Petitioner: Elvira Yu Oh

Respondent(s): Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

FACTS:
Petitioner purchased pieces of jeelr! fro" Solid #old $nternational Traders% $nc& 'ue to her
failure to pa! the purchase price% the co"pan! filed civil cases a(ainst her for specific
perfor"ance )efore the RTC of Pasi(& On Septe")er *+% *,,-% petitioner and Solid #old
throu(h it (eneral "ana(er% .oa/uin 0ovales $$$ entered into a co"pro"ise a(ree"ent to settle
said civil cases& $t as approved )! the trial court provided that petitioner shall issue a total of
ninet!1nine post1dated chec2s in the a"ount of P3P 4-%---&-- each% dated ever! *4
th
and
5-
th
of the "onth startin( Octo)er *% *,,- and the )alance of over P3P *"illion to )e paid in
lu"p su" on 0ove")er *6% *,,7 (the due date of the ,,
th
post dated chec2)& Petitioner then
issued ten chec2s at Php 4-%---&-- each for a total of Php 4--%---&-- dran a(ainst her
account at the E/uita)le 8an2in( Corporation (E8C)& 0ovales then deposited each of the ten
chec2s on their respective due dates to the co"pan! )an2 account& 3oever% said chec2s ere
dishonored )! the E8C for the reason 9Account Closed:& 'ishonor slips ere issued for each
chec2 that as returned to 0ovales& On Octo)er 4% *,,;% 0ovales filed *- separate infor"ations
)efore the RTC of <ue=on Cit! char(in( the petitioner ith violation of 8atas Pa")ansa 8l(&
;;& >pon arrai(n"ent% petitioner pleaded not (uilt!&
0onetheless% RTC convicted her of ten counts of violation of 8P ;;& CA affir"ed the decision&
$SS>ES:
(*) ?hether or not appellate court as "ista2en in not (rantin( retroactive effect to RA +6,* in
vie of Art ;; of the RPC&
(;) ?hether or not 9notice of dishonor: is indispensa)le in this case&
3E@':
(*) 0o& RA +6,* is not a penal la and therefore% Art ;; of the RPC does not appl! in the present
case& A penal la is an act of the le(islature that prohi)its certain acts and esta)lishes penalties
for its violations& $t also defines cri"e% treats of their nature and provides for its punish"ent& RA
+6,* is a la that vests additional jurisdiction on courts% thus% it is su)stantive& The court further
held that it cannot )e (iven retroactive effect&
(;) Yes& $t is necessar! that a 9notice of dishonor: )e received )! the issuer and the prosecution
has the )urden of provin( the fact of service& $t thus stated in section ; of 8P ;;& $t is essential
for the draer to )e notified of the dishonor of her chec2s so she could "a2e arran(e"ents for
its pa!"ent ithin the period prescri)ed )! la (4 da!s)&
3ence% SC reversed the decision of the CA and ac/uits the petioner&
People of the Philippines vs Ca!at
Equal Protection Requisites of a Valid Classification Bar from Drinking Gin
FACTS:
$n *,5+% there eAists a la (Act *65,) hich )ars native non1Christians fro" drin2in( (in or an!
other li/uor outside of their custo"ar! alcoholic drin2s& Ca!at% a native of the Cordillera% as
cau(ht ith an A1*1* (in in violation of this Act& 3e as then char(ed and sentenced to pa!
P4&-- and to )e i"prisoned in case of insolvenc!& Ca!at ad"itted his (uilt )ut he challen(ed the
constitutionalit! of the said Act& 3e averred% a"on( others% that it violated his ri(ht to e/ual
protection afforded )! the constitution& 3e said this an atte"pt to treat the" ith discri"ination
or 9"ar2 the" as inferior or less capa)le race and less entitled: ill "eet ith their instant
challen(e& The la sou(ht to distin(uish and classif! native non1Christians fro" Christians&
ISSUE: ?hether or not the said Act violates the e/ual protection clause&
HELD: The SC ruled that Act *65, is valid for it "et the re/uisites of a reasona)le classification&
The SC e"phasi=ed that it is not enou(h that the "e")ers of a (roup have the characteristics
that distin(uish the" fro" others& The classification "ust% as an indispensa)le re/uisite% not )e
ar)itrar!& The re/uisites to )e co"plied ith areB
(*) "ust rest on su)stantial distinctionsB
(;) "ust )e (er"ane to the purposes of the laB
(5) "ust not )e li"ited to eAistin( conditions onl!B and
(7) "ust appl! e/uall! to all "e")ers of the sa"e class&
Act 0o& *65, satisfies these re/uire"ents& The classification rests on real or su)stantial% not
"erel! i"a(inar! or hi"sical% distinctions& $t is not )ased upon 9accident of )irth or parenta(e&:
The la% then% does not see2 to "ar2 the non1Christian tri)es as 9an inferior or less capa)le
race&: On the contrar!% all "easures thus far adopted in the pro"otion of the pu)lic polic!
toards the" rest upon a reco(nition of their inherent ri(ht to e/ualit! in the enjo!"ent of those
privile(es no enjo!ed )! their Christian )rothers& 8ut as there can )e no true e/ualit! )efore
the la% if there is% in fact% no e/ualit! in education% the (overn"ent has endeavored% )!
appropriate "easures% to raise their culture and civili=ation and secure for the" the )enefits of
their pro(ress% ith the ulti"ate end in vie of placin( the" ith their Christian )rothers on the
)asis of true e/ualit!&
Cit! of Canila vs .ud(e Perfecto @a(uio
Police Power
FACTS:On 5- Car *,,5% Ca!or @i" si(ned into la Ord ++D5 entitled A0 OR'$0A0CE
PRO3$8$T$0# T3E ESTA8@$S3CE0T OR OPERAT$O0 OF 8>S$0ESSES PROE$'$0#
CERTA$0 FORCS OF AC>SECE0T% E0TERTA$0CE0T% SERE$CES A0' FAC$@$T$ES $0
T3E ERC$TA1CA@ATE AREA% PRESCR$8$0# PE0A@T$ES FOR E$O@AT$O0 T3EREOF% A0'
FOR OT3ER P>RPOSES& $t )asicall! prohi)ited esta)lish"ents such as )ars% 2arao2e )ars%
"otels and hotels fro" operatin( in the Calate 'istrict hich as notoriousl! vieed as a red
li(ht district har)orin( thrill see2ers& Calate Tourist 'evelop"ent Corporation avers that the
ordinance is invalid as it includes hotels and "otels in the enu"eration of places offerin(
a"use"ent or entertain"ent& CT'C reiterates that the! do not "ar2et such nor do the! use
o"en as tools for entertain"ent& CT'C also avers that under the @#C% @#>s can onl!
re(ulate "otels )ut cannot prohi)it their operation& The Cit! reiterates that the Ordinance is a
valid eAercise of Police Poer as provided as ell in the @#C& The Cit! li2eise e"phasi=ed
that the purpose of the la is to pro"ote "oralit! in the Cit!&
ISSUE: ?hether or not Ordinance ++D5 is valid&
HELD: The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void& The SC noted that for an
ordinance to )e valid% it "ust not onl! )e ithin the corporate poers of the local (overn"ent
unit to enact and "ust )e passed accordin( to the procedure prescri)ed )! la% it "ust also
confor" to the folloin( su)stantive re/uire"ents:
(*) "ust not contravene the Constitution or an! statuteB
(;) "ust not )e unfair or oppressiveB
(5) "ust not )e partial or discri"inator!B
(7) "ust not prohi)it )ut "a! re(ulate tradeB
(4) "ust )e (eneral and consistent ith pu)lic polic!B and
(6) "ust not )e unreasona)le&
The police poer of the Cit! Council% hoever )road and far1reachin(% is su)ordinate to the
constitutional li"itations thereonB and is su)ject to the li"itation that its eAercise "ust )e
reasona)le and for the pu)lic (ood& $n the case at )ar% the enact"ent of the Ordinance as an
invalid eAercise of dele(ated poer as it is unconstitutional and repu(nant to (eneral las&

CASE DIGEST ON In Re: KAY VILLEGAS KAMI [35 SCRA 429 (197!"
