with the same precision that would be
necessary if they were made the subject of separate complaints. In the present case, it was
undisputed that Rafael died because of the said detention.

2. The findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of the witnesses accorded respect.
The appellants harps on the fact that there were several inconsistencies between the
affidavits and testimonies of the witnesses to prove their innocence. However, absent any
showing that the trial acted arbitrarily, his appreciation of the evidence and testimonies are
afforded great weight. Moreover, the alleged inconsistencies were only minor in nature and do
not affect the veracity of the statements. The witnesses were able to account for the said
inconsistencies and in case of such, the court gives more credence to testimonies in court rather
than the written affidavits.

3. The appellants acted in conspiracy and their responsibility should be collective.

Verily, if there is a conspiracy, each of the perpetrators is liable collectively regardless of
the extent of their participation. The bare denial of the appellants is a weak defense compared to
a positive identification made by the victims. Both witnesses ably established the participation
of the appellants. Thus, having been proven that they each took part in the accomplishment of
the original design, appellants are all equally liable for the crime of Kidnapping with Homicide.
 PEOPLE v. JOSE SALVADOR a.k.a. “Felix”
G.R. No. 207815 | June 22, 2015 | Ponente: Villarama, J.

FACTS:
Accused-appellant in this case assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed
his conviction for the crime of rape under Art. 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code on the ground
that the prosecution was not able to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant is the father of AAA, BBB and CCC. With the assistance of her sister
AAA, BBB filed an information against the accused-appellant, alleging him of raping her.
Accused-appellant was also charged with the crime of acts of lasciviousness against CCC. On
arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued wherein BBB testified that the
accused appellant often touches her genitals and asks her to massage him, the latter only wearing
underwear. Accused-appellant then will insert his finger to the vagina of BBB. It was alleged that
this event transpired numerous times before BBB decided to tell her sister and file the
corresponding complaint against the accused-appellant. Meanwhile, the accused-appellant belies
all the charges against him. He contends that the allegations against him are mere fabrications by
his daughter AAA because she wanted to extort money from him.
After trial, the RTC found the accused guilty of rape by sexual assault but acquitted him
of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. It also noted that while the medico-legal report did not
contain any finding of injury, the same is not necessary to prove the commission of rape. There
being an uncertainty regarding the penetration, the RTC held that the crime committed was only
rape by sexual assault pursuant to Art 266-A of the RPC. The CA affirmed the conviction but
held that the crime committed was Qualified Rape pursuant to Art. 266-B of the RPC. Hence, this
appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt

HELD: Petition has no merit.

1. The crime committed was rape by qualified rape by sexual assault.

Accused-appellant’s contention lies on the alleged failure of the prosecution to
prove the presence of the elements of rape. He also faults the inconsistent testimonies of
the prosecution and the medico-legal report which does not support the finding of rape.
Under the RPC, there are two ways of committing rape: rape by sexual intercourse and
rape by sexual assault. In both cases, the fact of penetration must be established.

What is involved in the case at bar is the latter. Rape by sexual assault was
consummated when the accused-appellant inserted his finger inside the vagina of BBB.
Hence, the mere fact that the medico-legal report found no injuries is immaterial to the case
at bar. Moreover, while the penalty prescribed for this crime is only prision mayor, the
presence of qualifying circumstances namely minority of the victim and offender was her
father warrant an increase of the penalty to reclusion temporal.

2. The findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of the witnesses is accorded
respect.
Again, the Court reiterated the doctrine that absent any substantial reason to justify
the reversal of the RTC’s assessment of evidence and testimonies, the reviewing court is
bound to follow such findings. It also acknowledged the fact that it is difficult to have
corroborating statements in rape cases because most of the time, it is only the testimony of
the victim that is available. In the present case, BBB testified and affirmed her Sinumpaang
Salaysayin in a straightforward, categorical, spontaneous and frank manner. The only
defense of the accused-appellant is that his denial and an alleged extortion scheme.
However, the accused-appellant failed to substantiate this claim by convincing evidence,
hence the court refused to give any credence to his claim.

DECISION OF THE CA AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is guilty

of the crime of qualified rape by sexual assault.
 PEOPLE v. CAROLINA BOQUECOSA
G.R. No. 202181 | August 19, 2015 | Ponente: Perez, J.

FACTS:
The case at bar is an appeal of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of Qualified Theft on the ground that the
prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for no one was able to positively
identify her as the one who stole the missing items.
Two information for Qualified Theft were filed against the accused-appellant who works
as a vault custodian and Sales Clerk of Gemmary Pawnshop and Jewelry. It was alleged in the
information that said accused-appellant stole cash, assorted jewelry items and cell cards all valued
at 400,658.80 and one necklace and bracelet amounting to 56,600.00. The prosecution contends
that when the management summoned the accused-appellant to explain the missing items upon
their discovery, the latter broke down and admitted that she used the missing items for her own
personal gain. Meanwhile, the defense belies this contention and put forwards the claim that the
accused-appellant should not be held liable for the missing items because a certain Arlene also has
access to the said vault. Moreover, they claim that the admission of the accused-appellant pertains
only to the necklace and the jewelry, not to the items amounting to more than 400 thousand.
Both the RTC and the CA held that the accused-appellant was guilty of the crime Qualified
theft. The CA also rejected the contention of the defense that the guilt beyond reasonable doubt
was not established because the evidence presented were merely circumstantial evidence. It
reiterated that an accused can be convicted even if there is no eyewitness available so long as the
circumstantial evidence are sufficient. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the lower courts erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the crime charged
despite failing to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the ground that no person was
able to directly and positively identify her as the one who stole the items.

HELD: Petition has no merit.

1. The crime committed was qualified theft.
Pursuant to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements for the crime of
theft are the following: 1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs
to another; (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done
with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation
against the person or force upon things.” Such theft will be considered as Qualified Theft
if the same was committed with grave abuse of confidence. Indubitably, the accused-
appellant abused the great confidence reposed in her by her employers when she took
advantage of such and took the missing items for her own gain.

2. The accused-appellant was bound by her admission.

The defense faults the conviction of the accused-appellant because no one able to
positively identify the accused-appellant as the one who stole the missing items. However,
it is important to take note that the accused-appellant already admitted that she took the
pieces of jewelry and pawned the same to M. Lhuiller and H. Villarica Pawnshop. This
judicial admission and conclusive. Also, by virtue of said admission, the production of
evidence is dispensed with.

3. The argument that such admission only pertains to the bracelet and necklace deserve
scant consideration.
Moreover, the defense contends that even such admission was made, the same
should not pertain to the missing items amounting to more than 400 thousand because the
accused-appellant only admitted to taking the bracelet and the necklace. However, since it
was already proven during trial that the accused-appellant has the sole authority to enter
such vault together with the pieces of evidence such as order slips and pawnshops tickers
found in the possession if the accused-appellant, her guilt was sufficiently established.
 PEOPLE v. DANILO TORRES, JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE
G.R. No. 130661 | June 27, 2001 | Ponente: Quisimbing J.

