Source and Limitation People vs Marti Constitutional protection of a civilian against the state Pesigan vs Angeles Tanada vs Tuvera

Publication and validity People vs Billaber Dimayacyac vs CA No double jeopardy Basic principles Legality Bernardo vs People PD 772 only applies to squatters in urban areas People vs Pimentel Double jeopardy was granted for subversion with Tajun only convicted guilty of simple illegal possession of firearms. The state is prejudiced. Generality US vs Sweet US citizen who is a police in the Philippines is punishable by Philippine law on misdemeanour Bayan vs Executive Secretary VFA is constitutional since it met the requirements on the senate votes and the agreement of the USA to the treaty Nicolas vs Romulo Smith was found guilty of rape. Romulo-Kenney Agreement is in conflict with the VFA so Smith cannot be under the custody of the US embassy. Schneckenburger vs Moran Consul of Uruguay in the Philippines has no privileges and immunities like that of the ambassadors and ministers.

Liang vs People ADB official is not immune from criminal liability arising from official duty Gonzales vs Abaya Oakwood mutiny. Petitioners with no immunity from jurisdiction of the courts for rebellion Territoriality US vs Ah Sing Opium through an international ship which docked in Cebu. Import is the same as bring. Miquiabas vs Commanding General Filipino is a civilian employee of the US army. Thus, the US has no jurisdiction over him. Prospectivity Gumabon vs Director of Prisons Ruling in People vs Hernandez that there is no such thing as a complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson and robbery must be given retroactive effect In re: Kay Villegas Kami Support for a delegate to the Constitutional Convention is not stopped or penalized by a newly passed law. People vs Narvaez Protection of property grants retroactive effect of a lower penalty People vs Ringor Illegal possession of unlicensed firearm is not considered as an aggravating circumstance by a new law. Applied both retroactively and prospectively. People vs Masapol Rape with aggravating circumstance of a use of knife. Sec 8 of Rule 110 of

the Rules on Criminal Procedure was given retroactive effect. People vs Llanto Rape with no proof of being relative of the victim. Rules on Criminal Procedure can be given retroactive effect. People vs Ignas Treachery and premeditation are not specified in the information. Rules on Criminal Procedure can be given retroactive effect. De Joya vs Jail Warden Bouncing Checks. Only penal laws can be given retroactive effect not SC circulars. People vs Garcia Homicide with no proof of unlicensed firearm. Rules on Criminal Procedure can be given retroactive effect. People vs Buayaban No such thing as robbery in band with homicide. This shall be given retroactive effect extinguishing the aggravating circumstance and lowering the penalty. People vs Lacson 1,2,3 Court held that prospectivity is only applicable to the case of Lacson in moving to dismiss the case Interpretation and Construction Pascual vs Board of Medical Examiners Pascual charged with malpractice has a right to self-incrimination People vs Lopez No proof aggravating circumstance lowers the charge from murder to homicide People vs Muleta Rape with homicide cannot be charged based on extrajudicial confession obtained by force

Felonies and Crimes Nature, Concept, Definition and Elements People vs Temblor Positive identification and motive to get firearm for purposes of materials for the NPA proved the guilt of Temblor in killing Campangan People vs Hassan Hassan was acquitted of murder since he is a minor and illiterate and the Court rules in favor of the poor and the oppressed People vs Delim Crime of murder degraded to homicide since there was no proof of intent and treachery. People vs Pabiona Death of Pagayon was claimed to be accidental as he fell from the roof. Presumption of innocence is given more weight than that of guilt. Culpa and Dolo People vs Carmen Murder was degraded to reckless imprudence resulting to homicide as a cult tried to cure a kid of his alleged dementia People vs Buan Bus driver cannot be convicted of serious physical injuries and damages to property when he was already acquitted in the first trial for slight physical injuries pertaining to the same incident Reodica vs CA The trial court has no jurisdiction over slight physical injuries that demands a right penalty of arresto menor People vs Nepomuceno, Jr. Only lawful acts can be exempted from criminal liability thus having an unlicensed firearm that accidentally

went off and hit his wife is not excusable. Mistake of Fact Ah Chong vs US The mistake of fact arose from Ah Chongs belief that it was a robber trying to enter his home. Therefore, he is acquitted since if there was no mistake of fact and the person entering was a real robber and not his roommate, then it is a case of selfdefense. People vs Oanis Oanis is not acquitted since there was an error in personae due to negligence. Relation of RPC to Special Laws People vs Dizon Judge was found to act with gross ignorance of the law when he acquitted Lo Chi Fai for violating a Central Bank circular People vs Simon There is no doubt that Simon violated the Dangerous Drugs Act Padilla vs CA The special law can only use RPC as supplementary if it uses nomenclatures, principles and properties of the RPC. Therefore, Padillas surrender can be considered a mitigating circumstance even if this was not specified in the special law. Wrongful act different from that intended People vs Sabalones Sabalones claims that the crime was an aberratio ictus but this does not diminish their criminal liability. The Court further held that it was a case of error in personae.

Urbano vs Intermediate Appellate Court Urbano cannot be liable for homicide due to proximate cause since there was medical proof that the tetanus that caused the death of the victim was not inflicted by him Proposal and Conspiracy US vs Bautista Bautista is guilty of junta due to conspiracy since he knew the plans of overthrowing the government upon accepting the position offered to him People vs Vengco Conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among the accused is proven People vs Valdez Orodio conspired with Valdez since he was with him the night of the killing. A conspiracy can be proven even if only one of the accused did the actual killing. People vs Escober Escober, a former guard is not proven to be part of the conspiracy since his act during the commission of the crime is not proven to be part of the nefarious plot. People vs Nacional A meeting was proven to have transpired before the actual killing of the alleged military informants. Thus, conspiracy existed. People vs Elijorde Elijorde was the only one convicted since his two companions did not show support or participation when he stabbed the victim. People vs Botona The accused are found to have conspired since they shared a common objective which is to kill their brother in law.