Facts:
Fa! Eille(as Fa"i $nc& clai"in( to )e a reco(ni=ed non1stoc2% non1profit corporation contests
validit! of RA G 6*5; Sec& D sa!in( it violates due process ri(hts of association% freedo" of
eApression and is an eA post facto la
$ssues:
*& ?O0 it violates three ri(htsH
0o& $tIs set up to prevent prostitution of electoral process and e/ual protection of las&
;& ?O0 it is an eA post facto laH
0o& EA post facto la defined:
a& "a2es cri"inal an act done )efore la as passed and punishes act innocent hen
done&
)& a((ravates a cri"e% "a2es it (reater than it as
c& inflicts (reater punish"ent than the la prescri)ed hen co""itted
d& alters le(al rules of evidence and authori=es conviction upon less or different tests
e& assu"in( to re(ulate civil ri(hts and re"edies onl! in effect i"poses penalt! or
deprivation of ri(ht hich hen done as laful
f& deprives a person accused of a cri"e so"e laful protection to hich he has )eco"e
entitled% such as the protection of a for"er conviction of ac/uittal or a procla"ation of a"nest!&
3eld: Petition denied& Constitutional act&
Constitutional inhi)ition refers onl! to cri"inal las& Penalt! in la i"posed to acts co""itted
after approval of la
TITLE O# THE CASE: SALVADOR V$ MA%ADATE O# %ROMULGATION: N&'e()e* 2+, 27SU-.ECT
AREA: C/'/0 %*&1e23*e4 C*/(/n50 L56KEY DOCTRI NES7 CONCE%TS: S8e1/ 50 C/ '/ 0
A19/ &n :&* Ce*9/ &*5*/ (R30 e ;5! '<$ %e9/9/ &n :&* Re'/ e6 &n Ce*9/ &*5*/ (R30e 45!4
%*e<1*/89/&n4 E= %&<9 #519& L56<
#ACTS:
On Oct o)er D% *,,; t hen Presi dent Fi del E& Ra"os i ssuedAd"i ni st rat i ve Order
0o& *5 creat i n( the Presi dent i al Ad 3ocFact 1Fi ndi n( Co""i t t ee on 8ehest
@oans& 8ehest l oans arel oans (rant ed )! (overn"ent )an2s or #OCC at the
)ehest % co""and% or ur(i n( )! previ ous (overn"ent off i ci al s t o
t hedi sadvant a(e of t he Phi l i ppi ne (overn"ent & The Co""i t t eeas tas2ed t o
i nvent or! al l )ehest l oans and det er"i ne t hecourses of act i on t hat t he
(overn"ent shoul d ta2e t o recover these loans&8! Ce"orandu" Order 0o& 6*
dat ed 0ove")er ,% *,,;% t hefunctions of the Co""ittee ere eApanded to include all non1
perfor"in( loans hich shall e")race )ehest and non1)ehestloans& Said Ce"orandu" also
na"ed criteria to )e utili=ed asa fra"e of reference in deter"inin( a )ehest
loan Sev er al l oan ac c ount s er e r ef er r ed t o t he Co""i t t ee f or investi(atio
n% includin( the loan transactions )eteen CetalsEAploration Asia% $nc& (CEA)% no Philippine
Ea(le Cines% $nc&(PEC$ ) and the 'evel op"ent 8an2 of t he Phi l i ppi nes ('8P)& The
Co""ittee deter"ined that the! )ore the characteristics of )ehest l oans% as def i ned under
Ce"orandu" Order 0o& 6*)ecause t he st oc2hol ders and off i cers of PEC$ ere
2nonc r oni es of t hen Pr es i dent Fer di nand Car c os B t he l oan a s under1
col l at eral i =edB and PEC$ as undercapi t al i =ed at t heti"e the loan as
(ranted&Conse/uent l !% At t !& Orl ando @& Sal vador% Consul t ant of t heFact 1Fi ndi n(
Co""i t t ee% and represent i n( t he PC##% f i l ed i t h t h e O ") u d s "a n a s o r
n c o "p l a i n t f o r v i o l a t i o n o f Sect i ons 5(e) and (() of Repu)l i c Act 0o&
5-*,% or the
Anti1#r af t and Cor r upt Pr ac t i c es Ac t %
a(ai nst t he respondent sCapa% .r& et& al&The O")uds"an di s"i ssed t he co"pl ai nt
on t he (round of prescri pt i on& $t st ressed t hat Sect i on ** of R& A& 0o& 5-*,
asori (i nal l ! enact ed% provi des t hat t he prescri pt i ve peri od
f or v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e s a i d A c t ( R & A & 5 - * , ) i s t e n ( * - ) ! e a r s & Coreo
ver% the co"putation of the prescriptive period of a cri"evi ol at i n( a speci al l a l i 2e R& A&
5-*, i s (overned )! Act 0o& 55;6 hi ch provi des t hat prescri pt i on shal l )e(i n t o
run fro"t he da! of t he co""i ssi on of t he vi ol at i on of l a% and i f t hesa"e )e not
2non at the ti"e% fro" the discover! thereof andt he i nst i t ut i on of t he j udi ci al
proceedi n(s f or i t s i nvest i (at i onand punish"ent& Corollar! thereto% the Supre"e Court in
thecase of People vs& 'insa!% C&A& 7- O&#& *;
th
Supp&% 4-% ruledt hat hen t here i s not hi n( hi ch as conceal ed or needed t o)e
di scovered )ecause t he ent i re seri es of transact i ons ere)! pu)lic instru"ents% the
period of prescription co""enced torun fro" the date the said instru"ent ere eAecuted&$ n
t he c as e at )ar % t he l oans er e ent er ed i nt o )! v i r t ue of pu)lic docu"ents
(e&(&% notari=ed contracts% )oard resolutions%approved l et t er1re/uest ) duri n( the peri od
of *,+D t o *,D*& Records sho t hat t he co"pl ai nt as ref erred and f i l ed i t h the
O")uds"an on Octo)er 7% *,,6 or after the lapse of "orethan fifteen !ears fro" the violation
of the la& Therefore% theoffenses char(ed had alread! prescri)ed&Also pointed out as that the
Presidential Ad 3oc Co""itteeon 8ehes t @oans
as c r eat ed on Oc t o)er D% *,,; under Ad"i ni st rat i ve Order 0o&
*5& Su)se/uent l !% Ce"orandu"Order 0o& 6*% dat ed 0ove")er ,% *,,;% as
i ssued def i ni n(the criteria to )e utili=ed as a fra"e of reference in
deter"inin() e h e s t l o a n s & A c c o r d i n ( l ! % i f t h e s e O r d e r s a r e t o
) e c ons i der ed t he )as es of c har (i n( r es pondent s f or al l e(ed offenses
co""itted% the! )eco"e eA1post facto las hich areproscri)ed )! the Constitution&The
Co""i t t ee f i l ed a Cot i on f or Reconsi derat i on% )ut t heO")uds"an denied it on .ul!