FACTS:
The case at bar is an appeal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court which convicted
the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide on the ground that the lower
court was not able to establish the robbery aspect of the crime charged and erred in holding that
the accused-appellant was positively identified as one of those who committed the said crime.
The victim Lorenzo Isagan “Boloy” was on his way to buy copras and abaca together with
his laborers, Macky, Vicente, Julian, all surnamed Galanao and Jose Lumio. However, they failed
to reach their destination as they were stopped by some unknown men who shot Boloy and told
the laborers to get down. After five minutes, the group left for the mountain. The laborers then
found the dead body of the victim. They noticed that the bag of the victim, together with some of
his personal belongings were taken away. During the investigation, the laborers identified the
accused-appellant as the one of the persons who stopped their truck and shot the victim.
On the other hand, the accused-appellant belies his participation to the said crime. He
claims that he was at Bohol during the time the crime was committed so it was inherently
impossible for him to do such felonious acts. Despite this, the lower court found him guilty. Hence,
this appeal.

ISSUE/s:
1. W/N the trial court erred in holding that the accused-appellant was positively identified as
one of those who committed the crime charged.
2. W/N the trial court erred in not holding that the prosecution failed to prove the robbery
aspect of the crime.

HELD: Petition has no merit.

1. The crime committed was Robbery with Homicide.
Robbery with Homicide is a special complex crime against property in which the
homicide is merely incidental to the main onus of the criminal which is to rob the victim.
The elements that needs to be proven are the following: (a) the taking’ of personal property
with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to
another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of
the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense,
was committed. Also, what is material is that there be a direct relation and intimate
connection between the robbery and the killing.
On the case at bar, all the foregoing elements were present. Both the wife of the
victim and his laborers positively identified that the accused-appellant brought with him a
purse containing 500,000 and was wearing jewels before the crime was consummated.
Witness Galanao also categorically stated that he saw the culprits flee with the victim’s
bag. Since there was no other motive for the killing, it only follows that the reason for such
was to deprive and rob the victim of his valuables.

2. The findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of the witnesses is accorded
respect.
The Court also held that the accused positively and convincingly identified the
appellant. They were able to witness the crime because of the proximity of their location
and the fact that the crime was committed in broad daylight. Since the visibility condition
was favorable and there was no evidence of malice, the lower court correctly accepted the
testimonies of the witnesses. With regard to the alleged inconsistencies pertaining to the
outfit of the perpetrator and the number of gunshots they heard, the same is also held to be
understandable given the traumatic nature of their experience. What is material is that they
saw the accused-appellant shoot the victim.

AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is guilty of robbery with

homicide and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
 CRISOSTOMO VILLARIN AND ANIANO LATAYADA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 175289 | June 27, 2001 | Ponente: Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
Petitioners in this case were charged with a violation of Sec. 68, P.D. 705 as amended by
Executive Order 277. It was alleged that petitioners, in conspiracy with each other, gathered and
possessed 63 flitches of varying sizes belonging to the Apitong specie without any supporting
document required by law.
Several witnesses of the prosecution claim that they saw the petitioners while they were
boarded in a jeepney allegedly loaded with timber. Said jeepney transported the timber to the
nearby Batinay bridge. On the evening of the same day, Barangay Captain Alarcon noticed such
pile and was surprised to learn that such timber will be used for the repair of the bridge since she
had no knowledge of any scheduled repairs. Another witness testified that he was asked to cover
the pile of timber for a fee. A news report containing footages of said timber prompted DENR
Region 10 to investigate in which they learned that the pile of timber was requisitioned by Villarin,
barangay captain of Pagalungan, CDO.
On the other hand, the defense claims that while Villarin indeed commissioned the
acquisition of the timber, he did this in furtherance of his plan to repair the bridge. Villarin claims
that the project was with the concurrence of the Barangay Council. While such motive was
acknowledged by the lower court as laudable, it still held that the forest products were obtained
without the necessary authority and legal documents required by forest laws and regulations. For
such, the RTC proceeded in holding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 68 of PD 705. The said decision was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE/s:
1. W/N that the CA erred in convicting the petitioners when all the elements of the crime was
not proven beyond reasonable doubt
2. W/N the CA erred in not reducing the penalty imposed by the RTC despite the presence of
mitigating circumstances.

HELD: The petition is unmeritorious.

1. The petitioners were charged with a violation of Sec. 68 of P.D. 705.
The aforecited law provides that any person who shall gather, cut, collect timber or
other forest products without any authority and legal documents will be punished with the
penalties provided under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. It also punishes
two separate offense: (1) cutting, gathering, removing of timber or other forest products
without authorizations, and (2) possession of timber and other forest products without legal
documents required by law.
On the case at bar, the petitioners were charged with the second offense in which
the prosecution ably established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There exist the tally
sheets, the footages and also the testimonies of several witnesses. More importantly,
petitioner Villarin admitted that he was the one who commissioned the acquisition of said
timber. With regard to the lack of criminal intent on the part of the petitioners, it is
important to take note that PD 705 is a special law which partakes the nature of a malum
prohibitum. The only evidence relevant is the actual and or constructive possession of the
timber. And it is again undisputed that petitioners acquired the timber without acquiring
the documents required by law.

2. The corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime.

Petitioners also tries to bolster their claim by arguing that the corpus delicti had not
been established because of the failure of the prosecution to present the confiscated timber
in court. However, such contention is undeserving of any merit because the corpus deliciti
in the present case is the fact of the commission of the crime. In the present case, both the
RTC and CA correctly held that the corpus delicti was sufficiently established by the
documentary and testimonial evidence on record. With such, the petitioners should suffer
the penalties provided under qualified theft without prejudice to the actual amount of seized
items and the application of the indeterminate sentence law.
 PEOPLE v. ORLITO VILLACORTA
G.R. No. 186412 | September 7, 2011 | Ponente: Leonardo De-Castro, J.

FACTS:
An information was filed against accused-appellant which charged him of murdering
Danilo Salvador Cruz using a sharpened bamboo stick which inflicted mortal wounds to the victim
that resulted to the latter’s immediate death. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not
guilty.
Trial then ensured. Witness Mendeja testified that both the accused-appellant and the
victim were regular customers at her store. She recounted that on January 23, 2002, while the
victim was buying bread at her store, the accused-appellant stabbed the framer with a sharpened
bamboo stick and left without a word. The said bamboo stick broke and was left inside Cruz’s
body. She then proceeded to bring the victim to Tondo Medical Center. Another witness of the
prosecution is Dr. Beladres who was the head of the Tetanus Department of San Lazaro Hospital.
Dr. Belandres testified that the result of the death of the victim was tetanus infection secondary to
a stab wound. On the other hand, the accused-appellant deny such allegations. According to him,
he was on his way to buy cigarettes at a nearby store when Cruz put his arm around his shoulder.
Such act prompted him to box Cruz and then he immediately went home.
The RTC did not give credence to the assertion made by the accused-appellant and
convicted him of the crime of murder, qualified with treachery. Accused-appellant filed an appeal
with the CA which also affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the accused should only be held liable for slight physical injuries and not murder