Lecaroz vs Sandiganbayan There was no conspiracy between Mayor Lecaroz and his son who was reinstated as the Chairman of the Kabataang Baranggay. People vs Bello All the chain of events and the conduct of Marife lead to no other conclusion than that she conspired with her co-accused to commit the crime. People vs Rom Based on the testimony of Ancla, it was undeniable that Corsales was also holding a balisong and was also stabbing the victim. People vs Comadre It was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that George and Danilo helped Antonio in the crime when he threw a grenade in the roof of Antonio. Attempt People vs Lamahang When Lamahang was caught attempting to break in a house of another, he can only be charged with attempted trespass to dwelling. People vs Dio Since the watch remained with the victim, Dio can only be charged with attempted robbery with homicide. People vs Trinidad Trinidad was not able to perform all the acts of execution that would have brought about the death of Tan making him only convicted with attempted homicide. People vs Lopez The Court ruled that Lopez can only be liable of Attempted Murder with respect to Mario Seldera. It was established by the doctor that the gunshot wounds acquired by Mario were not fatal and will in fact heal in seven days.

People vs Lizada Lizada was only found guilty of 3 out of 4 counts of rape. The other one was attempted rape since Lizada did not continue the crime when the victims brother entered the room. Frustration People vs Campuhan Campuhan was only charged with attempted rape as it was not proven that he inserted his penis to the genitalia of the 4 year old child. Consummation US vs Adiao Adiao must be convicted of consummated theft even if he was not able to get the belt out of the Customs House. People vs Hernandez Hernandez raped a 9 year old kid. The Court held that mere penetration of the penis to the labia of the genitalia can be considered as consummated crime of rape. People vs Erinia Erinia was only convicted of frustrated rape since the Court held that it was impossible for his penis to enter the genitalia of a 3 years and 11 months old girl. Sticky substance was found in the genitalia. Malcom dissented. People vs Velasco Medical opinion and positive identification made Velasco guilty of the crime of consummated rape of a five year old girl in the North Cemetery. People vs Mendoza Mendoza was only found guilty of incestuous rape for raping his daughter for the second case. The first case was ruled to be attempted rape since she was unconscious before the penetration occurred.

Impossible Crimes Intod vs CA The ruling was modified from attempted murder to an impossible crime punishable by Article 4 (2) since he fired the gun to an empty room thinking that his target was there. Principals By direct participation People vs Nunag Rape case of five men on a girl with the girl identifying 3 of the men. All five are still convicted of rape since the two showed indispensable cooperation. People vs Dela Cerna Murder of father and son with the killing the son as wasn't part of the plan. Serapio acted alone in killing the son. People vs Doria Marijuana entrapment case. There was no evidence of participation of Gaddao because she wasn't commiting, planning to commit, nor committed any offense. Those who force or induce others to commit People vs Yamson Jeanette was swindled of fake gold bars but there was no proof that she forced or induced the abduction and killing of the victims. People vs Bolivar There was no sufficient evidence to convict Barrion of inducing Canaguran to kill Callao and no evidence was presented to show that Barrion had moral ascendancy/dominance over Canaguran that the latter would be induced to kill.

People vs Ong Chiat Lay The two companions of Ong Chiat Lay are acquitted of arson but Ong Chiat was found guilty. Since it was claimed that there was conspiracy, the acquittal of one means acquittal of all. People vs Dela Cruz Kidnapping. The inducer need not take part in the commission of the offense, one who induces another to commit a crime is guilty as principal even though he might have taken no part in its material execution. People vs Indanan Indanan was the headman of Parang. He ordered his men to kill Sariol claiming that such order was from the governor. His men committed a crime because of his command. People vs Kiichi Omine One who said "stab him!" is not guilty of inducement because inducement must precede the criminal act. Indispensable cooperation People vs Maluenda Legartos participation as a coprincipal by indispensable cooperation in the crime is not proven and he is merely an accessory. His acts such as delivery of ransom money were limited after the abduction was already consummated. People vs Montealegre Montealgre did not himself commit the act of stabbing but he is equally guilty for having prevented the victim from resisting the attack against him. People vs Eguia A conspiracy existed between Eguia and Reyes for the withdrawal of funds of the former. Eguia had no funds at all during that time.

Accomplices People vs Mandolado An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offence by previous or simultaneous acts, provided he has no direct participation in its execution or does not force or induce other to commit it, or his cooperation is not indispensable. Ortilliano only fired his gun every time Mandolado fired his. People vs Doble The owner of the banca is convicted as accomplices since they did not participate in the bank robbery and killing per se. People vs Doctolero The two appellants were standing in the room ready to lend assistance to their brother who is killing the two women and injuring a child. People vs Elijorde Elijorde was the only one convicted since his two companions did not show support or participation when he stabbed the victim. People vs De Vera Appellant was not a mere spectator but a look out to ensure that the crime was carried out. Therefore, he was an accomplice. People vs Cachola The other six accused cannot be said to be accomplices since they are not proven to be part of the crime since they were only with the suspects 2 hours after the killing. Accessories People vs Talingdan Teresa did not directly participate in the conspiracy and thus, cannot have the same liability as her co-accused but she knew it was going to be done and did not object. As evidenced by her passive attitude before the crime was commenced and her active

cooperation after its execution, she is at the very least an accessory to the offense committed by the accused. People vs Cui The Cui couple participated subsequent to the commission of the act of kidnapping.