;+% *,,D&
ISSUE 1: >ON THE %RESENT %ETITION #OR REVIE> ONCERTI ORARI SHOULD
-E DI SMI SSED #OR -EI NG THE>RONG REMEDY IN ELEVATING THE CASE TO THE
SC$DECISION: N&$RATIO:
A pet i t i on f or revi e on
certiorari
under Rul e 74 i s not t hepr oper "ode )! hi c h r es ol ut i ons of t he
O")uds "an i npreli"inar! investi(ations of cri"inal cases are revieed )!
theS C & T h e r e " e d ! f r o " t h e a d v e r s e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e O")u
ds"an is a petition for
certiorari
under Rule 64&3oev er % t hou(h c apt i oned as a
Pet i t i on f or Rev i e onCertiorari
% t he SC t reat ed t he pet i t i on as one f i l ed under Rul e64 since a readin( of its contents
reveals that petioner i"putes(rave a)use of di scret i on t o the O")uds"an f or
di s"i ssi n(t he c o"pl ai nt & The av er "ent s i n t he c o"pl ai nt % not
t heno"enclature (iven )! the parties% deter"ine the nature of theaction&
ISSUE 2: >ON THE CRIME DE#INED -Y SEC$
(e!A N D ( ? ! O # R $ A $ 3 1 9 H A S A L R E A D Y %RES
CRI-EDDECISION: N& RATIO:
$t is ell1ni(h i"possi)le for the State to have
2nont h e v i o l a t i o n s o f R & A & 0 o & 5 - * , a t t h e t i "e t h e /ues t i oned t r
ans ac t i ons er e "ade )ec aus e t hepu)lic officials concerned connived or conspired
iththe )eneficiaries of the loans& Thus% the prescriptiveperiod should )e co"puted fro" the
discover! of thec o""i s s i on t her eof and not f r o" t he da ! of s uc hco""ission&
ISSUE 3: >ON ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO$
13AND MEMORANDUM ORDER NO$ ;1 ARE EJ1 POST FACTO LA>S
DECISION: N&$RATIO:
The SC di d not s us t ai n t he O")uds "anI s dec l ar at i on t hat Ad"i ni st rat i ve
Order 0o& *5 and Ce"orandu" Order 0o& 6*violate the prohi)ition a(ainst
eA post facto
las for ostensi)l!
i nf l i ct i n( puni sh"ent upon a person for an act done pri or totheir issuance and hich
as innocent hen done&The constitutionalit! of las is presu"ed& To justif! nullificationof a
la% there "ust )e a clear and une/uivocal )reach of
theC o n s t i t u t i o n % n o t a d o u ) t f u l o r a r ( u a ) l e i " p l i c a t i o n & Fur
ther"ore% the O")uds"an has no jurisdiction to entertain/uestions on the constitutionalit! of a
la& The
O")uds"an%t her ef or e% ac t ed i n eA c es s of i t s j ur i s di c t i on i n dec l ar i n( unco
nstitutional the su)ject ad"inistrative and "e"orandu"orders&$n an! event% the SC held that
Ad"inistrative Order 0o& *5 andCe"orandu" Order 0o& 6* are not
eA post facto
las&An
eA post f act o
l a has )een def i ned as one K (a) hi ch"a2es an action done )efore the passin( of
the la and hichas i nnocent hen done cri "i nal % and puni shes such act i onB or ())
hich a((ravates a cri"e or "a2es it (reater than it ashen co""i t t edB or (c) hi ch
chan(es the puni sh"ent andinflicts a (reater punish"ent than the la anneAed to the
cri"ehen i t as co""i t t edB or (d) hi ch al t ers t he l e(al rul es of evidence and
receives less or different testi"on! than the lare/uired at the ti"e of the co""ission of the
offense in order to convict the defendant& This Court added to (;) "ore to thelist% na"el!: (e)
that hich assu"es to re(ulate civil ri(hts andre"edies onl! )ut in effect i"poses a penalt! or
deprivation of a ri(ht hich hen done as lafulB or (f) that hich deprivesa person accused of
a cri"e of so"e laful protection to hichhe has )eco"e ent i t l ed% such as the
prot ect i on of a f or"er conviction or ac/uittal% or a procla"ation of a"nest!&The
const i t ut i onal doctri ne t hat out l as an
eA post f act o
la(enerall! prohi)its the retrospectivit! of penal las& Penal lasare those acts of the
le(islature hich prohi)it certain acts andest a)l i sh penal t i es f or
t hei r vi ol at i onsB or t hose t hat def i necri"es% treat of their nature% and provide for their
punish"ent&The su)ject ad"inistrative and "e"orandu" orders clearl! donot co"e i t hi n
t he shado of thi s def i ni t i on& Ad"i ni st rat i veOrder 0o& *5 creat es the Presi dent i al
Ad 3oc
Fact1Findin(Co""ittee on 8ehest @oans% and provides for its co"positionand f unc t i ons & $ t
does not "et e out penal t ! f or t he ac t of (rant i n( )ehest
l oans& Ce"orandu" Order 0o& 6* "erel !provi des a fra"e of ref erence f or
det er"i ni n( )ehest
l oans& 0 o t ) e i n ( p e n a l l a s % A d "i n i s t r a t i v e O r d e r 0 o & * 5 a n d Ce"
orandu" Order 0o& 6* cannot )e charact eri =ed as
eA post facto las&
Case 'i(est: >&S& vs& Ah Chon(
#&R& 0o& @1+,;, Carch *,% *,*-
Facts: 8ecause of the "an! )ad ele"ents happenin( at Fort CcFinle!% Ah Chon(% a coo2%
loc2ed hi"self in his roo" )! placin( a chair a(ainst the door& After havin( (one to )ed% he as
aa2ened )! so"eone tr!in( to open the door of his roo"& 3e called out tice% ?ho is there%
)ut received no anser& Fearin( that the intruder as a ro))er% he leaped fro" his )ed and
called out a(ain% $f !ou enter the roo" $ ill 2ill !ou& 8ut at the precise "o"ent% he as struc2
)! the chair and )elievin( that he as )ein( attac2ed% he sei=ed a 2itchen 2nife and struc2 and
fatall! ounded the intruder ho turned out to )e his roo""ate&
$ssue: ?hether or not Ah Chon( as (uilt! of "urder&
Rulin(:
>nder Article ** para(raph * of the Revised Penal Code provides that to justif! the act% there
should )e:
First&
>nlaful a((ression on the part of the person 2illedB
Second&
Reasona)le necessit! of the "eans e"plo!ed to prevent or repel itB
Third&
@ac2 of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defendin( hi"self&
Ah Chon( as not held lia)le for the death of his roo""ate& The Supre"e Court reversed the
loer courts conviction of ho"icide% sa!in( that Ah Chon( co""itted a "ista2e of fact& 3e
ould not have sta))ed his roo""ate had he 2non the identit! of the person ho entered the
roo"& $f the person ho opened the door had reall! )een a ro))er instead of his roo""ate% he
ould not )e cri"inall! lia)le if he had sta))ed that person in self1defense&
%e&80e '<$ O5n/<
.ul! ;+% *,75 (+7 Phil ;4+)

PART$ES:
Plaintiff and appellee: People of the Philippines
'efendants and appellant: Antonio Oanis% Al)erto #alanta
FACTS:
Antonio Oanis and Al)erto #alanta ere instructed to arrest a notorious cri"inal and escaped
convict% Ansel"o 8ala(tas% and if overpoered% to (et hi" dead or alive& The! ent to the
suspected house then proceeded to the roo" here the! sa the supposedl! 8ala(tas sleepin(
ith his )ac2 toards the door& Oanis and #alanta si"ultaneousl! or successivel! fired at hi"
hich resulted to the victi"Is death& The supposedl! 8ala(tas turned out to )e Serepio Tecson%
an innocent "an&
$SS>E:
*& ?O0 Oanis and #alanta incur no lia)ilit! due to innocent "ista2e of fact in the honest
perfor"ance of their official duties&
;& ?O0 Oanis and #alanta incur no cri"inal lia)ilit! in the perfor"ance of their dut!&
3E@':
*& 0o& $nnocent "ista2e of fact does not appl! to the case at )ar& 9$(norance facti eAcusat:
applies onl! hen the "ista2e is co""itted ithout fault or carelessness& The fact that the
supposedl! suspect as sleepin(% Oanis and #alanta could have chec2ed hether it is the real
8ala(tas&
;& 0o& Oanis and #alanta are cri"inall! lia)le& A person incurs no cri"inal lia)ilit! hen he acts
in the fulfill"ent of a dut! or in the laful eAercise of a ri(ht or office& There are ; re/uisites to
justif! this: (*) the offender acted in teh perfo"ance of a dut! or in the laful eAercise of a ri(ht
or office% (;) that the injur! or offense co""itted )e the necessar! conse/uence of the due
perfor"ance of such dut! or the laful eAercise of such ri(ht or office& $n this case% onl! the first
re/uisite is present&
CASE DIGEST ON %EO%LE '$ -INDOY [5; %@/0$ 15 (1931!"