HELD:
1. Accused-appellant should be held liable for slight physical injuries under Art. 266 (1)
of the Revised Penal Code.
Accused-appellant contends that he should only be held liable for slight physical injuries
for the proximate cause of death was tetanus infection and not the stab wound itself. Proximate
cause is defined as that “that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not
have occurred.” In the present case, the victim was rushed immediately to the nearest hospital
after the stabbing occurred. Based on the foregoing facts, the victim was treated at Tondo
Medical Center merely as an out-patient. The prosecution failed to provide with any evidence
of the emergency medical treatment or any subsequent visits by Cruz to Tondo Medical Center.
In a case with similar factual antecedents, the court held that the incubation period of
tetanus ranges from 2 to 56 days, with over 80 percent of patients experiencing the symptoms
within 14 days. Being able to establish that the death of the victim on that case was due to his
own negligence, the court granted the appeal. In the same case, the court held that the death
must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
accused and the same must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, there had been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the
date when Cruz was rushed to San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus
infection. In this regard, the stab wound might be merely the remote cause of his death and
that the subsequent infection with tetanus have been the proximate cause of Cruz’s death. With
this in mind, the court convicts the accused-appellant with the crime of slight physical injuries.
The Court is constrained to rule such because the intent to kill was not established beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution to warrant a frustrated or attempted murder. Under Art.
266 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed on any offender
who inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate/require medical attendance from 1-9
days.
However, the qualifying circumstance of treachery must still be considered because it was
sufficiently proven during trial. It is said that treachery exists when (1) the person attacked has
no opportunity for self-defense/retaliation (2) it was the deliberate and conscious adoption of
means of execution.
PEOPLE v. EDUARDO CASTRO y PERALTA and RENERIO DELOS REYES y BONUS
G.R. No. 187073 | March 14, 2012 | Ponente: Villarama, J.

FACTS:
On September 9, 2001, an information was filed against the accused-appellants charging
them of robbery with homicide. It was alleged in the said information that the accused-appellants,
in conspiracy with each other and together with a certain Larry Perito and alias Leng-leng, with
intent to gain and armed with guns rob Ricardo Benedicto of 100,000 pesos and in the course of
such robbery shot the victim which resulted to his immediate death. Both appellants pleaded not
guilty.
Trial ensued and both the prosecution and defense presented their witnesses. The
prosecution provided several testimonies including that if the police senior inspector and the
employee of the victim. The police senior inspector who conducted the autopsy reported that the
cause of the death of the victim was hemorrhagic shot secondary to said gunshot wounds. Another
witness positively identified the appellants as among the armed men who killed her employer and
that she also saw them taking the bag belonging to Benedicto. On the other hand, the defense
presented the testimonies of Alejo Castillo and Francisio Beltran, both neighbors of appellant
Castro. Witness Castillo testified that the accused-appellant Castro was with him from 6;30 pm to
8:00pm which was corroborated by witness Beltran. Furthermore, both accused-appellants (Castro
and Delos Reyes) denied any knowledge of each other or any of their co-conspirators and posited
that they were in another place when the crime happened.
After trial, the RTC sentenced the appellants guilty of the offense charged stating that the
evidence was able to sufficiently establish the existence of conspiracy and its relation to the crime.
As to the appellants’ alibi that they were in another place when the crime happened, the RTC held
that such alibi should fail because such places were only few minutes away from the crime scene,
hence it is not entirely impossible to commit the crime. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision
of the RTC and emphasized that between a categorical, consistent and made in good faith positive
identification and an alibi, the latter must yield to the former. Aggrieved, accused-appellants
elevated the present case to the Court.

ISSUE: W/N the trial and appellate court erred in holding the accused-appellants guilty of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide?

HELD: Petition is unmeritorious.

1. Accused-appellants is guilty of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.

After careful perusal of the evidence presented, the Court held that it is undisputed that the
appellants and their co-conspirators killed the victim in furtherance of their robbery. And since
the existence of conspiracy was sufficiently proven and established, the identity of the person
who shot the victim is immaterial since in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. It is a
well-settled rule that whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion
of robbery, all those who participated in the commission of robbery are liable as principals
even though they did not participate in the actual killing.

Moreover, the court also gave credence to the positive identification made by the witnesses
of the prosecution rather than the denial and alibi of the defense. This is because the
identification made by witness Austria was categorical compared to the alibi of the defense
wherein the requirements of time and place were not sufficiently met. In order for an alibi to
prosper, it is not enough that the accused is not in the crime scene, but the defense must
establish and prove with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for
the accused to have been in the crime scene. This standard of physical impossibility is clearly
wanting in this case since the accused were just few minutes away from the scene of the crime.

APPEAL DISMISSED, JUDGMENT AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION . Accused-

appellant is guilty of the crime of special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pay the heirs of victim Benedicto 25,000 for
temperate damages.
 SATURNINO OCAMPO v. HON. EPHREM ABANDO et.al
G.R. No. 176830 | February 11, 2014 | Ponente: Sereno, C.J.

FACTS:
Several members of the Philippine Army discovered a mass grave with remains of alleged
victims of Operation Venereal Disease “Operation VID” launched by CPP/NPA/NDFP to purge
their ranks of suspected military informers. Based on several testimonies and complaints-affidavits
of the relatives of the alleged victims, the victims were last seen/were abducted with the
CPP/NPA/NDFP and were never seen again. In addition to such, former members of the
CPP/NPA/NDFP also gave their testimony alleging that the said Operation VID was ordered by
the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Committee in which petitioners are allegedly part of.
During the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor assigned issued a subpoena ordering
the petitioners to submit their respective counter-affidavits to the testimonies and complaint-
affidavits filed by the relatives of the alleged victims. Among those who complied is petitioner
Ocampo. After which, the prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for 15 counts of
multiple murder against 54 named CPP/NPA/NDFP, including the petitioners. The said
information was filed with the respondent judge of Leyte RTC Branch 18 who found probable
cause and issued warrant of arrests against the petitioners.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present petition assailing such order on the basis of
political offense doctrine because there was a pending case for rebellion against them before
Makati RTC. Petitioners also contend that in rebellion, common crimes such as murder are deemed
absorbed when committed as a necessary means, in connection with and in furtherance of rebellion.

ISSUE:
1. W/N the multiple murder charge against petitioners should be dismissed under
political offense doctrine?
2. W/N the petitioners were denied due process during preliminary investigation and
issuance of warrants of arrest?

HELD:
1. Political offense does not lie in the present case to warrant the dismissal of the charges
against petitioners.
While it is true that under the political offense doctrine, common crimes committed
in furtherance of rebellion are deemed absorbed in the main crime and cannot be punished
separately. However, it is also important to take note that the institution of the criminal
charges is left to the sound discretion of the prosecutor, hence he or she cannot be
compelled to just charge simple rebellion instead of common crimes. It is only when the
doctrine is used as a defense before the trial court that it becomes crucial for the court to
determine the nature of the common crimes and whether it was really committed in
furtherance of rebellion.
In the present case, petitioners are contending that the alleged murders were
committed in furtherance of the crime of rebellion. However, it is a well-settled rule that
the burden of proof lies on the defense to establish the political motivation behind the
commission of the common crime. Also, it is provided in the Rules of Court that in any
event that they be convicted of simple rebellion, the trial court shall dismiss the charges of
the common-crimes in order to secure their right against double jeopardy. However, in the
present case, petitioners were never arraigned for their crime of rebellion. Hence, there is
no double jeopardy that exists since the element of first jeopardy attached is wanting.

