25.

PEOPLE V SALVILLA
The accused Bienvenido Salvilla together with his co-accused armed with homemade guns and
hand grenade robbed Rodita Habiero in the latter’s office. In the office of Rodita; her two
daughters Mary and Mimmie were also inside. One of the accused asks Mary to get the paper
bag which contained money. All accused held victims as hostage when the police and military
authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. After the negotiation fails to proceed, the police
makes their move in assaulting the robbers thus Mary and Mimmie are injured as well the accused
also got an injury.

Issue:
Whether or not the crime of robbery was consummated

Held:
Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful “taking” is complete.
Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of the crime of robbery. The
respondentclaimed that none of the items (money, watches and wallet) were recovered from
them. However, based on theevidence, the money demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch
were within the dominion and control of theappellant and his co-accused and thus the taking
was completed.
It is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber or that he should have
actually carriedthe property away, out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or that
he should have made his escapewith it

64. GMA v Bustos

Facts:
A libel complaint was filed against GMA NETWORK, INC and newscaster, Rey Vidal. The issue
started from the Petition for Mandamus filed by the unsuccessful examinees of the physician’s
licensure examinations before the RTC of Manila to compel the PRC and the board of medical
examiners to re-check and reevaluate the test papers. As alleged, mistakes in the counting of
the total scores and erroneous checking of answers to test questions vitiated the results of the
examinations.

As news writer and reporter of petitioner GMA Network, Inc. assigned to gather news from
courts, among other beats, its co-petitioner Rey Vidal covered the filing of the mandamus
petition. After securing a copy of the petition, Vidal composed and narrated the news coverage
for the ten o'clock evening news edition of GMA's Channel 7 Headline News, quoting thereof the
allegations of the unsuccessful examiners that the gross, massive, haphazard, whimsical and
capricious checking that must have been going on for years should now be stopped once and
for all. Simultaneous with the news, was an old video footage showing physicians wearing black
armbands.

Along these lines, respondents claimed that the said report was false, malicious and one-sided.
Vidal and GMA Network, Inc., in reckless disregard for the truth, defamed them by word of
mouth and simultaneous visual presentation on GMA Network, Inc.'s Channel 7. They added
that, the showing of the unrelated old footage was done purposely so as to make a forceful
impact on their audience making it appear that other doctors were supporting and sympathizing
with the complaining unsuccessful examinees.

In defense of the alleged libel, GMA Network argued that the same was but a privileged
communication.

Issue: Whether the said narration of the news reporter and the used of video footage were
libelous

Ruling:
No, the statement in the news report falls within the ambit of privileged communication. For,
although every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, the presumption does not
exist in matters considered privileged.

Furthermore, neither the insertion of the file video constitute malice on the part of the petitioners.
Contrary to the CA's findings, the identifying character-generated words "file video" appeared to
have been superimposed on screen, doubtless to disabuse the minds of televiewers of the idea
that a particular footage is current. In the words of the trial court, the phrase "file video" was
"indicated on screen purposely to prevent misrepresentation so as not to confuse the viewing
public." The trial court added the observation that "the use of file footage in TV news reporting is
a standard practice." the absence of the accompanying character-generated words "file video"
would not nevertheless, change the legal situation insofar as the privileged nature of the audio-
video publication complained of is concerned. In view of the state of things, the video footage was
not libel in disguise; standing without accompanying sounds or voices, it was meaningless, or, at
least, conveyed nothing derogatory in nature.

65. Reyes v People

Facts:
Accused was a former civilian employee of the Navy Exchange who was terminated on May 1961.
On June, he led a group of 20-30 people in a demonstration in front of the US Naval Station,
carrying placards bearing statements such as, "Agustin, mamatay ka;" "To, alla boss con Nolan;"
"Frank do not be a common funk;" "Agustin, mamamatay ka rin"; "Agustin, Nolan for you;" "Agustin
alla bos con Nolan;" "Agustin, dillega, el dia di quida rin bo chiquiting;" and others. Col. Monzon
went to the place and talked to Rosauro Reyes and one Luis Buenaventura upon learning that
the demonstration was not directed against the naval station but against Agustin Hallare and a
certain Frank Nolan for their having allegedly caused the dismissal of Rosauro Reyes from the
Navy Exchange, Col. Monzon suggested to them to demonstrate in front of Hallare's
residenceThe three jeeps carrying the demonstrators parked in front of Hallare's residence after
having gone by it twice Rosauro Reyes got off his jeep and posted himself at the gate, and with
his right hand inside his pocket and his left holding the gate-door, he shouted repeatedly, "Agustin,
putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita." Thereafter, he
boarded his jeep and the motorcade left the premises. Meanwhile, Hallare, frightened by the
demeanor of Reyes and the other demonstrators, stayed inside the house. Reyes was then
charged with grave threats and grave oral defamation

Issue: WON Accused is guilty of ORAL DEFAMATION (NO)

Ruling:
The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the utterance of the words, "Agustin, putang
inamo". This is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to
slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense
by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of a mother. In the instant case, it should be
viewed as part of the threats voiced by appellant against Agustin Hallare, evidently to make the
same more emphatic.