Facts:
On Ca! 6% *,5-% 'onato 8indo! offered so"e tu)a to Ti)a!% Faustino PacasI ife& She refused
and 8indo! threatened to injure her if she did not accept& Pacas stepped in to defend his ife
and atte"pted to ta2e aa! fro" 8indo! the )olo he carried& The distur)ance attracted the
attention of E"i(dio O"a"da"& $n the course of the stru((le% 8indo! succeeded in disen(a(in(
hi"self fro" Pacas% renchin( the )olo fro" the latterIs hand% ith such violence that the point
of the )olo reached O"a"da"Is chest% ho as then )ehind 8indo!& The trial court held that
8indo! as (uilt! of the cri"e of ho"icide& 8indo! appealed% alle(in( that the death of
O"a"da" as caused accidentall! and ithout "alicious intent&
$ssue: ?O0 the cri"e of hich 8indo! as found (uilt! of can )e "iti(ated on the (round of
accident&
3eld: Yes& 'ecision is reversed& 8indo! is ac/uitted accordin( to Article D% 0o& D of the Revised
Penal Code
Ratio:
*& There is no evidence to sho that 8indo! deli)eratel! and intentionall! 2illed
O"a"da"&
H 0o evidence that O"a"da" too2 part in the fi(ht )eteen 8indo! and Pacas&
H 0o evidence that 8indo! as aare of O"a"da"Is presence&
H 0o evidence that there as disa(ree"ent or ill feelin(s )eteen 8indo! L O"a"da"&
On the contrar!% the! ere nephe L uncle% L ere on (ood ter"s ith each other&
;& The itness for the defense corro)orates the defendant to the effect that Pacas and
8indo! ere actuall! stru((lin( for the possession of the )olo% and that hen the latter let (o%
the for"er had pulled so violentl! that it fle toards O"a"da"% ho as therefore hit in the
chest% ithout 8indo!Is seein( hi"% )ecause O"a"da" had passed )ehind hi"& The testi"on!
of this itness as not contradicted )! an! re)uttal evidence adduced )! the fiscal&
5& $f% in the stru((le% the defendant had atte"pted to ound his opponent% and instead of
doin( so% had ounded O"a"da"% he ould )e lia)le for his act% since hoever illfull!
co""its a felon! or a "isde"eanor incurs cri"inal lia)ilit!% althou(h the ron(ful act done is
different fro" that hich he intended&
This is not the case here& 8indo! did not tr! to ound Pacas& 3e as onl! tr!in( to defend his
possession of the )olo% hich Pacas as tr!in( to rench aa! fro" hi"& 3is conduct as
perfectl! laful&
C5<e D/?e<9: A(52& A0'5*52& G5*1/5 '<$ %e&80e &: 9@e %@/0/88/ne<
G.R. No. 171951 28 August 2009
#ACTS:
The Fo=es ere havin( a drin2in( spree at their apart"ent hen Ch! as2ed the" to /uiet don
to hich #arcia co""ented that Ch! as )ein( arro(ant and that one da! he ould la! a hand
on hi"& To da!s later% the (roup decided to drin2 at a store oned )! Ch!Is sister% Es/ui)el&
Ch! as a)out to co"e out of his house and upon )ein( su""oned% #arcia suddenl! punched
hi"& Ch! continued to parr! the )los and hen he found an opportunit! to escape% he ran
ho"e and phoned his ife to call the police re(ardin( the "aulin(& 3e also co"plained of
difficult! in )reathin(& 3e as found later unconscious on the 2itchen floor% salivatin(&
Cause of death is heart attac2 to hich #arcia appeals that the injuries he caused ere not as
violent in nature as to have caused the death of Ch!& #arcia pleaded not (uilt! to the cri"e of
ho"icide& The autops! doctor confir"s that the )oAin( and the stri2in( of the )ottle )eer on the
victi" could not have caused an! direct ph!sical effect to cause the heart attac2 if the victi"Is
heart is health!& ?hat could have caused said heart attac2 is the victi"s e"otions concernin(
the violence inflicted upon hi"&
ISSUE:
?hether the circu"stance of havin( no intention to co""it so (rave a ron( as that co""itted
should )e appreciated
RULING:
The circu"stance that the petitioner did not intend so (rave an evil as the death of the victi"
does not eAe"pt hi" fro" cri"inal lia)ilit!& Since he deli)eratel! co""itted an act prohi)ited
)! la% said condition si"pl! "iti(ates his (uilt in accordance ith Article *5(5) of the Revised
Penal Code& 0evertheless% said circu"stance "ust )e appreciated in favour of the petitioner&
The fact that the ph!sical injuries he inflicted on the victi" could not have naturall! and lo(icall!
caused the actual death of the victi"% if the latterIs heart is in (ood condition&
Considerin( this "iti(atin( circu"stance% i"posa)le penalt! should )e in the "ini"u" period%
that is% reclusion te"poral in its "ini"u" period& Appl!in( the $ndeter"inate Sentence @a% the
trial court properl! i"posed upon petitioner an indeter"inate penalt! of ten (*-) !ears of prision
"a!or% as "ini"u"% to fourteen (*7) !ears and ei(ht (D) "onths of reclusion te"poral as
"aAi"u"&
Co"pleA cri"e
PEOP@E vs TO@$0#
FACTS: Antonio Tolin( and .ose Tolin(% tins% )oth "arried% are natives of 8arrio 0enita
Sa"ar& The! are illiterate far"ers tillin( their on lands& AntonioMs dau(hter% @eonora% as
or2in( in Canila& .oseMs three children had sta!ed in Canila also since *,67& Antonio decided
to (o to Canila after receivin( a letter fro" @eonora tellin( hi" that she ould (ive hi" "one!&
To have "one! for his eApenses% Antonio 2illed a pi( and sold the "eat to .oseMs ife for siAt!
pesos& .ose decided to (o ith Antonio in order to see his children& 3e as a)le to raise ei(ht!1
five pesos for his eApenses&
@eonora (ave her father fift! pesos& AntonioMs (randson% (ave hi" thirt! pesos& Antonio placed
the ei(ht! pesos in the ri(ht poc2et of his pants& $t as then noonti"e After )u!in( their tic2ets%
the! )oarded the ni(ht 8icol eApress train at a)out five oMcloc2 in the afternoon& The train left at
siA oMcloc2 that evenin(&
The tins ere in coach 0o& , hich as the third fro" the rear of the dinin( car& The coach
had one ro of to1passen(er seats and another ro of three1 passen(er seats& Each seat
faced an opposite seat& An aisle separated the to ros& The )rothers ere seated side )! side
on the fourth three1passen(er seat fro" the rear% facin( the )ac2 door& .ose as seated
)eteen Antonio% ho as near the indo% and a three1!ear old )o!& 8eside the )o! as a
o"an )reast1feedin( her )a)! ho as near the aisle& That o"an as Cora=on 8ernal&
There ere "ore than one hundred tent! passen(ers in the coach& So"e passen(ers ere
standin( on the aisle&
Sittin( on the third seat and facin( the )rothers ere to "en and an old o"an ho as
sleepin( ith her head restin( on the )ac2 of the seat (EAh& ;)& on the to1passen(er seat
across the aisle in line ith the seat here the )rothers ere sittin(% there ere seated a fat
o"an% ho as near the indo% and one Cipriano Re(anet ho as on her left& On the
opposite seat ere seated a o"an
G$R$ N&$ 1;254
.ul! *5% ;--,
GEMMA T$ .ACINTO,
Petitionervs&
%EO%LE O# THE %HILI%%INES, Re<8&n2en9 %ERALTA, .