2. Petitioners were accorded due process.

Petitioners also contend that their right to due process was violated because they
were not able to receive the subpoenas issued against them because of wrong address.
However, the Court reiterated that efforts to reach the respondents are sufficient
compliance. Also, Ocampo’s contention that his right to due process was violated because
he was not given a copy of the Supplemental Affidavit is unmeritorious since it was not
the sole basis for the filing of the information.
CONSOLIDATED PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED.
 GEORGE BONGALON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 169533 | March 20, 2013 | Ponente: Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner in this case was convicted by the RTC which was later affirmed by the Court of
Appeals of the crime of child abuse under Sec. 10 (1) of RA 7610. It was alleged that the accused
committed acts of physical abuse against a minor named Jayson Dela Cruz by hitting the child on
his back, slapping him and calling him and his family animals. This was due to a minor altercation
between Dela Cruz and the daughter of the petitioner. It was also alleged that the petitioner also
went to the house of Dela Cruz and challenged the child’s father into a fight. The prosecution also
presented two medical certificates attesting that Dela Cruz was hospitalized and had to be treated
for contusions due to the imputed acts of the petitioner.
On the other hand, the petitioner vehemently denied that he laid a hand on Dela Cruz.
According to him, he just confronted Dela Cruz when his minor daughters told him that the former
is throwing stones at them and also attempted to burn the hair of one of his daughters. While he
admits that he went to the house of Dela Cruz, it was only to tell the father of Dela Cruz to restrain
his sons and not to challenge anyone to a fight.
However, both the RTC and the CA declared the petitioner guilty for the crime charged.

ISSUES:
1. W/N the petitioner is guilty of child abuse under Sec 10 (a) of RA 7610?
2. Assuming arguendo that he is guilty, is he entitled to a reduction of penalty due to the
mitigating circumstance that he acted in order to protect his daughters?

HELD:
1. The petitioner is not guilty of child abuse under sec 10(a) of 7610 but of slight physical
injuries under Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner was charged under Section 10 of RA 7610 which pertains to Other Acts
of Child Abuse, cruelty, or exploitation or be responsible for any other conditions
prejudicial to the child development. Pertinently, child abuse is defined as either (1)
psychological or physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment; (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being; (3) Unreasonable deprivation of
his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or (4) Failure to immediately give
medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

On the present case, while it is undisputed that the petitioner struck and slapped
Jayson, such acts do not constitute child abuse under Sec 10(a) of RA 7610. There was no
clear evidence that the laying of hands was done in order to debase the intrinsic worth and
dignity of Dela Cruz. There was also no showing that the petitioner intended to embarrass
or humiliate the child. In fact, the laying of the hands was done in a spur of anger, due to a
father’s concern for the safety of his daughters. However, since Dela Cruz was hospitalized
for 5 to 7 days, petitioner is still liable for slight physical injuries pursuant to Article 266
of the Revised Penal Code

While slight physical injuries warrant a penalty of arresto menor, the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation should be considered due to the loss of self-control
for fear of safety of his two daughters.

DECISION OF THE CA SET ASIDE. PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF

SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND SHALL SUFFER THE PENALTY OF 10 DAYS OF
ARRESTO MENOR AND PAY JAYSON DELA CRUZ MORAL DAMAGES
AMOUNTING TO 5,000 PESOS.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDMUNDO VILLAFLORES y OLANO
G.R. No. 184296| April 11, 2012| Ponente: Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
The accused appellant “Villaflores” was charged of the crime of Rape with Homicide and
was found guilty by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. It appears that a certain child named
“Marita” who was then 4 years old and 8 months was playing near their house when she went
missing. This prompted her parents to inquire to their neighbors and report the incident to the
police. As a product of their desperation, the mother of Marita went to a nearby fortune-teller who
told her that they can found the child 5 houses away from their home. Marita’s father immediately
conducted the search and unfortunately found her daughter lifeless near the toilet of an abandoned
house. Marita is said to be covered in sack and strangled with nylon and the medico legal report
showed that she had deep lacerations in her vagina which is indicative of rape. The prosecution
presented several witnesses. Bautista and Solidum testified that they saw the accused-appellant
holding Marita by the hand at the morning of July 2. At around 3pm, Solidum passed by the
accused-appellant’s house and heard the crying and moaning of a child. At the evening of the same
day, he saw accused-appellant carrying a yellow sack which was positively identified as the same
sack which was found in Marita’s body. Moreover. some of the police who went to the crime scene
and tried to look for Villavicencio in his house found it padlocked with nylon tied to the door of
his house and a similar yellow sack used as a wall-covering for his toilet.
The defense on the other hand pleaded not guilty and presented several witnesses including
a son of the accused-appellant’s sister who implicated Bautista and Solidum for the said crime and
the alibi of the accused-appellant himself. According to him, he was not guilty of the said crime
since he did not see the child that day as he was commissioned by his aunt to buy something for
her and later returned at the afternoon of that day.

ISSUE: W/N the trial court and appellate court erred in holding that the accused-appellant is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide

HELD: Petition is unmeritorious.

1. Rape with Homicide is a special complex crime/composite crime.
It is important to take note the difference between complex crimes under Article 48 of the Code
and special complex crimes/composite crimes. In the former, the penalty for the more serious crime
shall be imposed in its maximum but in the latter, the penalty for the composite crime is already
specified.
Rape with Homicide is considered as a special complex crime and not a complex crime because
Art 266-A of the Code explicitly states that a rape is committed (1) By man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a. Through force, threat, or
intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c. By
means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d. When the offended party is
under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present. It is also provided in the law that should rape is committed by reason of, or in
the occasion of rape, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. The words by reason of and in the
occasion of rape connotes that the victim of the rape is also the victim of the homicide.

2. The prosecution was able to prove the concurrence of all the elements of rape and
discharge the burden of proof.
The Rules of Court allows circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime
in rape cases. In this case, the fact that Marita was still below 12 years of age was proven by her
certificate of live birth. As such, any carnal knowledge of the accused of her would already
constitute rape. Also, the testimonies provided by the witnesses of the prosecution, when
appreciated together will warrant the conclusion that it is that accused-appellant who committed
the crime. Moreover, the defense failed to prove that it was entirely impossible for the accused-
appellant to commit said crime and the testimony of the son of the accused-appellant’s sister was
right not given any credence because he concealed their blood relations in order to bolster the alibi
of the accused-appellant.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CESAR CONCEPCION y BULANIO
G.R. No. 200922| July 18, 2012| Ponente: Carpio, J.

