Estepa vs sandiganbayan Facts Leonardo estepa was a senior paymaster of the cash division of the city treasurers office

e of the city of manila. Estepa and 9 other paymasters and supervising paymaster Cesar Marcelo went to the Central Bank to get P7,640,000 which is the amount of cash advances requested by the 10 paymasters. The cash was placed inside 2 duffel bags and transported to the city treasurers office of the city of manila. The cash distribution was made in Atty. Kempis room, head of cash division, where the door was closed and guarded to stop people from entering With Atty. Kempis and the 10 paymasters, Marcelo opend the duffel bags and again counted the sum of P7,640,000 (bills of 100s, 50s, 20s, 10s, and coins) and was placed in a table. Each paymaster was given the sum they requested for in different denominations Estepa was given the amount of P850,000. After all 10 paymasters got their money, Marcelo asked if everything was fine, no complaints were heard, even from Estepa. All of them left the room. Upon receiving the money, Estepa placed them on the sofa and transported the smaller denominations first to the table, leaving the bigger denomination on the sofa since he could not carry all at once. People were already entering the office of Atty. Kempis. He brought the bigger denominations to his cage first then the smaller ones. After counting the money in his cage, he discovered that P50,000 was missing and reported it to Marcelo. Marcelo summoned the 10 paymasters and asked if they got the correct amount. All of them got the correct amount except for Estepa. Issue WON Estepa is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds under Art 217 of RPC. Held Yes In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received the public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefore was made and he could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to account. An accountable public officer may be convicted for malversation even if there is no direct evidence of personal misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved. There is prima facie evidence of malversation where the accountable public officer fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable upon demand by duly authorized officer. Estepa carelessly and negligently allowed an unknown person to steal or misappropriate the amount of P50,000 and he had failed to exercise his duty as a public officer accountable for public funds received by him. His actions amounted to negligence as it provided two opportunities for a mysterious, unseen third person to pick up the missing bundle of money amounting to P50,000: 1. From the sofa inside the room of Atty. Kempis where he had left the bundles of large denomination bills, without asking anyone to keep an eye on them while he left the room; or 2. From petitioner's cage outside Atty. Kempis' room where he left the bundles of large denomination bills, again without anyone being left in charge thereof, while he went back to the desk (also outside Atty. Kempis' room) to retrieve the bundles of small denomination bills he had previously deposited on top of said desk without, once more, getting someone to watch those bundles. People vs. Sabredo-rape Facts Accused is the uncle of complainant. In Borbon, Cebu accused Jimmy grabbed and forcibly dragged Judeliza, pointing a knife at her, to the highway where they boarded a truck going to Bogo, Cebu. From Bogo, he took her to Placer, Masbate by motorboat then went to Cataingan, Masbate and stayed at the house of Conchita, Jimmys sister and Judelizas aunt. Scared that conchita might tell the police, Jimmy brought Judeliza to Cagba, Masbate and stayed with his nephew Roberto and passed Judeliza as his wife as they were not familiar with each other. (July 4, 1994) Later that night, Jimmy, armed with a blade, sexually assaulted Judeliza. He covered her mouth and inserted three fingers into her vagina and cruelly pinched it. He then struck Judeliza unconscious.

He then brought her to the house of his sister, Nilda, also in Cagba. Nilda caught jimmy in the act of pouring boiling water on Judeliza to finish her off. She stopped him and brought Judeliza to the police. RTC found accused guilty of the complex crime of abduction with rape under art 48 in relation to arts. 335 and 342 of the RPC.