A petition for revie on certiorari filed )! petitioner #e""a T& .acinto see2in( the reversal
of the 'ecision of the Court of Appeals affir"in( petitionerMs conviction of the cri"e of <ualified
Theft% and its Resolution den!in( petitionerMs "otion for reconsideration&
#519<:
8a)! A/uino handed petitioner #e""a .acinto a 8anco 'e Oro (8'O) Chec2 in the a"ount of
P*-%---&--& The chec2 as pa!"ent for 8a)! A/uinoMs purchases fro" Ce(a Foa" $ntMl&% $nc&%
and petitioner as then the collector of Ce(a Foa"& So"eho% the chec2 as deposited in the
@and 8an2 account of #eneroso Capitle% the hus)and of .ac/ueline CapitleB the latter is the
sister of petitioner and the for"er pricin(% "erchandisin( and inventor! cler2 of Ce(a
Foa"&@ater% Roena Rica )lanca% another e"plo!ee of Ce(a Foa"% received a phone call fro"
an e"plo!ee of @and 8an2% ho as loo2in( for #eneroso Capitle& The reason for the call as
to infor" Capitle that the su)ject 8'O chec2 deposited in his account had )een dishonored&
Rica )lanca then called and rela!ed the "essa(e throu(h accused Anita Ealencia% a for"er
e"plo!eeNcollector of Ce(a Foa"% )ecause the Capitles did not have a phoneB )ut the! could
)e reached throu(h Ealencia% a nei(h)or and for"er co1e"plo!ee of .ac/ueline Capitle at
Ce(a Foa"&Ealencia then told Rica)lanca that the chec2 ca"e fro" 8a)! A/uino% and
instructed Rica )lanca to as2 8a)! A/uino to replace the chec2 ith cash& Ealencia also told
Rica)lanca of a plan to ta2e the cash and divide it e/uall! into four: for herself% Rica )lanca%
petitioner .acinto and .ac/ueline Capitle& Rica)lanca% upon the advise of Ce(a Foa"Ms
accountant% reported the "atter to the oner of Ce(a Foa"% .oseph '!hen(co&Thereafter%
.oseph '!hen(co tal2ed to 8a)! A/uino and as a)le to confir" that the latter indeed handed
petitioner a 8'O chec2 for P*-%---&-- as pa!"ent for her purchases fro" Ce(a Foa"& 8a)!
A/uino further testified that petitioner .acinto also called her on the phone to tell her that the
8'O chec2 )ounced& Eerification fro" co"pan! records shoed that petitioner never re"itted
the su)ject chec2 to Ce(a Foa"& 3oever% 8a)! A/uino said that she had alread! paid Ce(a
Foa" P*-%---&-- cash as replace"ent for the dishonored chec2&'!hen(co filed a Co"plaint
ith the 0ational 8ureau of $nvesti(ation (08$) and or2ed out an entrap"ent operation ith its
a(ents& Ten pieces of P*%---&-- )ills provided )! '!hen(co ere "ar2ed and dusted ith
fluorescent poder )! the 08$& Thereafter% the )ills ere (iven to Rica)lanca% ho as tas2ed
to pretend that sheas (oin( alon( ith EalenciaMs plan&Rica)lanca% petitioner% her hus)and%
and Ealencia then )oarded petitionerMs jeep and ent on to 8a)! A/uinoMs factor!& Onl!
Rica)lanca ali(hted fro" the jeep and entered the pre"ises of 8a)! A/uino% pretendin( that
she as (ettin( cash fro" 8a)! A/uino& 3oever% the cash she actuall! )rou(ht out fro" the
pre"ises as theP*-%---&-- "ar2ed "one! previousl! (iven to her )! '!hen(co& Rica)lanca
divided the "one! and upon returnin( to the jeep% (ave P4%---&-- each to Ealencia and
petitioner& Thereafter% petitioner and Ealencia ere arrested )! 08$ a(ents% ho had )een atchin( the
hole ti"e& A case as filed a(ainst the three accused% .acinto% Ealencia and Capitle& RTC
rendered its 'ecision findin( the"
GUILTY )e!ond reasona)le dou)t of the cri"e of <>A@$F$E' T3EFT and sentenced each
i"prison"ent of #IVE (5! YEARS, #IVE (5! MONTHS AND ELEVEN (11! DAYS,as "ini"u" , 9&
SIA(;! YEARS, EIGHT (+! MONTHS AND T>ENTY (2! DAYS,as "aAi"u" &The three appealed
to the CA and the decision of the trial court as MODI#IED % in that:(a) the sentence a(ainst
accused #e""a .acinto standsB ()) the sentence a(ainst accused Anita Ealencia is reduced to 7
"onths
arresto "a!or "ediu"% and (c) The accused .ac/ueline Capitle is ac/uitted& 3ence%the present
Petition for Revie on Certiorari filed )! petitioner alone%
I<<3e:
?hether or not a orthless chec2 can )e the o)ject of theft&
He02:
As "a! )e (leaned fro" the afore"entioned Articles of the Revised Penal Code%
9@e 8e*<&n50 8*&8e*9B <3)Ce19 &: 9@e 9@e:9 (3<9 @5'e <&(e '503e, 5< 9@e /n9en9/&n &: 9@e
5113<e2 /< 9& (ain :*&( 9@e 9@/n? <9&0en & This is further )olstered )! Article 5-,% here the
la provides that the penalt! to )e i"posed on the accused is dependent on the value of the
thin( stolen&$n this case% petitioner unlafull! too2 the postdated chec2 )elon(in( to
Ce(a Foa"% )ut the sa"e as apparentl! ithout value% as it as su)se/uentl!
dishonored& Thus% the /uestion arises on hether the cri"e of /ualified theft as actuall!
produced& The Court "ust resolve the issue in the ne(ative& $ntod v& Court of Appeals is hi(hl!
instructive and applica)le to the present case& $n $ntod (see doctrines laid out in $ntod) % the
Court ent on to (ive an eAa"ple of an offense that involved factual i"possi)ilit!% i&e&% a
"an puts his hand in the coat poc2et of another ith the intention to steal the latterMs allet% )ut
(ets nothin( since the poc2et is e"pt!& 3erein petitionerMs case is closel! a2in to the a)ove
eAa"ple of factual i"possi)ilit! (iven in $ntod&$n this case%petitioner perfor"ed all the acts to
consu""ate the cri"e of /ualified theft% hich is a cri"e a(ainst propert!&PetitionerMs evil intent
cannot )e denied% as the "ere act of unlafull! ta2in( the chec2 "eant for Ce(a Foa" shoed
her intent to (ain or )e unjustl! enriched& ?ere it not for the fact that the chec2 )ounced% she
ould have received the face value thereof% hich as not ri(htfull! hers& Therefore% it as onl!
due to the eAtraneous circu"stance of the chec2 )ein( unfunded% a fact un2non to petitioner
at the ti"e% that prevented the cri"e fro" )ein( produced& The thin( unlafull! ta2en )!
