Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Case Digests for Crim 1

MAGNO VS CA (June 26, 1992) Subsequently, Magno could no longer pay LS Finance the monthly
Characters: rentals, thus, it pulled out the garage equipment. It was on this
Oriel Magno – owner of a car repair shop (Ultra Sources International occasion that Magno became aware that Mrs. Teng was the one who
Corp) advanced the warranty deposit. Magno and his wife went to see Mrs.
Mrs. Corazon Teng – VP of Mancor Teng and promised to pay the latter but the payment never came and
Mr. Joey Gomez – VP of LS Finance when 4 checks were deposited, they were returned for the reason
“account closed.
Law Violated – BP Blg. 22 (Anti-Bouncing Checks Law)
A case was then filed against Magno for violating BP Blg. 22 before
Facts
the RTC of Quezon City which found Magno guilty of the accusations
Herein petitioner, Oriel Magno is in the process of putting a car repair
charged against him.
shop sometime in April 1983 but did not have equipment and lacked
sufficient funds for his venture. Magno then approached Mrs. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed his case in the Court of Appeals,
Corazon Teng, VP of Mancor Industries for his needed car repair however, the CA affirmed the decision made by the RTC.
service equipment of which Mancor is a distributor. Mrs. Teng then Issue: WON Magno is guilty of violating BP Blg. 22
referred the petitioner to LS Finance to accommodate him for credit
Ruling:
services. Subsequently, an agreement was made through a condition
No, Oriel Magno is not guilty of violating BP. Blg. 22. For a conviction
that Magno has to put up a warrant deposit equivalent to 30% of the
to be made under BP Blg 22, the check should have been made and
total of the equipment purchased, amounting to P29,790.
issued on account or for value. In the case at bar, the check issued
Unfortunately, petitioner could not come up with such amount, so he
was merely for an accomodation, thus, beyond the purview of BP Blg.
requested Joey Gomez on a personal level to look for a third party
22. It must also be taken into account that the “cash out” made by
who could lend him the amount needed for the warranty deposit.
Mrs. Teng was not used by petitioner who just paying rentals for the
However, unknown to Magno, it was Mrs. Teng who advanced for the
equipment. The transaction did not ripen into a purchase; thus, it is
deposit on a condition that it would be paid with 3% interest.
lawful that the warranty deposit should not be charged against
petition because then he would be paying an unjust debt. To add,
As part of the agreement, Magno and LS Finance entered into a
petitioner did not even know that the checks were turned over to
leasing agreement, whereby LS Finance would pay the corresponding
Mrs. Teng, which creates suspicion on her part.
rent with the option to buy the same. After the documentation was
completed, Magno issued a postdated check and gave it to Joey Under the utilitarian theory in criminal law, the primary function of
Gomez, who, unknown to the petitioner, delivered the same to Mrs. punishment is the protection of society against actual and potential
Teng. When the check matured, petitioner requested Joey Gomez not wrongdoers. And in this case, it is the actuations of Mrs. Carolina
to deposit the check because petitioner is no longer banking with Teng that amounts to the potential of wrongdoers whose operations
Pacific bank. To replace the first check, petitioner issued another 6 should also be stopped in order that the unwary public will not fall
postdated checks, 4 of which were held momentarily by Mrs. Teng. prey to such a vicious transaction.
Case Digests for Crim 1
ROGELIO ROQUE VS. PEOPLE (April 6, 2015) around not to get involved. Fortunately, Reynaldo’s parents arrived
and took him to the hospital for emergency medical treatment.
Characters
Reynaldo and Rodolfo Marquez – brothers, the victims A case was then filed against Rogelio Roque in the RTC of Malolos for
Rogelio Roque - accused frustrated murder, to which he was found guilty. Petitioner then
Pablo Tayao – barangay chairman appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence,
Rogelio Dela Cruz – friend of Reynaldo and Rodolfo this petition.