70. Peole v Alagao

Facts:The said accused, being members of the Manila Polic Department, were charged with the
complex crime of incriminatorymachinations through unlawful arrest. The allegedly unlawfully
arrested complainant, Marcial Apolonio y Santos, and planted on his person a marked P1.00 bill
in order to impute to him the crime of bribery. The accused filed a motion toquash said
information on the grounds that said crime does not exist.

Issue: Whether or not the crime being charged against the accused can be complexed.

Held:1. A perusal of the charge shows that it is a complex crime in the sense that the unlawful
arrest was used as a means tocommit the crime of incriminatory machinations. The accused
had to detain the complainant through the unlawful arrestfirst before they proceeded with the
planting.2.Sol-Gen points out that the unlawful arrest was a necessary act in order for the
planting of the evidence to have been committed. The trial courts finding that the planting
happened long after the unlawful arrest was not proven by evidence and even assuming that it
was, it still doesn’t disprove the necessity of the unlawful arrest in committing the evidence
planting

71people v Cano

Facts:
the above named accused Ambrocio Cano y Pineda, being then the driver and person in charge
of La Mallorca Pambusco bus ddrove at a speed more than that allowed by law and on the
wrong side of the road causing, as a result thereof the said bus driven by him to hit and bump a
Philippine Rabbit Bus and caused damage to the said bus and inflicting physical injuries to the
passengers of said buses

Issue: That the crime of slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence cannot be complexed
with damage to property, serious and less serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.

Ruling: NO.
However, the information herein does not purport to complex the offense of slight physical
injuries with reckless negligence with that of damage to property and serious and less serious
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. It is merely alleged in the information.
our Revised Penal Code (Art. 365) fixes the penalty for reckless imprudence at arresto
mayor maximum, to prision correccional minimum if the wilful act would constitute a grave
felony, notwithstanding that the penalty for the latter could range all the way from prision
mayor to death, according to the case. It can be seen that the actual penalty for criminal
negligence bears no relation to the individual wilful crime, but is set in relation to a whole class,
or series, of crimes.

72 ibabao v people
Fats:
Jose Patalinghog, Jr., a bystander, who testified that on April 30, 1967, at about 11:00 p.m.,
while he was at Bankerohan terminal, he clearly saw an owner-type jeep bump a person; that
the said jeep did not stop; that upon request of a security guard, he gave chase, wrote down
the plate No. 57675, overtook it, and recognized the driver as the petitioner Aniceto Ibabao,
and thereafter reported the incident to the Matina Police Sub-Station.
Ibabao was charged with the crime of Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence.

What was contested here is that the petitoner’s failure to lend aid on the spot to the fatally
injured victim of the accident will aggravate the penalty.

TC and CA rendered a verdict of conviction. However rendered the maximum penalty for
Ibabao’s failure to stop and lend aid to the victim.

ISSUES/HELD

(1) whether or not the failure of petitioner to lend aid to his victim justifies the imposition of the
penalty next higher in degree to that provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 365, as amended, of
the Revised Penal Code even though such circumstance was not alleged in the Information; - NO

RATIO

(1) First, criminal negligence is punished in Article 365.“The provisions contained in this article
shall not be applicable.
etitioner submits that the last paragraph of the aforequoted Article 365 is not applicable to offenses
under paragraph "2" of the same Article because of the opening statement that "the provisions
contained in this article shall not be applicable implying that paragraph "2" is in a class by itself
and is not affected by the rest of the provisions of the same Article
The argument is flawed. The proviso that "the provisions contained in this article shall not be
applicable" clearly refers to the preceding paragraphs. Paragraphs "1" and "2" are exceptions to
the application of the said preceding paragraphs under the circumstances mentioned. The last
paragraph on failure to lend aid on the spot necessarily applies to all situations envisioned in the
said Article whenever there is an injured party.
We find merit in petitioner's contention, however, that the increased penalty is inapplicable to him
because the failure to give aid to the injured on the spot has not been alleged in the Information.
So far as we have been able to ascertain, this question has not been definitely passed upon by
this Court

We are neither inclined to consider such failure to lend assistance as a generic aggravating
circumstance that would justify the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period, since it is not
an aggravating circumstance listed in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
73 buerano v CA

Facts:
Petitioner Epitacio Buerano was the driver of LTB bus with Plate No. 22-900 which collided with
the Mabuhay Bakery delivery panel bearing Plate No. T-13016 driven by Hipolito Vismonte and
owned by Chu Yu in Tanay, Rizal on September 20, 1957.
On December 3, 1957, the Chief of Police of Tanay, filed with the Municipal Judge of that
municipality Criminal Case No. 251 against herein petitioner for the crime of "Slight and Serious
Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence." In said Criminal Case No. 251, the complaint
alleged, among other things, "causing by such negligence, carelessness and imprudence that the
said bus, driven and operated by him (petitioner) to collide with the delivery truck of Mabuhay
Bakery owned by Mr. Chu Yu alias Mariano of Tanay, Rizal, bearing Plate No. T-13016, the result
of which the right front side of the said truck (Mabuhay Bakery) was greatly damaged and the
driver, Hipolito Vismonte, including the two (2) helpers
petitioner was found guilty of slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence Opposition was filed by the Provincial Fiscal contending that the crime for which
petitioner was convicted was for less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence,
whereas the second case was for damages to property through reckless imprudence

Issue: WON the appellant’s contention is correct?