petitioner turned out to )e a)solutel! orthless% )ecause the chec2 as eventuall! dishonored%
and Ce(a Foa" had received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored chec2&The fact
that petitioner as later entrapped receivin( the P4%---&-- "ar2ed "one!% hich she thou(ht as the cash
replace"ent for the dishonored chec2% is of no "o"ent& The Court held in Ealen=uela v& People
that under the definition of theft in Article 5-D of the Revised Penal Code there is onl! one
operative act of eAecution )! the actor involved in theft O the ta2in( of personal propert!
of another&: A< &: 9@e 9/(e 9@59 8e9/9/&ne* 9&&D 8&<<e<</&n &: 9@e 1@e1D (e5n9 :&* Me?5 #&5(,
<@e @52 8e*:&*(e2 500 9@e 519< 9& 1&n<3((59e 9@e 1*/(e &: 9@e:9,@52 /9 n&9 )een /(8&<</)0e &:
511&(80/<@(en9 /n 9@/< 15<e & O)viousl!% the plan to convince 8a)! A/uino to (ive cash as
replace"ent for the chec2 as hatched onl! after the chec2 had )een dishonored )! the
draee )an2&Since the cri"e of theft is not a continuin( offense% petitionerMs act of receivin( the
cash replace"ent should not )e considered as a continuation of the theft& At "ost% the fact that
petitioner as cau(ht receivin( the "ar2ed "one! as "erel! corro)oratin( evidence to
stren(then proof of her intent to (ain& Coreover% the fact that petitioner further planned to have
the dishonored chec2 replaced ith cash )! its issuer is a different and separate fraudulent
sche"e& >nfortunatel!% since said sche"e as not included or covered )! the alle(ations in the
$nfor"ation% the Court cannot pronounce jud("ent on the accusedB otherise% it ould violate
the due process clause of the Constitution& $f at all% that fraudulent sche"e could have )een
another possi)le source of cri"inal lia)ilit!&$0 E$E? OF T3E FORE#O$0#% the petition is
GRANTED & The 'ecision of the Court of Appeals% are MODI#IED &Petitioner #e""a T& .acinto is
found GUILTY of an IM%OSSI-LE CRIME as defined and penali=ed in Articles 7%para(raph ;% and
4, of the Revised Penal Code% respectivel!& Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalt! of
siA(6) "onths of arrresto "a!or % and to pa! the costs&
-ALEROS, .R$ '<$ %EO%LE O# THE %HILI%%INES C5<e D/?e<9
RENATO -ALEROS, .R$ '<$ %EO%LE O# THE %HILI%%INES
G$R$ NO$ 13+33 .5n35*B 3, 27
#ACTS: At a)out *:4- in the "ornin( or so"eti"e thereafter of *5 'ece")er *,,* in Canila%
the accused% )! forcefull! coverin( the face of Cartina @ourdes T& Al)ano ith a piece of cloth
soa2ed in che"ical ith di==!in( effects% tried to rape the victi" )! l!in( on top of her ith the
intention to have carnal 2noled(e ith her )ut as una)le to perfor" all the acts of eAecution
)! reason of so"e cause or accident other than his on spontaneous desistance% said acts
)ein( co""itted a(ainst her ill and consent to her da"a(e and prejudice&
Renato 8aleros% .r& "oved for a partial reconsideration of a SC decision ac/uittin( hi" of the
cri"e of atte"pted rape )ut adjud(in( hi" (uilt! of li(ht coercion& $t is 8alerosM su)"ission that
his conviction for li(ht coercion under an $nfor"ation for atte"pted rape% runs counter to the en
)anc rulin( in People v& Contreras here the Court held: The SO@#E0 contends that Contreras
should )e held lia)le for unjust veAation under Art& ;D+(;) of the RPC& 3oever% the ele"ents of
unjust veAation do not for" part of the cri"e of rape as defined in Art& 554& Coreover% the
circu"stances stated in the infor"ation do not constitute the ele"ents of the said cri"e&
Contreras% therefore% cannot )e convicted of unjust veAation&
ISSUE: ?hether Renato 8aleros% .r& is (uilt! of unjust veAation&
HELD: Yes& 3e ar(ues that the $nfor"ation a(ainst hi" does not alle(e that the act of coverin(
the face of the victi" ith a piece of cloth soa2ed in che"ical caused her anno!ance% irritation%
tor"ent% distress and distur)ance& The SC ish to stress that "alice% co"pulsion or restraint
need not )e alle(ed in an $nfor"ation for unjust veAation& >njust veAation eAists even ithout
the ele"ent of restraint or co"pulsion for the reason that the ter" is )road enou(h to include
an! hu"an conduct hich% althou(h not productive of so"e ph!sical or "aterial har"% ould
unjustl! anno! or irritate an innocent person&
The para"ount /uestion in a prosecution for unjust veAation is hether the offenderMs act
causes anno!ance% irritation% tor"ent% distress% or distur)ance to the "ind of the person to
ho" it is directed& That the victi"% after the incident cried hile relatin( to her class"ates hat
she perceived to )e a seAual attac2 and the fact that she filed a case for atte"pted rape proved
)e!ond cavil that she as distur)ed% if not distressed% )! the acts of the 8aleros&
ARTICLE IV: IM%OSSI-LE CRIMES
%EO%LE VS$ DOMASIAN

FACTS:
Ponente: .ustice Cru=% *,,5
Petitioner: Pa)lito 'o"asian1the 2idnapper
'r& Sa"son Tan P he as a resident ph!sician in the hospital oned )! EnricoIs father&
Respondent: People of the Philippines% Solicitor1#eneral
Eicti": Enrico Paulo A(ra
?itnesses: Enrico A(ra
Tirso Ferreras PEnricoIs Class"ate
AleAander #rate PTric!cle 'river here A(ra and 'o"asian rode% he speculated that the
latteras a 2idnapper and reported the incident to the tanods&
Events:
Enrico as al2in( ith a class"ate hen a "an% 'o"asian% approached hi" and as2ed for
his assistance in (ettin( his fatherIs si(nature on a "edical certificate& Enrico a(reed and rode ith hi" in a
tric!cle& Enrico )eca"e apprehensive hen instead of (oin( to the hospitalB he as forced )!
petitioner inside a "ini1)us% holdin( hi" fir"l! all the hile&The! rode another tric!cle and
ali(hted fro" here the! al2ed in a "ar2et& 'o"asian tal2ed to a jeepne! driver and handed a letter
address to 'r& Enri/ue A(ra% the )o!Is father& The! then )oarded the tric!cle of #rate%
hich aroused his the latterIs suspicion and reported the incident to the )aran(a! tanods% to(ether ith
#rate% the! ent after 'o"asian and Enrico&The! ere a)le to recover Enrico% 'o"asian
escaped& Afternoon of that da!% a ranso" note arrived to 'r& A(ra% as2in( for * "illion pesos in
eAchan(e of his son% Enrico% ho as a)le to return ho"e earlier that da!% after havin( )een
recovered fro" 'o"asian& 'r& A(ra identified the handritin( in the letter as 'r& TanIs% and this as confir"ed
)! an investi(ation "ade )! the 08$&
Fillin( of the Case:
Re(ional Trial Court convicted 'o"asian and Tan of Fidnappin(
$SS>ES: Convictions of Reclusion Perpetua are su)ject to revie )! the Supre"e Court&H
'o"asian petitions that he as forced to confess the cri"e in violation of his constitutional
ri(htsH
Tan petitions that his act of cri"e% if indeed proven% onl! constituted an i"possi)le cri"eH
?O0 the act co""itted )! 'r& Tan constitutes an $"possi)le Cri"eH
R>@$0#: The decision of the Re(ional Trial Court as affir"ed& Article 7 Section ; of
the Revised Penal Code States: Cri"inal @ia)ilit! shall )e incurred 8! a person co""ittin( an
act hich ould )e an offense a(ainst persons or propert!% ere it not for the inherent
i"possi)ilit! of its acco"plish"ent% or on account of the e"plo!"ent of inade/uate or
ineffectual "eans&
On the "atter of Conspirac! : the acts done )! 'o"asian and Tan ere co"ple"entar! to each
other& Fidnappin( of Enrico )! 'o"asian% and Ranso" note of Tan% ith one end (oal in
"ind%hich is% the ranso" of * "illion pesos fro" 'r& A(ra& Court held that even )efore
the ranso" note as received% the cri"e of 2idnappin( ith serious ille(al detention had alread!
)een co""itted& The deliver! of the ranso" note after the rescue of the victi" did not
eAtin(uish the offense%hich had alread! )een consu""ated hen 'o"asian deprived Enrico
of his li)ert!&
E2?5* E<E3e25 '< %e&80e &: 9@e %@/0/88/ne< G$R$ N&$ 17222
#519<:
A petition for revie on certiorari as filed to the Supre"e Court re(ardin( the affir"ation of the Court of Appeals to
the decision rendered )! the Re(ional Trial Court 8ranch 55 of 'u"a(uete Cit! on Cri"inal Case 0os& *76*; and
*76-, of herein respondents co""on1la spouses #audencio <ui/uinto and Eenancia Aliser respectivel! a(ainst
petitioner Ed(ar Es/ueda and one .ohn 'oe of ;counts of Frustrated 3o"icide&The private respondents ere
aa2ed on of )efore ** oI cloc2 in the evenin( on Carch 5% *,,, )! the accused petitioner ho concealed their
identities as "e")ers of rovin( patrol in their place and as2in( for a drin2 fro" the household& One of the
respondents% #audencio <ui/uinto opened the door and ent outside hile his lived1in partner Eenancia
Aliser folloed hi" and sta!ed )! the door& The! found to "en outside% one is positivel! identified as
the accused petitioner hile the other is not identified& The accused petitioner alle(edl! sta))ed #audencio
i""ediatel!& Aliser tried to ran aa! )ut as alle(edl! sta))ed and fell on the (round and as continuall! inflicted
"ortal ounds a(ainst the victi"s&The defense anchored on ali)i and denial& Presented three itnesses% Claudio%
Eiviana and 'o"in(o testified )efore the court that the accused as out sea fishin( durin( the ti"e of the cri"e&
I<<3e:
?hether the trial court (ravel! erred in findin( the latter (uilt! )e!ond reasona)le dou)t of frustrated ho"icide and
totall! disre(ardin( the latterIs defense&

He02:
The 3onora)le Court did not disre(ard the defense of the accused petitioner in renderin( its decision& The presented
ali)is and denial )! the defense are essentiall! ea2 a(ainst the positive identifications "ade )! the respondents& For
an ali)i to prosper% the accused "ust prove that he is so"ehere else and it is ph!sicall! i"possi)le for hi" to )e in
the scene for the cri"e& Ph!sicall! i"possi)le refers to the distance )eteenthe place here the cri"e has transpired
and the place here it as co""itted% also the facilit! of access )eteen the to places& >sin( the testi"onies of
the itnesses as evidence% the accused petitioner failed to prove that it as ph!sicall! i"possi)le for hi" to ent to
the scene of the cri"e atthe ti"e of the incident& $n this case% the defense of ali)i failed& The positive identification
destro!s the defense of ali)i (ivin( to such effect to )e ea2% (iven as the identification as "ade ith resound and
credi)le&
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES
G.R. No. 152589 & 152758. J!"#$ %1& 2''5
F()*+ B,-o#, "* .* )/, Mo).o! -o# R,(o!*.0,#).o! -.1,0 2$ /,#,.! (("*,0344,11!) o- o"#
D,(.*.o! 0),0 25 O()o2,# 2''% .! G.R. No. 152589 !0 No. 152758. I! *.0 0,(.*.o!& 6,
7o0.-.,0 )/, #"1.!8 o- )/, R,8.o!1 T#.1 9o"#) :RT9;& B#!(/ <1& G"7(& =",>o!& .! 9#.7.
9*, No. <<%<3G -.!0.!8 (("*,0344,11!) 8".1)$ o- #4, "!0,# A#).(1,* 2<<3A !0 2<<3B o-
)/, R,?.*,0 P,!1 9o0, !0 .!*),0& 6, 0@"08,0 /.7 8".1)$ o!1$ o- )),74),0 #4,. A,&
/o6,?,#& "4/,10 )/, #"1.!8 o- )/, (o"#) B"o 6.)/ #,8#0 )o 9#.7. 9*, No. <<%73G -.!0.!8
(("*,0344,11!) 8".1)$ o- .!(,*)"o"* #4, o- 7.!o# "!0,# A#). 2<<3B o- )/, R,?.*,0
P,!1 9o0, * 7,!0,0 2$ R,4"21.( A() No. 8%5% !0 -o# )/.*& 6, *,!),!(,0 (("*,03
44,11!) )o *"--,# )/, "1).7), 4,!1)$ o- 0,)/.
I**",+ A/,)/,# o# !o) )/, (("*,0 (o77.)),0 )),74),0 #4, o# ()* o- 1*(.?.o"*!,**.
H,10+ A-),# )/o#o"8/ #,?.,6 !0 ,?1").o! o- )/, #,(o#0* o- )/.* (*,& 6, -.!0 !o
*"--.(.,!) 2*.* )o 7o0.-$ o"# ,#1.,# 0,(.*.o! (o!?.().!8 (("*,0344,11!) o- )),74),0
#4, .! 9#.7. 9*, No. <<%<3G.T/,#, .* ! )),74) )o (o77.) #4, 6/,! )/, o--,!0,#
(o77,!(,* .)* (o77.**.o! 0.#,()1$ 2$ o?,#) ()* 2") 0o,* !o) 4,#-o#7 11 )/, ()* o-
,C,(").o! 6/.(/ */o"10 4#o0"(, )/, -,1o!$ 2$ #,*o! o- *o7, ("*, o# ((.0,!) o)/,# )/!
/.* o6! *4o!)!,o"* 0,*.*)!(,. U4o! )/, o)/,# /!0& A#).(1, %<< o- )/, R,?.*,0 P,!1
9o0, *)),*+ D:;!$ 4,#*o! 6/o */11 (o77.) !$ () o- 1*(.?.o"*!,** "4o! )/, o)/,# 4,#*o!
o- ,.)/,# *,C& "!0,# !$ o- )/, (.#("7*)!(,* 7,!).o!,0 .! )/, 4#,(,0.!8 #).(1,& */11 2,
4"!.*/,0 2$ 4#.*.o! (o##,((.o!1.E A* ,C41.!,0 2$ ! ,7.!,!) ")/o# o- (#.7.!1 16& #4,
!0 ()* o- 1*(.?.o"*!,** /?, )/, *7, !)"#,. T/,#, .*& /o6,?,#& -"!07,!)1
0.--,#,!(, 2,)6,,! )/, )6o. I! #4,& )/,#, .* )/, .!),!) )o 1., 6.)/ 6o7! 6/,#,* )/.*
,1,7,!) .* 2*,!) .! ()* o- 1*(.?.o"*!,**. I! )/.* (*,& )/, *,#.,* o- 4411.!8 ,?,!)* 6/.(/
)ooF 41(, o! )/, !.8/) o- 18 M#(/ 1998 .!*.0, )/, /"721, /o7, o- 4#.?), (o741.!!)
!0 o- (("*,0344,11!)& ,*)21.*/ 2,$o!0 0o"2) )/) )/, 1)),# .!),!0,0 )o #?.*/ /.* ?,#$
o6! -1,*/ !0 21oo0. A* ?.?.01$ !##),0 2$ 4#.?), (o741.!!) 2,-o#, )/, )#.1 (o"#)&
(("*,0344,11!)& )F.!8 0?!)8, o- )/, (o?,# o- 0#F!,** !0 o- )/, 2*,!(, o- /.* 6.-,&
#,7o?,0 /,# :4#.?), (o741.!!)G*; (1o)/.!8 !0 )/,#,-),# 41(,0 /.7*,1- o! )o4 o- /,#.
A(("*,0344,11!)& 6/o 6* *.7.1#1$ !F,0 * 4#.?), (o741.!!)& )/,! 4#o(,,0,0 )o F.**
)/, 1)),# !0 /, 1.F,6.*, )o"(/,0 /,# 2#,*)* "!).1 -.!11$& /, #,!0,#,0 4#.?), (o741.!!)
"!(o!*(.o"* 2$ 2oC.!8 /,# .! )/, *)o7(/. T/,*, 0*)#01$ ()* o- (("*,0344,11!)
(o!*).)"), D)/, -.#*) o# *o7, *"2*,B",!) *),4 .! 0.#,() 7o?,7,!) )o6#0* )/, (o77.**.o!
o- )/, o--,!*, -),# )/, 4#,4#).o!* #, 70,.E F# -#o7 2,.!8 7,#, o2*(,!.)$ o# 1,60!,**&
)/,$ #, .!0.*4")21$ o?,#) ()* ,C,("),0 .! o#0,# )o (o!*"77), )/, (#.7, o- #4, 8.!*)
)/, 4,#*o! o- 4#.?), (o741.!!).
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARIVI9 GENOSA
G.R. No. 1%5981. S,4),72,# 29& 2'''
F()*+ O! o# 2o") )/, 15)/ 0$ o- No?,72,# 1995& ) B#!8$ B.16!8& M"!.(.41.)$ o-
I*2,1& 4#o?.!(, o- L,$),& (("*,0 M#.?.( G,!o*& 6.)/ .!),!) )o F.11& 6.)/ )#,(/,#$ !0
,?.0,!) 4#,7,0.)).o!& 0.0 )/,! !0 )/,#, 6.11-"11$& "!16-"11$ !0 -,1o!.o"*1$ ))(F&
**"1)& /.) !0 6o"!0 BEN GENOSA& /,# 1,8.).7), /"*2!0& 6.)/ )/, "*, o- /#0 0,01$
6,4o!& 6/.(/ )/, (("*,0 /0 4#o?.0,0 /,#*,1- -o# )/, 4"#4o*,& .!-1.().!8 *,?,#1 6o"!0*
6/.(/ ("*,0 /.* 0,)/.
T/, 1o6,# (o"#) -o"!0 )/, (("*,0& M#.?.( G,!o* $ I*.0#o& GUILTY 2,$o!0 #,*o!21,
0o"2) o- )/, (#.7, o- 4##.(.0, !0 *,!),!(,0 )/, (("*,0 6.)/ )/, 4,!1)$ o- DEATH.
O! 44,1& )/, 44,11!) 11,8,0 )/) 0,*4.), )/, ,?.0,!(, o! #,(o#0 o- #,4,),0 !0 *,?,#,
2,).!8* */, /0 *"--,#,0 ) )/, /!0* o- /,# /"*2!0& )/, 1o6,# (o"#) -.1,0 )o 44#,(.),
/,# *,1-30,-,!*, )/,o#$. S/, (1.7,0 )/) "!0,# )/, *"##o"!0.!8 (.#("7*)!(,*& /,# () o-
F.11.!8 /,# /"*2!0 6* ,B".?1,!) )o *,1-30,-,!*,.
I**",+ A/,)/,# o# !o) )/, D2)),#,0 6o7! *$!0#o7,E * ?.21, 41, 6.)/.! )/, (o!(,4) o-
*,1-30,-,!*, .* 441.(21, .! )/.* (*,.
H,10+ No. T/, (o"#)& /o6,?,#& .* !o) 0.*(o"!).!8 )/, 4o**.2.1.)$ o- *,1-30,-,!*, #.*.!8 -#o7
)/, 2)),#,0 6o7! *$!0#o7,. A, !o6 *"7 "4 o"# 7.! 4o.!)*. F.#*)& ,(/ o- )/, 4/*,* o-
)/, ($(1, o- ?.o1,!(, 7"*) 2, 4#o?,! )o /?, (/#(),#.>,0 ) 1,*) )6o 2)),#.!8 ,4.*o0,*
2,)6,,! )/, 44,11!) !0 /,# .!).7), 4#)!,#. S,(o!0& )/, -.!1 ("), 2)),#.!8 ,4.*o0,
4#,(,0.!8 )/, F.11.!8 o- )/, 2)),#,# 7"*) /?, 4#o0"(,0 .! )/, 2)),#,0 4,#*o!G* 7.!0 !
()"1 -,# o- ! .77.!,!) /#7& -#o7 /,# 2)),#,# !0 ! /o!,*) 2,1.,- )/) */, !,,0,0 )o
"*, -o#(, .! o#0,# )o *?, /,# 1.-,. T/.#0& ) )/, ).7, o- )/, F.11.!8& )/, 2)),#,# 7"*) /?,
4o*,0 4#o221,H!o) !,(,**#.1$ .77,0.), !0 ()"1H8#?, /#7 )o )/, (("*,0& 2*,0
o! )/, /.*)o#$ o- ?.o1,!(, 4,#4,)#),0 2$ )/, -o#7,# 8.!*) )/, 1)),#. TF,! 1)o8,)/,#&
)/,*, (.#("7*)!(,* (o"10 *).*-$ )/, #,B".*.),* o- *,1-30,-,!*,. U!0,# )/, ,C.*).!8 -()* o-
)/, 4#,*,!) (*,& /o6,?,#& !o) 11 o- )/,*, ,1,7,!)* 6,#, 0"1$ ,*)21.*/,0.
%EO%LE '$ CASTANITO GANO
G$R$ N&$ 134373 #e)*35*B 2+, 21
FACTS:
Accused as convicted of the cri"e of ro))er! ith ho"icide% and sentenced to the penalt! of
death& The core issue no )efore us is hether the three (5) 2illin(s should )e appreciated as
separate a((ravatin( circu"stances to arrant the i"position of the penalt! of death&
$SS>E: ?O0 the 5 2illin(s should )e appreciated as separate a((ravatin( circu"stances to arrant
the i"position of death penalt!H
3E@':
The SC found the accused (uilt! of ro))er! ith ho"icide% )ut i"posed the penalt! of reclusion
perpetua& $t should )e noted that there is no la providin( that the additional rapeNs or ho"icideNs
should )e considered as a((ravatin( circu"stance& The enu"eration of a((ravatin( circu"stances
under Article *7 of the Revised Penal Code is eAclusive as opposed to the enu"eration in Article *5
of the sa"e Code re(ardin( "iti(atin( circu"stances here there is specific para(raph (para(raph
*-) providin( for analo(ous circu"stances&
$t is true that the additional rapes (or 2illin(s in the case of "ultiple ho"icide on the occasion of the
ro))er!) ould result in an 9ano"alous situation: here fro" the standpoint of the (ravit! of the
offense% ro))er! ith one rape ould )e on the sa"e level as ro))er! ith "ultiple rapes& 3oever%
the re"ed! lies ith the le(islature& A penal la is li)erall! construed in favor of the offender and no
person should )e )rou(ht ithin its ter"s if he is not clearl! "ade so )! the statute&