In my absence class, Block A and B, please read

the remaining topics on the fundamental

principles of criminal law. In addition, you read
Articles 1 to 10 of RPC.
Here are the cases for your digest in your own
handwriting stating the material facts, issues and
the ruling of the Supreme Court :
A. Positivist and classical theories /construction of
Penal laws/pro reo/equipoise rule

1.De Joya vs. Jail Warden of batangas, G. R.

NOs.159418-19, December 3, 2003
https://www.scribd.com/document/59265242/De-Joya-
v-Jail-Warden-of-Batangas

2.People vs. HON. Sandiganbayan, G. R. NOs.115439-

41, July 16, 1997
https://www.scribd.com/document/339038124/Digest-
People-v-Sandiganbayan
3. Intestate estate of Gonzalez vs. People, G. R.
NO.181409, Feb 11, 2010
https://www.scribd.com/document/245797172/Intestate
-Estate-of-Gonzales-vs-People-Case-Digest
4. Amanquiton vs. People, G. R. NO.186080, August
14, 2009
https://www.scribd.com/doc/236861020/Amanquiton-
vs-People-of-the-Philippines

AMANQUITON vs. PEOPLE

FACTS: Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was a purok
leader. As a purok leader and barangay tanod, he
was responsible for the maintenance of cleanliness,
peace and order of the community. At 10:45 p.m. on
Oct. 30, 2001, petitioner heard an explosion. He,
together with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador Amante
and a certain Cabisudo, proceeded to Sambong
Street where the explosion took place. Thereafter,
they saw complainant Baaga being chased by
Gepulane. Upon learning that Baaga was the one
who threw the pillbox that caused the explosion,
petitioner and his companions also went after him. On
reaching Baagas house, petitioner, Cabisudo and
Amante knocked on the door. When no one
answered, they decided to hide some distance away.
After five minutes, Baaga came out of the house. At
this juncture, petitioner and his companions
immediately apprehended him. Baaga was later
brought to the police station. On the way to the police
station, Gepulane suddenly appeared from nowhere
and boxed Baaga in the face. This caused petitioner
to order Gepulanes apprehension along with Baaga.
During the investigation, petitioner learned Baaga
had been previously mauled by a group made up of a
certain Raul, Boyet and Cris but failed to identify two
others. The mauling was the result of gang trouble in
a certain residental compound in Taguig City.
Thereafter, an Information for the crime of child abuse
was filed against petitioner, Amante and Gepulane.
RTC found petitioner and Amante guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
HELD: The Constitution itself provides that in all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. An accused is
entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. It is the primordial duty of
the prosecution to present its side with clarity and
persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only
logical and inevitable conclusion, with moral certainty.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt lies in the fact that in
a criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against
the subject; it enters the contest with a prior
inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited means
of command; with counsel usually of authority and
capacity, who are regarded as public officers, as
therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an
attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to
that of defendant engaged in a perturbed and
distracting struggle for liberty if not for life. These
inequalities of position, the law strives to meet by the
rule that there is to be no conviction where there is
reasonable doubt of guilt. However, proof beyond
reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. The RTC and CA hinged their
finding of petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of child abuse solely on the supposed
positive identification by the complainant and his
witness Alimpuyo of petitioner and his coaccused as
the perpetrators of the crime. We note Baagas
statement that, when he was apprehended by
petitioner, there were many people around. Yet, the
prosecution presented only Baaga and Alimpuyo, as
witnesses to the mauling incident. Furthermore,
Baaga failed to controvert the validity of the
barangay blotter he signed regarding the mauling
incident which happened prior to his apprehension by
petitioner. Neither did he ever deny the allegation that
he figured in a prior battery by gang members. All this
raises serious doubt on whether Baagas injuries
were really inflicted by petitioner to the exclusion of
other people. In fact, petitioner testified clearly that
Gepulane came out of nowhere and punched Baaga
while the latter was being brought to the police
station. Gepulane, not petitioner, could very well have
caused Baaga's injuries.

B. CRIMINAL jurisdiction /equal protection

1. Suzette Nicolas vs. Alberto romulo, et al., G. R. NO.
175888, Feb 11, 2009
https://www.scribd.com/doc/126774493/Nicolas-v-
Romulo-Digest

C. Constitutionality of death penalty /cruel and unusual

penalty or excessive fines

1. People vs. Leo Echegaray, G. R. NO. 117472, Feb 7,

1997
https://www.scribd.com/document/258080765/People-
vs-Echegaray-Digest
http://diegestd16.blogspot.hk/2012/06/people-v-
echegaray-crim1.html
http://thedigester.blogspot.hk/2012/04/people-v-
echegaray-gr-no-117472.html
2. Mendoza vs. PEOPLE, G. R. NO. 183891, OCT. 19,
2011
https://www.scribd.com/doc/149645551/Digest-Cases

D. GENERALITY /presidential immunity /Principles

of international law

1. Estrada vs. Desierto, G. R. NOs.146710-15, March

2, 2001
http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/11/estrada-vs-
desierto-arroyo.html

2. Liang vs. People, G. R. NO. 125865, March 26,

2001
https://www.scribd.com/doc/101585640/Liang-v-
People-Digest
http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2013/11/crim-
law-1-case-digest-liang-v-people.html

3. Minucher vs. HON. Court of appeals, G. R. NO.

142396, Feb 11, 2003
https://empressdictum.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/case
-digest-khosrow-minucher-vs-hon-court-of-appeals-
and-arthur-scalzo-g-r-no-142396-february-11-2003/

E. Territoriality Principle

1. Reagan vs. Commission on internal revenue, G. R.

NO. L-26379, December 27, 1969
https://piusmorados.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/reagan
-vs-cir-digested/
http://www.uberdigests.info/2011/11/reagan-vs-
commissioner-of-internal-revenue/
https://www.scribd.com/doc/69401027/Reagan-v-CIR-
30-SCRA-968-27-December-1969

F. Prospectivity/retroactivity of Penal laws

1. People vs. Morilla, G. R. NO. 212160 189833, Feb

5, 2015
https://www.scribd.com/document/317416243/People-
vs-Javier-Morilla-y-Avellano
http://thelawyerspost.net/jurisdiction-in-bp-
22/#.WVoDjRWGPIU
2. People vs. Talaro, G. R. NO. 175781, March 20,
2012
https://www.scribd.com/doc/56575341/Case-Digest

G. Constitionality of cybercrime and prevention act

1. Disini vs. The secretary of justice, G. R. NO.

203335, Feb. 11, 2014 and consolidated cases.

https://engrjhez.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/disini-et-
al-v-the-secretary-of-justice-et-al-g-r-no-203335-11-
february-2014/

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/
disini-v-the-secretary-of-justice/

https://www.academia.edu/11184571/239817117-
Cyber_Crime-Case-Digest

Deadline of submission next Saturday, July 1, 2017.

Gr no.149453 04/01/03
http://casestation.blogspot.com/2010/07/people-vs-lacson-october-7-2003.html

https://www.scribd.com/doc/35890098/People-v-Lacson

https://www.scribd.com/document/114966329/People-v-Lacson-Digest

Gr no.151876 06/21/05
go vs dimagiba case digest

https://www.google.com.ph/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=2gBaWZnQA4rXqAGpnYKgAw#q=go+vs+dimagiba+case+dig
est

Gr no. 138962 10/04/02

https://www.google.com.ph/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=2gBaWZnQA4rXqAGpnYKgAw#q=Tuates+vs+Bersamin+case
+digest