PEOPLE VS.

DAMASO,
GR NO. 93516
Facts: Accsused-appellant charged in an information of violation of PD 1866 in connection with the crime of subversion
assailed the legality of a search and seizure conducted at his house at night time when he was not around, on the
ground that it violated constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Issue: Whether or not a search on a house of a person without the owners presence is valid.
Held: No. The search in the dwelling of the accused-appellant without his knowledge is a violation of the constitutional
immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ELPIDIO ENRIQUEZ, JR. AND EMILIANO ENRIQUEZ
G.R. NO. 158797

FACTS: The abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, awith the use of firearm
(nickel plated revolver), motor vehicle (tricycle) and by simulating public authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, forcibly kidnapped Alexander Pureza y Mendoza by the point of a gun (revolver) and forcibly loaded him
to a yellow colored tricycle (Hazel) and brought somewhere else and detained in an undisclosed place for more than five
(5) days since the kidnapping took place and up to the present time could not be located, with the aggravating
circumstances of the use of a firearm, force, motor vehicle and simulation of public authority.
Appellants were convicted of kidnapping by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City and each was sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate prison term of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to
reclusion perpetua as maximum. They appealed to the Court of Appeals which not only affirmed their convictions but
imposed upon each of the appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
ISSUES:(1) Whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
(2) Whether Indeterminate Sentence Law shall apply to their case?
RULING:(1) The Court joined the lower courts in rejecting appellants alibi. They have repeatedly ruled that alibi is an
inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and is highly unreliable, more so when corroborated only by
relatives and friends. It cannot stand against the positive identification of appellant by a credible witness to the crime.
The Court found that the guilt of appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. All the
elements of the crime of kidnapping, to wit: (1) the accused is a private individual; (2) the accused kidnaps or detains
another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the
commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances mentioned in Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code are present,
have been proven through the eyewitness account and have not been shown to have any improver motive in testifying
the case.
(2) Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act. No. 4103) proscribes that it will not apply to persons convicted of offenses
punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment. The penalty imposed on the crime which the appellants have
committed is punishable at that time by reclusion perpetua, which for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
synonymous to life-imprisonment; hence, latter law will not apply in their case, and so the penalty of reclusion perpetua
will be imposed instead.

PEOPLE VS CRUZ
G.R. NO. L-11870
Facts:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal convicting appellants Paterno Cruz and Benito Cruz of
"rebellion with robbery with homicide," and appellant Fermin Tolentino of "rebellion with arson, with murder and robbery."
The penalty imposed upon appellants is being life imprisonment.
The appelants being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the
Philippines and the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB)" otherwise known as the Hukbalahap (HUK). Thus, they
are armed force of said Communist Party, having come to an agreement and having decided to commit the crime of
rebellion in different events and instances.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellants committed the crime of rebellion?
Held:
Yes. As stated in the brief for the Government, appellants herein are guilty of simple rebellion, inasmuch as the
information alleges, and the records show that the acts imputed to them were performed as a means to commit the crime
of rebellion and in furtherance thereof, although as Huk Commanders, appellants Benito Cruz and Fermin Tolentino fall
under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty of prision mayor and a
fine not exceeding P20,000, whereas appellant Paterno Cruz comes under the second paragraph of said article, which
prescribes the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. Accordingly, the penalty meted out to appellants Benito
Cruz and Fermin Tolentino should be reduced to ten (10) years of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed
by law, and to pay each a fine of P10,000, and appellant Paterno Cruz should be sentenced to six (6) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law.
The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the proportionate part of the costs against said
appellants.

US VS JAVIER
Facts
On Oct 22, 1915, Doroteo Natividad fastened his carabao worth 150.00 at his corral situated in
Bgy. Napachile, Tanuan, Batangas. On the following morning, he discovered that the gate of the
corral was already opened and the carabao had been disappeared. He immediately reorted the
incident to Constabulary through its head Seargeant Persia. On Nov. 20, 1915, 2 Constabulary
saw the accused Lazaro Javier, Mendoza and Placido de Chavez leading the carabao, when
they saw the Constabulary, the accused ran and scattered in different places, on Nov. 21, 1915,
the carabao has found in front of tied in front of the house in Bgy. Sta Clara, San Pablo Laguna.
The Carabao was identified by Doroteo Natividad as one that disappeared in his coral and was
also identified by the constabulary.
The accused was convicted by lower court as we have all known the we have a legal principle

that if the stolen animal found in the possession of the accused shortly after the commission of
the crime and they have no sufficient explanation of such possession they may be properly
convicted of the crime.
The accused appeal on the contention that they are entitled with the protection of the provision
of the Bill of rights that states that the accused shall enjoy the opportunity to meet the
witnesses face to face and according to Criminal Procedure Section 15 (5) which says that in
all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall be entitled to cross examine the witnesses. In this
case during the trial Sgt. Persia was already dead and although his sworn statement was
properly identified by the Justice of the Peace of Tanuan Batangas and presented as Exhibit B
against the accused, Sgt. Persia was never presented in the witness stand. Hence the appeal
Issue: Whether the present facts entitled the accused in the protection of the provision of the bill
of rights or whether the facts falls under some exception?
Held: The Supreme Court held that while it is true that the accused is being protected by the
provision of the bill of rights and under section 15 of criminal procedure that makes Exhibit B,
the sworn statement executed by the deceased witness Sgt Presia making it inadmissible and
improperly received as evidence in lower Court and being erroneous it can be reversible and be
remanded in the lower court for new trial it will cause the accused nothing but delay on the for
the testimony of the owner of the carabao and the 2 Constabulary soldiers abd being no strong
evidence on behalf of the accused that will rebut the foregoing, it is deemed sufficient to prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused was sentence for four years, two months and one day of presidio correccional and
ordered to return the carabao to Doroteo Natividad.