Issue WON accused is guilty of the crime of abduction with rape. Held No. Accused is only guilty of simple rape. The elements of forcible abduction are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that the abduction is against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs. The prosecution's evidence clearly shows that the victim was forcibly taken at knifepoint from Borbon, Cebu by appellant and through threats and intimidation brought to various towns in Masbate, where he passed her off as his "wife". That appellant was moved by lewd designs was shown in regard to rape by his having carnal knowledge of private complainant, against her will, on July 4, 1994 at Cagba, Tugbo, Masbate. While it may appear at first blush that forcible abduction, as defined and penalized by Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code was also committed, we are not totally disposed to convict appellant for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. We note that while the information sufficiently alleges the forcible taking of complainant from Cebu to Masbate, the same fails to allege "lewd designs." When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic that the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. When appellant, using a blade, forcibly took away complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction. Hence, the crime committed by appellant is simple rape only. People vs. Ablaza Facts In Nov 1962, acussed Ruben Ablaza forcibly took Annabelle Huggins from her aunts house in Caloocan city and brought her to a house in hagonoy, bulacan, where her abductor criminally abused her. After her rescue by the phil. Constabulary mean, a criminal case for forcible abduction with rape was filed against Ablaza in the CFI of bulacan. On mar 22 1963, while the case in bulacan was still pending, she was again forcibly taken by three men including Ablaza. She was first brought to abalazas compadre in Caloocan then to bulacan and asked anabelle to drop the complaint against him. As they were inside that malolos municipal building, Annabelle was rescued by her uncle and constabulary men. CFI of rizal convicted accused of serious illegal detention Accussed says he should be guilty of abduction with rape Issue WON accused is guilty of kidnapping with serious illegal detention. Held Yes. The accused stood trial for kidnapping with serious illegal detention, and the deprivation of complainant's liberty, which is the essential element of the offense, was duly proved. That there may have been other crimes committed in the course of the victim's confinement is immaterial to this case. The kidnapping became consummated when the victim was actually restrained or deprived of her freedom, and that makes proper the prosecution of the accused under Article 267 of the RPC. The surrounding circumstances make it clear that the main purpose of Annabelle's detention was to coerce her into withdrawing her previous charges against appellant Ablaza, thus obstructing the administration of justice. The acts of rape were incidental and used as a means to break the girl's spirit and induce her to dismiss the criminal charge. People vs. Garcia ransom no specific form Facts

While jogging alone along Gilmore Ave., Atty. Romulado Tioleco was kidnapped by Ronald Garcia and Gerry Valler, Rodante Rogel, and Rotchell Lariba. During his captivity, one kidnapper told him that he would be released for the amount of P2M but the victim bargained somewhere b/w P50k-P100k since thats all he could afford. Kidnappers have contacted his sister Floriana Tioleco. Floriana received numerous phone calls from the kidnappers who were initially demanding P3M but was reduced to P2M for the victims safe release. P/Sr. Insp. Menodoza of the PACC was at Florianas house to monitor his brothers kidnapping. Floriana was able to raise P71k and contacted the kidnappers. They agreed that once the amount has been given, his brother would be released. They scheduled the pay-off the same day and agreed to meet in Timog Ave. P/Sr. Insp. Mendoza relayed this information to the other policemen. No pay off was made because the kidnappers were suspicious that Florianas two friends who were with her are police officers. However, the police who were able to follow the car of the kidnappers to a compound in Fairview. The kidnappers then schedule another meeting at McDonalds Sta. Mesa where the pay-off was made. Fortunately, the police were able to catch up with the car and arrested Garcia who as in possession of the P71,000 ransom money. With this information, the policemen stationed at the compound rescued the victim and arrested the accused. The ransom money was returned to Atty. Tioleco. Accused argues that the crime of kidnapping for ransom was not committed since the victim was released from detention by means of rescue operation conducted by the PACC operatives and the ransom money was recovered.

Issue WON the accused are guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267 of the RPC. Held Yes. No specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom so long as it was intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victims freedom. Ransom refers to the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity. Neither actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the crime to be committed. It is enough if the crime was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. Once the intent is present, kidnapping for ransom is already committed. People vs. Basay- Homicide art 249 Facts Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez were charged with multiple murder with arson with the MCTC for having allegedly killed the spouses Zosimo Toting Sr and Beatrice Toting and their 6 yr old daughter, Bombie, and for having burned the spouses house to conceal the crime and as a consequence their other daughter, Manolita, was burned to death. Zosimo, Beatrice, and Bombie were hacked to death. Manolo did not die as he was given medical assistance. RTC ruled that the evidence failed to prove the crimes of multiple murder, frustrated murder with arson; Teodoro Basay is not guilty. But found Jaime Ramirez guilty. Issue WON the crime committed was multiple murder and frustrated murder with arson. Held No. Jaime Ramirez was acquitted due to lack of evidence.

The court observed that the facts indisputably establish that Zosimo Toting. Sr., Beatrice Toting and Bombie Toting were stabbed and hacked before their house was burned. Zosimo and Beatrice died immediately while Bombie lived for a few days. As a matter of fact, the thesis of the prosecution is that the house was burned to conceal the stabbing and hacking. As a result of this fire, Manolita Toting and Manolo Toting suffered burns which caused the death of the former; the latter, however, survived due to timely medical attention. Four (4) crimes were therefore committed, three (3) separate murders under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the deaths of Zosimo, Beatrice and Bombie, and arson as punished under Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613 for the death of Manolita and the injuries sustained by Manolo as a consequence of the burning of the house. The aforementioned Section 5 reads: Sec. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.