FACTS:
Accused-appellant in this case was charged and was found guilty for the crime of Robbery
with Homicide pursuant to Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. It is said that on May 25 2004,
the accused, in conspiracy with Rosendo Orgando, rob Jennifer Acampado while the latter was
walking along Panay Avenue corner Timog. It is also alleged that the perpetrators used a
motorcycle in committing the crime charged. However, a taxi driver saw them robbing Acampado
and chased them down resulting to an accident which led to the death of Orgando.
Meanwhile, the defense presented the lone testimony of the accused-appellant in which he
denied any participation in the alleged crime. He also claimed that while it is true that he was riding
a motorcycle with Orgando, the accident was due to a motorcycle chasing them down and the
subsequent bumping of a taxi.
The RTC held the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
According to the lower court, all the elements of the crime of robbery was duly proven and
pursuant to the well-settled rule, a positive identification of the witnesses (victim and the taxi
driver) will prevail over a defendant’s alibi. On the other hand, the CA declared that the manner
and time of death, or whether it is supervened by mere accident is immaterial because what is
essential is that there is a direct and intimate relation between the robbery and the killing.
On appeal, accused-appellant is assailing the decision of the CA which gave credence to
the inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. He also contends that assuming
arguendo that he snatched Acampado’s shoulder bag, he should only be held liable for theft and
that he should not be held liable for Orgando’s death.

ISSUE/S: W/N the CA erred in holding the accused-appellant guilty of Robbery with
Homicide

HELD: The petition is meritorious.

1. Accused-appellant is guilty of theft under Art 308 and not robbery with homicide.
The Court held that there is a difference between the crime of Robbery under Art. 293 and
Theft under Article 308. The former is committed when a person who, with intent to gain, shall
take the property or another and employ any means of violence or intimidation of any person or
using force upon anything. Robbery is committed in three ways: (1) employing violence against
any person; (2) intimidates any person; (3) use force upon anything. On the other hand, in a long
line of cases, theft is committed when the perpetrator only took the property of another without his
consent but without employment of violence, force or intimidation.

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused-appellant employed
force, intimidation, or violence when he took away the property of the victim. In fact, even the
victim herself testified that the accused-appellant merely took her bag. This warrants the
conclusion that accused-appellant is only guilty of the crime of Theft, aggravated by his use of a
motor vehicle as means of committing a crime.

Lastly, the accused-appellant should not be held liable for the death of Orgardo since he
did not perform or execute any act that caused the death. Orgardo died because he simply lost
control of the motorcycle and crashed into Felipe’s taxi.

DECISION SET ASIDE. ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THEFT WITH THE

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE.
 ARNOLD JAMES YSIDORO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 192330| November 14, 2012| Ponente: Abad, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner in this case is the municipal mayor of Leyte, Leyte which was charged with
technical malversation by illegal diversion of food intended from those who are suffering from
malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconstruction projects.
It is alleged that the municipality of Leyte, Leyte, through its Municipal Social Welfare
and Development Office launched a project named Core Assistance Shelter Assistance Program
(CARP) which aims to provide construction materials for rebuilding of homes of indigent calamity
victims. The beneficiaries of the said project also acted as its laborers. However, when the project
was at almost 70% of completion, the workers started to abandon the project on the reason that
they need to provide food for their respective families. In order to address the problem and prevent
the loss of construction materials, the officers- in-charge for both the CSAP and the Supplemental
Feeding Program went to the petitioner to seek his permission for the transfer of the remaining
sacks of rice and sardines to the CSAP beneficiaries. The petitioner approved of the said move but
ordered the officers-in-charge to consult with the accounting department. On the impression that
the transfer was necessitated by an urgent situation, the supervising clerk immediately approved
the release and signed the withdrawal slip, causing the transfer of the said goods to the CSAP
beneficiaries. This prompted the complainant, Alfredo Doller to file the present case for technical
malversation against the petitioner. The Sandiganbayan then found the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Technical Malversation, hence this appeal.
On appeal, the petitioner is contending that the goods diverted were already in the form of
savings and can be used to augment the other authorized expenditures of the municipality and that
he was acting in good faith when he approved such transfer.

ISSUE: W/N the petitioner can be held liable for the crime of Technical Malversation

HELD:
1. The petitioner is guilty of the crime of Technical Malversation under Art 220 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, technical malversation has three
elements namely: (1) the offender is an accountable public officer (2) that he apploes public
funds or property under his administration to some public use; and (3) that the public use
for which such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they
were originally appropriated by law or ordinance. In the present case, it can be gleaned
from Resolution 00-133 or the annual general fund for 2001 that the Sangguniang Bayan
allocated two different funds for both the SFP and CSAP. Based from this, the subject
goods bought for the SFP funds should be given to the SFP’s beneficiaries. Moreover, the
contention of the petitioner that it partakes the nature of savings which can be allocated iss
without merit because it is a yearly program and it is impossible to incur savings at the
middle of the year, especially with the state of hunger. Lastly, it is also provided in the
Local Government Code that an ordinance has to be enacted before appropriating a fund
already appropriated for a different purpose.
As to the contention of lack of criminal intent, it is important to take note that the
offense is a malum prohibitum wherein it is not necessarily immoral but it is illegal due to
the presence of a statutory law prohibiting such.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGAR JUMAWAN
G.R. No. 187495| April 21, 2014| Ponente: Reyes, J.

FACTS:
KKK and accused-appellant were married and already have two children. However, one
day, KKK filed a complaint-affidavit against her husband, stating that the latter raped her. The
prosecutor found probable cause for grave threats, less serious physical injuries and rape. This was
followed by a filing of two information for rape before the RTC. The prosecution presented the
testimonies of KKK and her two daughters MMM and OOO. According to their own version,
conjugal intimacy was never really a problem for the couple, but it went downhill went the
accused-appellant became brutal in bed. KKK is alleging that the method employed by her husband
is physically painful for her, so she tried to resist it but whenever she does, the accused-appellant
would get angry, employed force and intimidation to coerce her. It is also alleged that since the
master’s bedroom and the room of their children are separated by a mere wall, MMM and OOO
could hear the cries of their mother but then they would be told by the accused-appellant to not
interfere because what was happening was a family trouble.
Meanwhile, the defense vehemently denies these allegations. The accused-appellant asserts
that he did not commit the rape because hee was in Bukidnon peeling corn and alleged that KKK
merely fabricated the rape charges as a revenge because he took over the control and management
and possession of their business and that she wanted to cover up her extra-marital affair.
The RTC ruled in favor of the prosecution and convicted the accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape. The CA also affirmed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE: W/N the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of rape

HELD:
1. The accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of rape.
Accused-appellant put forward the doctrine of irrevocable implied consent which according to
him means that rape is consensual and obligatory between spouses and that the case should be
treated differently from ordinary rape cases. In fact, history would show that husbands do not fall
under the ambit of those who can commit rape. However, the passage of several international
obligations and the 1987 Constitution warranted the reclassification of rape as a crime against
person from crime against chastity. Moreover, RA 8353 pertains to (a) rape as traditionally known,
(b) sexual assault; and (c) marital rape. The single definition for all three forms would show that
that similar subjects should not be treated differently.

In the present day, rape is committed under Art 266-A (1) By man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a. Through force, threat, or
intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c. By
means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d. When the offended party is
under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present. Also, a careful perusal of the records of the congressional deliberations would
readily show that the intent of the Congress in both the originating House Bill and Senate Bill was
include and penalize marital rape under the general definition of rape. The enactment of Violence
Against Women and their Children which provided that “Violence against women and their
children refers to any act or series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his
wife…” and included sexual violence as one of the forms of rape.