US VS LIM BUANCO
GR NO. L-5241
Facts:
Lino Eguia Lim Buanco and Luciano de los Reyes, were charged with and convicted of the crime of estafa. Luciano de
los Reyes was employed in the Banco Espaol-Filipino, and there served and acted as bookkeeper and check registry
clerk. It was his duty to inspect certain checks presented to the bank for payment, including those drawn by Lim Buanco.
In the performance of these duties Reyes was required to indorse upon each check, if it was entitled to payment, the
words"Corriente, P. O. Luciano de los Reyes.
A conspiracy existed between the defendants Lim Buanco and Reyes for the withdrawal of funds from the bank by Lim
Buanco, regardless of whether he had any funds in the bank to hiscredit, and in furtherance of this conspiracy, the
entries in the accounts of Lim Buanco on the books of the bank were fraudulently and illegally manipulated by Reyes in
such a manner as to make the books show an apparent credit balance, when in fact Lim Buanco was owing to the bank
a large sum of money.
Issue:
Whether both the accused may be convicted on the crime charged against them?
Ruling:
Yes. Where several acts are done in pursuance of a conspiracy, each act being distinct from the
other, the fact that they are in fact done in pursuance of a conspiracy does not make one act the
"same offense" as the other.
While the conspiracy may be single, and therefore subject to one indictment only, yet the
felonies accomplished by means of the conspiracy were separate and distinct, depending upon
the different acts, provable by different evidence, and accomplished by distinct though similar
means. The evidence essentially necessary to sustain one indictment would not sustain either

of the others, nor could defendant be convicted upon the information upon the evidence
necessary to sustain either of the others.

THE
PEOPLE
OF
VS.
ONG
CHIAT
ONG CHIAT LAY, APPELLANT.

THE
LAY,

PHILIPPINE
ET

ISLANDS,
AL.,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
DEFENDANTS.

G.R. NO. L-39086

Facts:
Appellant and two others, Ong Ban Hua and Kua Sing, were jointly informed against by the provincial fiscal of
Zamboanga, charging them with having feloniously burned a building in which was located a store belonging to the
appellant. Upon a plea of "not guilty," appellant and his codefendants were tried jointly upon said information; and, after
trial, while Ong Ban Hua and Kua Sing were acquitted, appellant was found guilty of the crime of arson
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is criminally liable as principal by direct participation?
Held:
In order to convict a defendant as principal in the commission of a crime, it must be shown either (1) that he took a direct
part in the execution of the criminal act; (2) that he directly forced or induced another or others to commit it; or (3) that he
cooperated in the commission of the offense by an act without which it would not have been accomplished. (Revised
Penal Code, article 17.) They take direct part in the execution of a criminal act who, participating in the criminal design,
proceed to carry out their plan and personally take part in its execution by acts which directly tend to the same end.
(Viada, Codigo Penal, 5th ed., vol. 1, p. 341; Albert's Revised Penal Code Ann., 144.)
In the instant case, it is not claimed that appellant had taken a direct part in the burning of the building. In fact, the
prosecution lays stress on appellant's absence from the scene of the fire as one of the suspicious circumstances
indicating his guilt.

PEOPLE VS. REGALA

G.R. NO. 130508.

Facts:
On the night of September 11, 1995, at Barangay Bangon in Aroroy, Masbate, then 16-year old victim Nerissa Tagala
and her grandmother, Counselo Arevalo, were sleeping, when appellant Armando Regala and his two other companions
entered the formers house.
Appellant and his companions entered the house through the kitchen and went to the room of the victims and poked at
8-inch gun on them, one after the other, and hogtied both of them. Armando raped Nerissa in bed while her grandmother

was hogtied on the floor. Later, she saw her grandmothers aparador being opened where two rings, two wrist watches,
and money were taken from the aparador. After raping her in bed, Nerissa saw accused-appellant counting the money
taken from the aparador. Thereafter, she was brought to the kitchen, still hogtied and was raped again by the accused.
He was convicted in the lower court but accused-appellant appealed his criminal case at the Regional Trial Court in
Masbate. He questioned the sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence in identifying him as one of the perpetrators of the
crime charged. And based on medico-legal, Dr. Conchita Ulanday, a health officer of Aroroy, testified herself that the
complaining witness either voluntarily submitted to a sexual act or was forced into one.
Issue:
(a) Whether additional rape committed in a crime of robbery be considered as an aggravating circumstance?
Held:
On cross-examination, both Nerissa Tagala and Consuelo Arevalo, separately testified that they saw the face of Regala,
despite of no electricity at the commission of the crime, because he used a flashlight and took off the mask he was
wearing, and thus, they remembered him wearing an earring of his left ear, which he was still wearing at the time of the
police line-up inside the police station.
The trial court held that contradiction referred to a minor detail, cannot detract from the fact, that both Nerissa and
Consuelo positively identified the accused-appellant. As correctly pointed out by the appellee, the victim was a 16-year
old barrio lass, not exposed to the ways of the world and was not shown to have any ill-motive to falsely implicate
accused-appellant, who was a stranger. Hence, Dr. Ulandays testimony does not support the contention of accusedappellant that the victim voluntarily submitted to sexual advances of Regala.
The crime of robbery with rape was committed in 1995 when RA 7659 was already in force. Under Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended, now provides, under paragraph 1 thereof: (1) The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death, when for any reason of or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when
the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
In this case, the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant should not be considered as aggravating. The
penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper. The judgment convicting Armando Regala y Abriol
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape, where the victim is entitled to an additional award of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.