Ruling:
NO.
Neither in the JP Court nor in the CFI on appeal was the appellant convicted or acquitted of the
offense of Damage to Property Thru Reckless Imprudence or the case against him for that offense
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. Second. The JP Court which
found him guilty of Slight and Less Serious Physical injuries was not a court of competent
jurisdiction to try the offense of Damage to Property Thru Reckless Imprudence involving
P2,193.50 because the imposable penalty may be three times the aforesaid amount. Third
Appellant could not have validly pleaded before the JP Court to the said offense of Damage to
Property Thru Reckless Imprudence. Fourth The offense of Damage to Property Thru Reckless
Imprudence was alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 7965 (the second case) does
not include and is not necessarily included in the first charge of Slight and Less Serious Physical
Injuries Thru Reckless Imprudence, as alleged in the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 7722,
the continuation of Criminal Case 251; and Fifth: Appellant was never tried at all in the JP Court
of Tanay in Criminal Case No. 7722 for the crime of Damage to Property Thru Reckless
Imprudence.

74 Gan v CA

Facts: In the morning of 4 July 1972, the accused Hedy Gan was driving along North Bay
Boulevard, Tondo, Manila. There were two vehicles parked on one side of the road, one
following the other. As the car driven by Gan approached the place where the two vehicles were
parked, there was a vehicle coming from the opposite direction, followed by another which tried
to overtake the one in front of it thereby encroaching the lane of the car driven by Gan. To avoid
a head-on collision, Gan swerved to the right and as a consequence, hit an old man who was
about to cross the street, pinning him against the rear of one of the parked vehicles. The force
of the impact caused the parked vehicle to move forward hitting the other parked vehicle in front
of it. The pedestrian was injured, Gan's car and the two parked vehicle suffered damages. The
pedestrian was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
Gan was convicted of Homicide thru reckless imprudence. On appeal, CA modified the trial
court's decision convicting Gan of Homicide thru simple imprudence.

Issue: WON CA erred in convicting petitioner Gan for Homicide thru simple imprudence.

Ruling: SC reversed CA's decision, acquitting petitioner.

Under the emergency rule, one who suddenly fonds himself in a place of danger, and is required
to act w/o tme to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger,
is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear
to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about
by his own negligence.
Applying the above test to the case at bar, the SC finds the petitioner not guilty of the crime of
simple imprudence resulting in Homicide.

75. Carillo v people

Facts:
Catherine Acosta (Catherine), a 13yr old girlsuffered stomach pains. The girl complained to her
parents, and the parents in turn informed their family doctor, Dr. Elva Pena (Pena). Dr. Pena
called for Dr. Emilio Madrid (Madrid) which diagnosed the same to be appendicitis, thus told the
parents of Catherine to bring her to the hospital in Baclaran.
In the hospital, the nurse administered a blood test and decided that no further tests were needed
as Catherine was looking healthy. After being late for 45 minutes from the scheduled timefor
operation, Dr. Madrid directly brought Catherine to the operating room. Dr. Madrid was assistedby
Dr. Leandro Carillo (Carillo) the anesthesiologist. Dr. Carillo did not perform any weight test
todetermine the safe amount of anesthesia (Nubain) to be used on Catherine.After the operation
complications arose where Catherine was pale, shivering, had irregularbreathing and a weak
heartbeat. Catherine was then unconscious and remained to be sountil the next day where she
was declared to be comatose by the neurologist who examined her.After 3 days she died without
regaining consciousness.

Issue: Whether Dr. Carillo and Dr. Madrid acted negligently in their duties which resulted to the
death of their patient

RULING: YES
YES, both doctors acted negligently in providing the proper care to their patient, during and post
operation. The Court defined simple negligence, penalized under what is now Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code, as "a mere lack of prevision in a situation where either the threatened harm
is not immediate or the danger not openly visible." The rule in such cases is that while the
prosecution must prove the negative ingredient of the offense, it needs only to present the best
evidence procurable under the circumstances, in order to shift the burden of disproving or
countering the proof of the negative ingredient to the accused, provided that such initial evidence
establishes at least on a prima facie basis the guilt of the accused. This rule is particularly
applicable where the negative ingredient of the offense is of such a nature or character as, under
the circumstances, to be specially within the knowledge or control of the accused. In the instant
case, the Court is bound to observe that the events which occurred during the surgical procedure
(including whether or not Nubain had in fact been administered as an anesthesia immediately
before or during the surgery) were peculiarly within the knowledge and control of Dr. Carillo and
Dr. Madrid. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the two (2) accused to overturn the prima facie case
which the prosecution had established, by reciting the measures which they had actually taken to
prevent or to counter the obviously serious condition of Catherine Acosta which was evident right
after surgery. This they failed or refused to do so.