Lastly, it is a well-settled doctrine that the findings of the trial court are entitled to weight
and recognition especially if there are no compelling circumstances to abandon them. In the case
at bar, the court a quo gave credence to the testimony of KKK who testified for 6 times but never
wavered. Her testimony regarding the events surrounding the rape is clear, direct and accurate.
The Court also emphasized that in rape cases, what is essential to be proved is the absence of
one’s consent may it be vitiated consent, or the victim is incapable of giving consent. This case
falls within the vitiated consent through force or intimidation. The use of force and intimidation
need not be irresistible, what is important is that it produces the desired result, which in this case
undisputedly happened.
 JOVITO CANCERAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 206442| July 1, 2015| Ponente: Mendoza, J.

FACTS:
The petitioner in this case was charged with frustrated theft but was convicted by the
Regional Trial Court with consummated theft. It is alleged that the petitioner, together with his co-
conspirators, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of Ororama Mega Center,
took 14 cartons of Pond’s White Beauty Cream valued at P28, 627.20. The prosecution presented
the testimonies of the security guard and customer relation officer of Ororama as its witnesses.
According to them, they saw Canceran approach one of the counters and carried with him 2 boxes
of Magic Flakes but when he was exiting the area, the security guard inquired as to whether the
boxes had been inspected already and upon inspection, it showed that what was in the box was the
boxes of Ponds instead of Magic Flakes. Petitioner attempted to flee and negotiate even with the
guard, but the latter refused.
Meanwhile, the petitioner denies all the charges against them. He narrates that he was in
Ororama that time to buy medicine and water for his wife when a male approached him and
requested him to pay for the two boxes labeled Magic Flakes and that he has no knowledge of the
contents of the boxes himself.
The RTC convicted the petitioner of Consummated Theft contending that there is no crime
of Frustrated theft. It also emphasized that absent any proof, an alibi would be considered self-
serving and would not be given any credence. In Court of Appeals, the petitioner raised the issue
of double jeopardy because according to him, the first case for theft against him was already
dismissed and yet he was convicted in the second case. This contention was likewise dismissed by
the Court because he never entered a valid plea so the first jeopardy never attached.

ISSUES:
1. W/N Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of Theft as it was not alleged in the
information
2. W/N there was double jeopardy

HELD:
1. The petitioner is only guilty of the crime of Attempted Theft.
The Constitution mandates that an accused be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him. Under Article 308 of the Code, the elements for Theft are the
following: (1) taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) it was
done with intent to gain; (4) the taking away was without the consent of the owner; (5) the
same was accomplished without violence or intimidation. It must be proven that there had
been unlawful taking which connotes that the accused already possess some kind of
control over the stolen item or else the crime would merely be an attempted theft.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner was charged with the crime
of Frustrated Theft. However, it is elementary that an accused cannot be convicted of a
higher offense than that with he was charged in the complaint. The failure to charge
petitioner of consummated theft would necessarily warrant his conviction for only
attempted theft, regardless of the weight of evidence against him.

2. There was no double jeopardy because the first jeopardy never attached.
Double jeopardy exists when a person who has been convicted or acquitted for an
offense is charged again of the identical offense. It must be proven that (1) the first jeopardy
attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy was validly terminated; (3) second
jeopardy must be similar to the first one. Legal jeopardy would only exist upon (1) valid
indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment (4) valid plea having been
entered; and (5) dismissal or termination of the case without the consent of the accused.
In the present case, the petitioner could not argue for double jeopardy since he never
entered a valid plea because the case was dismissed before he could enter a valid one. Also
wanting is the unconditional dismissal of the complaint but the case was terminated
because he posted bail.
 VINANCIO SEVILLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 194390| August 13, 2014| Ponente: Reyes, J.

FACTS:
The petitioner in this case was a former councilor of Malabon who was charged of the
crime of Falsification of public document under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code. It is
alleged in the information that the petitioner abused his authority and made an untruthful narration
of facts in his Personal Data Sheet when he stated that there was no criminal case pending against
him, a truth of which he is legally bound to disclose. Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Petitioner admitted that he marked “no” to the pending criminal case despite a pending
case for assault but avers that it was not him who prepared the PDS but a member of his staff. He
also contends that he merely signed the document without checking the facts contained therein.
This statement was corroborated by another former City Councilor Torres who testified that he
saw Editha prepared the PDS of the petitioner using the typewriter contained in his office.
Despite this, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision which found the petitioner guilty of
the crime of Falsification of Public Documents through Reckless Imprudence pursuant to Art.
365 of the Code. It based its decision on the fact that petitioner still made misrepresentations on
his PDS which is a public document and that he still abused his power because absent it, he would
not have accomplished the PDS. The Court also referred to the absence of any malicious intent to
warrant to warrant a conviction under Art 171 (4) of the Code.
On appeal, the petitioner is contending that since he was charged with the crime of
Falsification of public documents under Art. 171 (4) he cannot be convicted based on Art. 365
of the Code.

ISSUE: W/N the petitioner can be convicted for the crime of falsification through reckless
imprudence notwithstanding that it was not alleged in the information

HELD: Petition is unmeritorious.

1. The petitioner is guilty of the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Falsification
of Public Documents.
The designation of the Sandiganbayan of the offense charged is inaccurate. It charged the
petitioner for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents but
designated the felony as “Falsification through reckless imprudence.” It bears stressing that quasi-
offense under Art. 365 pertains to distinct and separate crimes and not to crimes used a means to
commit another crime. To determine whether a crime is a separate or used as a means to commit
another, the following may be used for analysis: (1) the object of punishment in quasi-crimes (as
opposed to intentional crimes); (2) the legislative intent to treat quasi-crimes as distinct offenses
(as opposed to subsuming them under the mitigating circumstance of minimal intent); and (3) the
different penalty structures for quasi-crimes and intentional crimes. Jurisprudence also dictate that
what is punished in reckless imprudence is not the intent but the mental condition behind the act.
In the present case, the designation made by the Sandiganbayan connotes that the reckless
imprudence is not a separate crime but a means that resulted to the falsification itself. However,
the proper designation should be reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public
documents.
Moreover, the contention that the petitioner cannot be convicted because the crime alleged in
the information was different deserve no merit. Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of Rules of Court
provided that a defendant may still be convicted of the offense prove when the offense charged is
included in or necessarily includes the crime proved. In the case at bar, the crime proved was
necessarily included in the willful act of falsification of public documents. Hence, the petitioner
cannot claim that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of action against
him was violated.

APPEAL DISMISSED, JUDGMENT AND RESOLUTION AFFIRMED.

 AURORA ENGSON FRANSDILLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 197562| April 20, 2015| Ponente: Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
The appellant in this case was convicted of the crime of robbery by RTC Quezon City
whose decision was also affirmed with modifications by the Court of Appeals. It was alleged that
the appellant who was then in a conspiracy with four more people, went to the house of private
complainant Lalaine Yreverre and asked regarding the whereabouts of the latter’s sister. When
private complainant told her that that her sister was at the Japanese Embassy, the appellant
misrepresented herself to be from POEA. This prompted private complainant to allow her entry to
the house wherein appellant requested to use the phone. Appellant then asked for a cigarette when
suddenly, the four men who was with the appellant and was left outside the gate suddenly came
inside and stood behind the appellant who now claimed that she could not reach the person she’s
trying to call. The appellant then asked for permission to use the comfort room which was grante
by the private complainant. Upon the appellant’s return, the men who was with the appellant
declared a hold-up, poked a gun at the neck of the private complainant and two of which herded
the maids, and the niece and cousin of the private complainant inside the bodega. The group of
men then decided to bring the private complainant upstairs and started searching the room. When
the private complainant tried to resist, the men employed violence on her.
When the group of men and appellant left, the private complainant asked for help and called
her sister to relay what happened. After investigation, the police and private complainant went ot
the house of one of the four men and invited him to the precinct. When asked about the appellant,
the latter would not speak and would just bow his head which prompted private complainant to
threaten him that he would solely be liable for the crime. This resulted to the identification of
herein appellant and they went to the address informed by one of the men arrested. When the
private complainant saw the appellant, the latter was obviously nervous and narrated that she was
just instructed by her 3 other companions who was her cousins. When all the members of the group
were accounted for, trial ensued in which the RTC found them guilty for the crime of Robbery
pursuant to Art. 299 of the Code. The CA also affirmed such judgment, hence this appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the appellant’s guilt as a co-conspirator was established

HELD:
1. The conspiracy of Fransidilla with her co-accused was established beyond reasonable
doubt.
The appellant’s lone contention is that the prosecution was not able to establish her
participation for the crime of robbery. However, a careful perusal of facts and evidences would
show that the State was able to establish her active participation through the testimony of private
complainant who gave details to the specific acts that she committed: misrepresenting herself as
someone who came from POEA, asked if she can use the telephone and the comfort room.
It bears stressing that in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. What is material being that
a person did overt acts as to manifest her active part in the over-all execution of the crime. In the
case at bar, appellant did not passively conform but actively participated who facilitated the entry
of her co-accused inside the house of the private complainant.

2. The crime committed was complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed
men under Art 299 and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
under Art 294 of the Code.
As provided for by Article 48, the penalty for complex crimes is the higher penalty between
the two offenses, the same being imposed on its maximum. However, in the present case even
though the appellant and her co-conspirator was held liable for two crimes under Articles 299
and 294 (lighter one), the appellant should be held liable pursuant to the latter since violence
against or intimidation of a person was considered as the controlling qualification and is graver
than robbery committed by the force of things. Also, it is considered graver because there is
greater disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual. In the present case,
the prosecution ably established the commission of the crime.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PALMY TIBAYAN AND RICO PUERTO
G.R. No. 209655-60| January 14, 2015| Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:
Accused-appellants in this case assail the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals which
afformed the conviction by the Las Pinas RTC of the crime of Syndicated Estafa penalized under
Art. 315 of the Code and PD 1689. The facts would show that Tibayan Group Investment Company
is an open-end investment company registered with the Security and Exchange Commission.
However, after an investigation commenced by SEC, it was discovered that the company was
selling securities without registration statement in violation of RA 8799 and also submitted a
fraudulent Treasurer’s Affidavit before the SEC. This prompted SEC to revoke the registration of
the company for being fraudulently procured and was followed by the filing of multiple cases for
Syndicated Estafa against the incorporators and directors of the said company.
The private complainants alleged that they were enticed to invest in the company because
of its high-interest rates and promise that they would be able to recover their investments. After
investing, they received a Certificate of Share and post-dated checks which were later dishonored
upon encashment. When they confronted the company regarding their checks, they were given
acknowledgement receipts instead and were assured that they would be paid soon. However, the
company closed without paying any of the private complainants.
For their part, accused-appellants deny any participation in the offense charged, arguing
that their signatures were forged and that at present time, they were not directors/incorporators of
the said company. Despite such, the RTC convicted them for the crime of estafa pursuant to Art.
315 paragraph 4, item 2(a) on the basis of the positive identification by the private complainants.
On appeal, the CA modified the conviction of the accused-appellants to that of Syndicated Estafa
since the company is comprised of more than 5 persons.

ISSUE: W/N the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Syndicated Estafa
pursuant to Art, 315 paragraph 4, item 2(a) of the RPC in relation to PD 1689.

HELD:
1. The accused-appellants is guilty of the crime of Swindling/Estafa under Art. 315.
Item 2(a), Paragraph 4 of Article 315 provides that estafa is committed by “any person who
shall defraud another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business…” The elements of the same are the following:
(a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false
pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage. On the other hand, Section of PD 1689 states that
whenever acts punished under Arts. 315 or 316 is committed by 5 or more persons, such crime
would be treated as Syndicated Estafa. Also, the court discussed the Ponzi scheme, a type of
investment fraud that involves the payment of returns to existing investors by using the funds
contributed by the new investors.

The elements of Syndicated Estafa are the following (a) estafa or other forms of swindling,
as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC, is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is
committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative,
“samahang nayon(s),” or farmers’ associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations
from the general public. Undeniably, all elements are present in the case at bar. According to the
private respondents themselves, they were enticed because of the lucrative promise of high interest
rates. However, from the very start, the directors and incorporators already knew that they cannot
fulfill such promise resulting to the damage and prejudice of private complainants. And since the
company is composed of more than 5 people who made false pretenses, they undeniably fall within
the ambit of Syndicated Estafa.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERDINAND BALUNTONG
G.R. No. 182061| March 15, 2010| Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.

FACTS:
Accused-appellant in this case assails the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals
which affirmed his conviction by the RTC of Roxas of the crime of Double Murder with
Frustrated Murder. It is alleged in the information that said accused-appellant set on fire the house
of one Celerina Solangon and Alvin Savarez which produced murder and physical injuries.
According to the prosecution, Jovelyn Santos who was then sleeping at that house felt heat
emanating from the walls and decided to wake her cousin up and they went together outside of the
house. It is claimed by the prosecution that the two saw accused-appellant putting dry hay around
the house when the fire started, but the latter immediately ran away when he realized that the two
saw him. The neighbor of the accused-appellant also testified that she saw accused-appellant near
Celerina’s house when it caught fire and corroborated the story of Jovelyn and Dorecyll.
As a result of the fire, Celerina and her grandson Alvin sustained third degree burns which
led to their death while the other grandson Joshua sustained second-degree burns.
Accused-appellant denies all the charges filed against him. He contends that he was in
Caloocan City on July 15, 1998 which was 16 days before the incident and stayed there until
February of 1999. He claims that his mother requested him to stay there and this alibi was also
corroborated by his mother.
Notwithstanding such, the RTC rendered a judgment which found accused-appellant guilty
of the complex crime of Double Murder with Frustrated Murder and shall suffer the penalty of
death. This was affirmed with modifications as to the penalty by the Court of Appeals. Accused-
appellant elevated the case on court, assailing the testimonies of the prosecution saying that
Felicita’s claim (neighbor) that she saw accused-appellant deserves scant consideration because it
was already dark when the crime happened and that Jovelyn’s testimony should also be doubted
given her failure to stop the accused-appellant, assuming arguendo that the latter was really putting
dried hay outside their house.

ISSUE: W/N the accused-appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt

HELD:
1. The crime committed was Arson pursuant to the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Sec 3 (2) of PD 1613.
In determining whether the crime committed by the accused-appellant was arson,
murder, or arson and homicide/murder, the objective of the malefactor must be taken into
consideration.
a. If the main objective is only burning the house/building but death results as a result
of arson, the crime is simply arson.
b. If the main objective was to kill a person inside the building/house and fire was
used as a means to do so, the crime is simply murder.
c. If the objective is to kill and the malefactor has already consummated the crime
but resulted to fire as a means of covering up the crime, then the crime committed
is complex crime of homicide/murder and arson.

In the present case, the accused-appellant cannot be liable for the complex crime of
homicide/murder and arson because there was no showing the appellant wanted to kill
Celerina or any of the inhabitants of the house and that he used fire as a means to do so. In
her affidavit, Felicitas claimed that she knew that Celerina wanted the accused-appellant
to move out who was then leaving near her house. Also, had the accused-appellant wanted
to kill Celerina, it can be gleaned from the facts that the latter was outside of her house
when the crime happened and merely entered the house to save her grandsons.

REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. NEW ONE IS ENTERED CONVICTING ACCUSED-

APPELLANT OF SIMPLE ARSON.
 PEOPLE v. WILLIAMSON PICKRELL AND AUGUSTO NOLASCO
G.R. No. 129409| October 23, 2003| Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.

FACTS:
Accused-appellants in this case assails the decision of the RTC which convicted them of
the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and Physical Injuries,and sentenced them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. It is alleged in the information that the two accused-appellants, in
conspiracy with each other and 2 others, kidnapped one minor name Far East Ausmolo using a
taxi cab and demanded 100,000 as ransom money from his mother.
The prosecution presented their version of the story. According to them, both Far East and
his mother were close to Mary Pickrell and his son, accused-appellant Williamson.One day, while
the victim was waiting for a ride, accused-appellant Williamson grabbed him by the hand and
asked the former to accompany him because they need to meet someone. This was allegedly
witnessed by the victim’s neighbor, Christopher. When they reached their destination, the person
that Williamson was supposed to meet was not there. When the victim conveyed his intention to
leave, Augusto then tied the hands of the victim and told the latter that he was doing such thing
because he has a grudge on the victim’s father. Williamson then demanded Augusto to call the
victim’s mother and asked for ransom. When nothing was given, they employed violence on the
victim and even forced him to ingest some tablets, harassed the victim, placed him in a box and
left him to oblivion.
The defense denied all the charges against them. Augusto claimed that both Williamson
and the victim used drugs. The trial court found both Augusto and Williamson guilty of the
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. On appeal, they contend that the prosecution failed to
establish guilt and there was no evidence that the victim tried to resist or even escape.

ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in finding accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged.

HELD:
1. The crime committed was Kidnapping and serious illegal detention and frustrated
homicide.
Pursuant to Art. 267 of the Code, the crime is committed by any private individual who shall
kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty and the elements of
which are (1) offender is a private individual; (2) kidnaps/detains another; (3) act of detention must
be illegal and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following is present: (a) kidnapping
and detention lasted for more than three days, (b) kidnapping is committed by simulating public
authority, (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted or threats to kill him have been made, (d)
the person kidnapped is a minor, female or public officer. If the victim of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is
kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his
detention is immaterial. It is also important to take note that a fundamental element of the crime
is lack of consent. It is immaterial whether the victim voluntarily went to a specific place but when
he is prevented from leaving the same, by force or threats, the offender is still guilty of Kidnapping
and serious illegal detention.
In the case at bar, the Court gave more credence to the version of the prosecution. The
Court held that accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention because Williamson lured the victim to the place when the latter was not even aware of
the conspiracy between the former and Augusto. The victim was also prevented from leaving and
was detained for the purposes of extorting money from his mother. When nothing was given, they
employed physical violence against the victim wherein as a result, the victim nearly died. Also,
the Court rejected the contention of the defense that the crime charged should not prosper for the
victim failed to resist or even tried to escape because it was shown on records that appellant
Augusto was consistently threatened the latter to prevent him from making any attempts.
However, the trial court erred in not convicting the appellants of frustrated homicide. The
court convinced that the intention to kill the victim was an afterthought after failing to receive the
ransom money on the date agreed. When no money was delivered, they forced the victim to ingest
tablets which rendered him unconscious and employed violence on him. Indubitably, accused-
appellants are guilty of frustrated homicide.
 PEOPLE v. PEDRO PAGAL AND JOSE TORCELINO
G.R. No. L-32040 | October 25, 1977| Ponente: Concepcion, J.

FACTS:
Defendants-appellants in this case were charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide
in which it was alleged in the information that the two, in conspiracy with each other, tried to rob
one Gan Guan some case and in order to accomplish such intent, they stabbed the victim with an
icepick and clubbed him with an iron pipe on different parts of his body which resulted to the death
of the victim.
During arraignment, the counsel de oficio informed the court of their intention to enter a
plea of guilty provide that they be allowed to prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient
provocation or threat and passion or obfuscation. When asked by the judge if they understood
what said act means, the defendant-appellants agreed. Thereafter, the defense started to provide
evidence to prove said mitigating circumstances. However, after trial, the court held them guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and considered only the mitigating circumstance of admitting their guilt
as compared to the proven existence of aggravating circumstances of nighttime, evident
premeditation and disregard of respect due to the offended party.
On mandatory review, defendant Pagal contends that he should only be held liable for his
individual acts and that there was no evidence that they conspired to commit the crime of robbery
with homicide. Furthermore, they assail the non-appreciation of the mitigating circumstances by
the trial court.

ISSUE: W/N the court a quo erred in holding the defendants-appellants guilty of the crime charged

HELD: Contention is bereft of any merit.

1. The crime committed was Robbery with Homicide.
The contentions of the defendants-appellants must fail for the simple reason that they already
professed their guilt for the crime charged. It is elementary that in the event an accused pleaded
guilty, he is also deemed to have admitted all the material facts in the information including the
existence of conspiracy and the circumstances surrounding the felony.

2. The trial court did not err in not appreciating the presented mitigating circumstances.
Defendant-appellants also faults the trial court for not appreciating the mitigating
circumstances of sufficient provocation and passion or obfuscation. However, since the two arises
from the same incident which is the ill-treatment of the appellants by the deceased, the two must
only be treated as one. Also, passion and obfuscation cannot be considered as a mitigating
circumstance when the crime is planned and calmly meditated before its execution. Furthermore,
in order for provocation to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, it must be sufficient and
immediately preceding the act, which is wanting in the present case.

As to the appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and evident premeditation

the Court also held that the trial court did not err in appreciating such. Evident premeditation is
inherent in the crime of robbery. However, in the crime of robbery with homicide, when there
is an evident premeditation to kill, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
However, the trial court erred in taking into account disregard of respect because it is improper to
consider it in crimes against property such as in robbery. Homicide is a mere incident of the
robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS.