Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Inmates on one side of the floor attacked the inmates on the other
side. They locked the cell so that no one could enter or get out. 14
people died. After the pleadings and trials, eventually, 37 inmates
were sentenced to death. Counsels of the accused say that TC
erred in saying that there was conspiracy among them, and SolGen
says that instead of the 37 death penalties, there should have only
been 14 death sentences. So the issue is, are they guilty of a
complex crime or not? SC held that yes, they are guilty because
based on the ruling of a precedent case delos Santos: Ruling based
on the theory that: when, for the attainment of a single purpose
which constitutes an offense and various acts are executed, such
acts must be considered only as one offense, a complex one. And in
another precedent case Lawas: the killing was held to be only one
complex offense of multiple homicide because it resulted from a
single criminal impulse and it was not possible to determine how
many victims were killed by each of the accused.
ISSUE: Are they guilty of a complex crime? HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
After a perusal of the confessions, SC finds that their
admission of guilt is corroborated by evidence of the fact
that the massacre described actually took place.
Re: argument of the counsels (2nd to the last bullet of the
facts)
Conspiracy can logically be inferred from the simultaneous
and concerted acts of the 16 raiders who, after putting down
the guard and entering the big cell, joined and combined
forces with their co-attackers, inmates of the big cell who
were waiting for the go signal to begin the attack in
pursuance of their criminal objective.
The trial court added that the acts and conduct of the
accused from the start of their aggression until the attack
was suppressed were characterized "by a swift, united and
concerted movement that could easily indicate a community
of purpose, closeness of association and concurrence of will
The accused had deliberately planned the attack as shown
by the manner in which they executed the massacre
Re: SG argument
Precedent: In the De los Santos case, which involved 2 riots
wherein 9 prisoners were killed, the 14 members of the
gang who took part in the killing were convicted of multiple
murder (a complex crime) and not of 9 separate murders.
Ruling in delos Santos was predicated on the theory that:
when, for the attainment of a single purpose which
Obiter:
The SC noted that there may be a need to modify the rebellion law.
Considering that the essence of rebellion has been lost and that it
is being used by a lot of opportunists to attempt to grab power.
Dissent and concurring:
Fernan, C.J.
with Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder, a crime which does not
exist in our statute books.
CONTINUING CRIME
Parulan vs. Director of Prisons (1968)
Facts:
-Parulan was serving life imprisonment (commuted to 20 years by
the Pres of the Phil) in Muntinglupa. In Oct 1964, he was transferred
to Fort Bonifacio. He escaped in the same month, but was
recaptured in Manila.
- He was prosecuted for the crime of evasion of service of sentence,
penalized under RPC157. In 1966, CFI Manila found him guilty and
sentenced him accordingly.
- He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the
Director of Bureau of Prisons, praying that the latter be ordered to
release immediately and without delay the body of the petitioner
from unlawful and illegal confinement. Parulan saw his
confinement illegal because the sentence of conviction imposed
upon him for the crime of evasion of service of sentence, penalized
under RPC157, was rendered by a court without jurisdiction over his
person and of the offense with which he was charged.
Issue:
W/N the CFI of Manila with jurisdiction to try and decide the case
and to impose the sentence upon Parulan for evasion of service of
sentence
Held & Ratio:
Yes. In transitory crimes or continuing offenses, acts material to the
crime occur in one province and some in another, in which case,
the rule is settled that the court of either province where any of the
essential ingredients of the crime took place has jurisdiction to try
the case.
- In some crimes, although the elements thereof for its
consummation occurred in one place, yet by the very nature of the
offense committed, the violation is deemed to be continuing.
- some crimes under 1st class: estafa or malversation, abduction
- some crimes under 2nd class: libel, kidnapping and illegal
detention (deprivation of liberty is continuing), and evasion of
service of sentence (the act of the escapee is a continuous or series
of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an
unintermittent force, however long it may be)
- Crime is not consummated after the convict has escaped from
confinement, for as long as he continues to evade the service, he is
deemed to continue committing the crime and may be arrested
without warrant at any place where he may be found; Sec6 (c) Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Court (one of the instances when a
person may be arrested without warrant is where he has excaped
from confinement) supports this
Umil vs. Fidel V. Ramos (1991)
8 petitions for habeas corpus consolidated
Facts for case I (Umil vs. Ramos):
- In Feb 88, The Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital
Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) verified that the man (Dural) being
treated for a gunshot wound in St. Agnes Hospital was the member
of the NPA Sparrow Unit responsible for killing 2 CAPCOM soldiers
the day before. He was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the
gunman.
- Dural was charged with the crime of Double Murder with Assault
Upon Agents of Persons in Authority. Defendant Bernardo Itucal, Jr.
was included as defendant in the amendment of the information.
- On 6 Feb 88, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with SC on
behalf of Roberto Umil, Dural, and Renato Villanueva. The writ was
issued on 9 Feb, and the hearing started.
- On 26 Feb, however, Umil and Renato were release after they had
posted bail before the Pasay RTC where charges for violation of the
Anti-Subversion Act had been filed against them. Since the writ of
habeas corpus does not lie in favour of an accused in a criminal
case who has been released on bail, Umil and Renatos petition has
been rendered moot and dismissed.
Issue:
W/N Dural was illegally arrested
Held & Ratio:
No. Although Durals arrest was not one of those mentioned in Sec5
of Rule 113 as his arrest came a day after the shooting incident, it
was justified because he was arrested for being a member of the
NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion is a
continuing crime together with rebellion, conspiracy or proposal
to commit rebellion/subversion, and crimes committed in
furtherance of or in connection with, so his arrest without warrant is
justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when
arrested.
-Under Sec5 (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, an arrest
without a warrant is justified when the person is caught in flagranti
delicto (caught red-handed), or when an offense has just been
committed and the person making the arrest has personal
supporter and several police officers. After that day and the
succeeding days, pro-Estrada supporters gathered at EDSA. The
petitioners were among many of the political figures who spoke
before the crowd.
Apr 28, 2001: Estrada brought to Veteran's Medical Center, from
where he would be transported to Fort Sto. Domingo.
May 1, 2001: EDSA crowd decided to march to Malacanang. As they
were being dispersed, a melee erupted, hurting several police
officers and rallyists. AFTER the crowd was dispersed, GMA issued
Proclamation 38 and General Order 1, exercising her powers as
Commander in Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines.
After the proclamation, several leaders of the opposition were
ordered arrested (without warrant).
Issue: WERE THE ARRESTS/IMPENDING ARRESTS ILLEGAL?
Proc. 38 & GO1 were based on Article VII, Sec 18, which granted
GMA the power to call out armed forces in the case of 1) lawless
violence, 2) rebellion, 3) invasion. In case of rebellion/invasion, a)
writ of habeas corpus may be suspended, b) the Philippines or part
thereof may be placed under martial law. The term "state of
rebellion" has NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE, as the president is NOT
required to declare it.
If the intent of the declaration of a state of rebellion is to conduct
warrantless arrests, it is effectively martial law (but even matrial
law can authorize the President to do so).
WHEN ARE WARRANTLESS ARRESTS LEGAL?
Rules of Court: Rule 113, Sec. 5.
"A police officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.
b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it, and
xxx
In cases filing under par. a) and b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded
against in accordance with sec. 7 of Rule 119."