Crime: Frustrated Murder Issues:
1. WON the CA erred in appreciating the facts and evidence on record
RTC – guilty
when it ruled that the element of unlawful aggression was not
CA – guilty appreciated in this case
2. WON CA erred in ruling that intent to kill is present on the part of
SC – guilty
the petitioner
Facts
Ruling:
During the Barangay Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 22, 2001, of Masagana,
1. The petition must be denied because the errors that the petitioner
Pandi Bulacan, Reynaldo and Rodolfo Marquez are drinking in the
pertains are questions of fact and such is not within the province of a
house of one Bella Salvador Santos when they spotted Rogelio Dela
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. It must also be noted
Cruz and shouted at him to join them. At that instant, petitioner,
that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, it only entertains
Rogelio Roque is passing by together with his wife riding a tricycle,
questions of law, unless the CA were mistaken, absurd, speculative,
thinking that the shout was directed at him, he stopped his vehicle
tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings of
and began cursing the former. The former then apologized but Roque
the court of origin.
did not accept it, instead he threatened the former that something
bad will happen to them. Rodolfo Marquez then went to the house of 2. No, CA did not err, intent to kill is present on the part of the
Pablo Tayao, the barangay chairman to ask for assistance. Because of petitioner. The victim received two gunshot wounds in the head.
this, Dela Cruz fetched Reynaldo to go to the chairman’s house. Indeed, the location of the wounds plus the nature of the weapon
Unfortunately, when Reynaldo arrived, he was not home so he went used are indications that the accused -appellant’s objective is not to
to the petitioner’s house to follow Tayao and the others to apologize warn or incapacitate a supposed aggressor. Intent to kill is further
again to Roque. Despite the apologies, Roque did not reply and went exhibited by the fact that the accused-appellant even prevented
inside his house. When he returned, he shot Reynaldo twice, first in barangay officials from helping the bleeding victim.
the ear and second in the nape. Unsatisfied, petitioner kicked
Reynaldo on the face and back. Reynaldo pleaded Tayao for help but
the latter was not able to do so because the petitioner warned those
Case Digests for Crim 1
DE GUZMAN JR. VS PEOPLE (Nov. 26, 2014) of his will. Thus, the petitioner was properly found guilty pf frustrated
Characters: homicide.
Alfredo De Guzman Jr. – accused The court affirmed the CA’s decision.
Alexander Flojo – victim
RIVERA vs PEOPLE (January 25, 2006)
Crime – Frustrated Homicide
Characters:
Facts Ruben Rodil – victim, former taxi driver
On December 24. 1997 at about 10PM, the victim, Alexander Flojo Edgardo Rivera – mocked Ruben, accused
was fetching water when the accused, Alfredo De Guzman Jr. hit him Ismael and Esmeraldo – Edgardo’s brothers, accused
on the nape. Flojo then told Alfredo’s sistes Lucila what had
happened and continued to fetch water. Subsequently, Alfredo Crime: Attempted Murder
returned and stabbed Alexander twice, the first wound is on his face
and the second is iin his left chest. Aggrieved, the victim filed a case Facts
against De Guzman Jr. for frustrated homicide. De Guzman Jr. denied At noon of May 2, 1998, Ruben Rodil, a former taxi driver, went to a
inflicting stab wounds on Flojo but only scab marks on the victim. The nearby store to buy food. Edgardo mocked him for being jobless and
RTC found De Guzman Jr. guilty of said crime. The accused then dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and
appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, hurled invectives at Edgardo, they then engaged in a heated exchange
this petition. of words.
The next day, at about 7:30PM, Ruben and his three-year old
Issue: WON the petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt daughter went to the store to buy food and to look for his wife.
of frustrated homicide Momentarily, Edgardo and his brothers ganged up on him. Esmeraldo
and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows which resulted in him falling
Ruling: to the ground. Edgardo then hit Ruben with a hollow block on the
YES, he is guilty of frustrated homicide. The wounds sustained by parietal area while Esmeraldo and Ismael continued mauling Ruben.
Alexander were not mere scuffmarks. The petitioner wielded and Ruben felt dizzy but managed to stand up, Ismael then threw a stone
used a knife in his assault on Alexander in which the latter sustained at him which hit his back. When policemen arrived, Esmeraldo and
wounds on the face and on the left chest. Petitioner’s attack was Ismael fled to their house. A case was then filed against the Rivera
unprovoked, thereby proving the presence of intent to kill. brothers accusing them of attempted murder, in which the RTC
It is thereby shown that the petitioner already performed all the acts founded them guilty of such crime. The accused appealed to the CA
of execution that should produce the felony of homicide as a which affirmed the decision of RTC. Hence, this petition alleging that
consequence but did not produce it by reason of causes independent the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision. The petitioners contented
that the prosecution failed to prove that they had the intention to kill
Case Digests for Crim 1
Ruben when they mauled and hit him with a hollow block, thus, they incident. It was also very dark and Ah Chong fearing that the intruder
should only be held guilty of frustrated homicide may be a thief, called out, “If you enter the room, I will kill you”. At
that moment, he was struck at the knee by the edge of the chair
Issue: WON the accused had intent to kill the victim which is placed against the door. In the darkness and confusion, the
defendant thought that the blow was an attack by the intruder, so he
began stabbing the intruder with a knife he kept under his pillow.
Ruling: Afterwards, the intruder ran out the porch and feel down the steps,
YES, the accused had intent to kill. Although the wounds of the victim Ah Chong then recognized that it was Pascual Gualberto, his
is not sufficient to cause death, intent to kill is still evident. The roommate. He then called out to his employers to call for help and
nature of the injury does not negate the intent to kill. By the actions ran back to his room to put bandages on Pascual’s wounds.
manifested by the accused, the victim did not even have the slightest Unfortunately, Pascual died. A case was then filed against Ah Chong
warning of the danger that lay ahead, he was caught off guard by the and the trial court found him guilty of homicide. Ah Chong admitted
assault of Esmeraldo. And in the case at bar, the accused has that he killed his roommate but insisted that he had no intention to
performed overt acts leading to murder, their actions having the do a wrongful act, that he merely exercised his lawful right of self-
immediate and necessary relation to the offense. defense. Hence, this petition.
Thus, the petition is denied for lack of merit, the CA decision is
affirmed with modification as to the penalty. Issue: WON one can be held criminally responsible by reason of a
mistake of fact
US VS AH CHONG (March 19,1910)
Characters: Ruling:
Ah Chong – defendant, cook No. In the case at bar, self-defense cannot be appreciated because its
Pascual Gualberto – muchacho or houseboy, victim elements are incomplete, such as illegal aggression, reasonable
necessity of means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on
Setting: Office Quarters 27 on Aug. 14, 1908 the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression on the
part of the supposed lardon or thief was not present, thus, the
Crime: Homicide petitioner’s acts cannot be justified under self-defense.
Under such circumstances, the court holds that there is no liability,
Facts: provided that the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to
On the night of Aug. 14, 1908 at about 10PM, the defendant was negligence or bad faith. Thus, mistake of fact is sufficient to negate a
awakened by someone trying to force open the door of the room. He particular intent which is necessary for the offense charged.
called out twice, asking the identity of the one opening the door but It is also found that the act in this case is involuntary, because for it to
there was no answer. Thus, he was convinced that there was a thief be voluntary, the act must be free, intelligent and intentional. Thus,
trying to get in because there were recent robberies prior to the
Case Digests for Crim 1
Ah Chong’s acts are not to be considered voluntary because it was
unintentional.
According to the Legal Maxim “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”
that the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention
were so and “Actus me invito factus non est meus actus” that an act
done by me against my will is not my act. Thus, a crime proceeds only
from a criminal mind, punishment is sequence of wickedness, without
which it cannot be.
Ah Chong Acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent,
believing that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate
right of self-defense.
The judgment of the trial court has been reversed.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai