Você está na página 1de 4

CASE 21 Mupas et al vs. People GR No. 172834 June 6, 2003 CASE 24 Lejano vs.

People
FACTS: GR No. 176389 December 14, 2010 / January 18, 2011
On or about February 18, 1993, an altercation occurred involving FACTS:
complainant Rogelio and petitioners Jun and Gil / Banjo. According to On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters were brutally slain at
Rogelio, petitioners attempted to kill him by stabbing him and when having their home in Parañaque City, which has commonly referred to as the
failed, they punched and threw stones at him instead, and that the incident Vizconde massacre. In 1995, the NBI presented Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its
was witnessed by several people. As a result, Rogelio suffered slight physical informers as star-witness, pointing to accused Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb,
injuries, which were treated in a hospital. On the other hand, petitioners Lejano, and 6 others as the culprits. Relying primarily on Alfaro's testimony,
alleged that Jun only had a punching brawl with Rogelio and that Gil stopped the public prosecutors filed an information for rape with homicide against
the fight without any physical involvement. The defense’s testimonies were Webb, et al. Webb’s alibi appeared the strongest since he claimed that he
corroborated by several witnesses. The RTC ruled against petitioners, was in the USA. He presented the testimonies of witnesses as well as
convicting them guilty of frustrated homicide, which was affirmed by the CA. documentary and object evidence to prove this. On January 4, 2000, the RTC
Hence, the present case. rendered judgment against the accused party. On appeal, the CA affirmed
ISSUE: the RTC’s decision with modifications.
Were the lower courts erroneous in their ruling that the petitioners were
indeed guilty of frustrated homicide? On April 20, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution granting the request of
HELD: Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen specimen taken from Carmela’s
Yes, they erred in their decisions. The SC ruled that for a crime of frustrated cadaver, which specimen was then believed still under the safekeeping of the
homicide, the most essential element, which is the intent to kill, has to be NBI. Unfortunately, said specimen was lost. This outcome prompted
proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The witness accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on the ground that the
testimonies were more consistent with the petitioners’ defense and the government’s failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the
physical injuries sustained by the Rogelio were merely slight. Thus, the denial of his right to due process.
prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence to suggest that petitioners ISSUE:
had the intent to kill. In sum, absent competent proof, the SC acquitted 1) Did Webb present sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut
petitioners of frustrated homicide and made Jun liable for the crime of less Alfaro’s testimony and thus acquit him and his fellow accused?
serious physical injuries under Art 265. 2) Can the aggrieved party make an appeal towards the acquittal of
the accused?
HELD:
CASE 22 Monge vs. People GR No. 1703008 March 7, 2008 1) Yes, sufficient enough to have them acquitted on the grounds of
FACTS: reasonable doubt. Webb’s documented alibi altogether
On July 20, 1994 in Iriga City, Galo Monge (petitioner) and Edgar Potencio impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not only with respect to him, but
(Potencio) were apprehended by barangay tanods for the possession and also with respect to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian,
transportation of 3 pieces of mahogany lumber without the requisite permit Rodriguez, and Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition
and/or authority from the DENR. Petitioner fled whereas Potencio was taken that Webb was in the U.S. when the crime took place, Alfaro’s
into custody. Later on, petitioner was arrested and a case was filed with the testimony will not hold together. Webb’s participation is the
RTC charging him to be in violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended anchor of Alfaro’s story. Without it, the evidence against the
by EO No. 277. Potencio on the other hand was discharged by the court as a others must necessarily fall. The prosecution failed to prove their
state witness. Trial ensued. Petitioner did not contest allegations but gave guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
his version of the story which was not given credit and was thus adjudged as 2) On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, an
guilty by the RTC. Aggrieved, petitioner brought the case to the CA immediate relative of the victims, asked the Court to reconsider
challenging the RTC’s decision of discharging Potencio as a state witness. its decision. But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be
This, as well as his Motion for Reconsideration, were dismissed and denied reconsidered because it places the accused under double
respectively. Thus, this petition for review on certiorari. jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article III, that:
ISSUE: Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
Whether or not the petitioner’s conviction should be reversed with respect punishment for the same offense. Thus, the appeal was denied
to his contentions. for lack of merit.
HELD:
Not. The petitioner, along with Potencio, were caught in flagrante delicto
(red-handed) in their violations and these facts were never denied by the CASE 25 Fernan, Jr. vs. People GR No. 145927 August 24, 2007
petitioner. PD No. 705 is a special penal statute that punishes acts FACTS:
essentially malum prohibitum (prohibited, thus wrong). Regardless of whom Due to severe irregularities in release of funds for the MPH via fake LAAs and
the owner of the lumber was or even with the absence of malice or criminal other dubious documents sometime from February 1977 to June 1978 in
intent, their violations were blatant. With regards to Potencio’s discharge, Region VII particularly Cebu area, President Marcos created a Special Cabinet
the RTC was deemed competent to have declared him as state witness. Committee cracking down on the “Ghost Projects Anomalies”. These
Thus, the petition was denied. occurrences were eventually busted by the NBI, with the cases filed with the
SB, finding several MPH officials guilty of conspiracy. Among them were
petitioners MPH Central Office Supervising Accountant Leonardo Tordecilla
CASE 23 Fajardo vs. People GR No. 190889 January 10, 2011 and Cebu I HED Civil Engineer Simon Fernan, Jr. who were tried guilty of
FACTS: estafa thru falsification of public and commercial documents. Petitioners
In the evening of August 27, 2002, members of the PISOG surrounded the submitted their supplication to the SB which was declined, hence this
house of petitioner Elenita Fajardo in Kalibo, Aklan due to the reported petition:
presence of men who were indiscriminately firing guns from her house. ISSUE:
Upon the arrival of the PISOG, several men ran away leaving petitioner and Did the SB err in convicting petitioners of being co-conspirators of the above-
Zaldy Valerio retreating into the house. It was then seen by the officers that case?
Valerio emerged twice on top of the house and threw something, which HELD:
turned out to be two receivers of .45 caliber pistols. A search warrant was No, the SB erred not at all. First of all, the SB was able to solidly establish the
then effected in the morning which led to the discovery of several ammos essential elements of the crime of estafa. Petitioners sealed their fate in this
and gun paraphernalia in the petitioner’s house, leading to their by their own testimonies. Arising from this, the SB correctly implied
arraignment. An information was filed with the RTC charging the accused conspiracy since they have proved that two or more persons aimed their acts
party to be in violation of P.D. No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294 or towards the accomplishment of the estafa cooperatively. Direct evidence
illegal possession of firearms and explosives. The RTC held them guilty. The was not necessary, as was demonstrated in People vs. Pagalasan, a settled
petitioner brought the case to the CA, and found the accused to be guilty jurisprudence similar to the instant case.
only for the illegal possession of a part of a firearm, since the search warrant
was found void negating the other evidence. The petitioner contended that
she could not be held guilty for the offense, hence the present recourse.
ISSUE:
Will the petitioner be held liable for the offense, a Malum Prohibitum,
discussed above?
HELD:
No. Although the petitioner's possession of the receivers was merely
incidental, it was Valerio who was in actual physical possession. Further,
even if petitioner was found to be in actual or constructive possession of the
said receivers, animus possidendi must be shown, which was not proven in
the case. Without the concrete proof of the petitioner’s intent to possess
the said receivers, her conviction must fail. Thus, the SC has acquitted
petitioner on grounds of reasonable doubt.
CASE 26 Eugenio vs. People GR No. 168163 March 26, 2008 CASE 29 Serrano vs. People GR No. 179038 March 6, 2010
FACTS: FACTS:
Sometime in November 1995 in Malabon, Metro Manila, Lolita Y. Eugenio On January 18, 2003 in Pasig City, a buy-bust operation by police officers and
(petitioner) along with Saquitan and Ablaza persuaded Mangali to loan them PDEA agents led to the arrest of appellants Joseph Serrano and Anthony
P 100,000.00 in exchange for a parcel of land owned by Saquitan. Serrano due to illegal sale and possession of shabu. The appellants were
Subsequently, petitioner in behalf of one Lourdes Ty sought another reported to have acted together in carrying out the transaction. In their
P100,000.00 loan from Mangali assured by a parcel of land owned by Ty. defense, appellants denied the charges against them. The RTC and the CA
Convinced, Mangali released an initial of P 75,000.00. When the loans ruled against them, hence this appeal.
lapsed, Mangali inquired from the Register of Deeds of Manila and Quezon ISSUE:
City and discovered that TCT No. 171602 deed of sale (1st lot) had been Did the lower courts err in finding the existence of conspiracy in the case at
canceled on October 15, 1995 while TCT No. 92585 (2nd lot) was not bar?
registered with the said offices. This prompted Mangali to contact the NBI HELD:
and an entrapment operation was initiated arresting petitioner, Albanza, and No. While it was with Joseph that the police transacted regarding the
two other unidentified persons. Upon investigation, the real Epifania acquisition of shabu and to whom they paid the buy bust money, it was from
Saquitan was found who issued an affidavit denying any connection with the Anthony that Joseph actually got the drugs subject of the transaction. From
accused party. The case was filed with the RTC charging petitioner’s party the above scenario, no other conclusion can be drawn but that both accused
with Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, wherein petitioner and were engaged in the illegal trade.
Albanza pleaded “not guilty”. Albanza settled bail and went into hiding. On
the part of the defense, petitioner contended that she was merely a victim of
circumstance. The RTC, contending that fraud was involved through CASE 30 Palaganas vs. People GR No. 165483 September 12, 2006
conspiracy and misrepresentation, ruled against petitioner and the case was FACTS:
brought to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision and denied the In the late evening of January 16, 1998 at Manaoag, Pangasinan, the Ferrer
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. brothers Servillano, Melton, and Michael were having a drinking spree at the
ISSUE: Tidbits Videoke Bar when Ferdinand Palaganas, Jaime Palaganas, and Virgilio
Whether or not a conspiracy was involved in the case at bar Bautista arrived and occupied another table. While Jaime was singing “My
HELD: Way” he took insult when Melton sang along with him. A brawl ensued;
Not. The SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy to render however, Ferdinand escaped and went to fetch his brother Rujjeric Palaganas
petitioner liable as principal to Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents. (petitioner) who was asleep at his house nearby. When the Ferrer brothers
The lower courts’ reliance upon mere allegations and testimonies absent the went out of the bar, petitioner opened fire at them, hitting Melton in the
material evidence to implicate petitioner as principal, accomplice, or head leading to his instant death, mortally wounding Servillano in the
accessory beyond reasonable doubt where the act of conspiracy was being abdomen, and wounding Michael in the right shoulder. An information was
inferred from led to petitioner’s acquittal. filed at the RTC against the petitioner wherein he was held guilty for
homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide. Likewise, the CA upon
notice of the case affirmed the RTC’s decision with some modification. The
CASE 27 People vs. Glino GR No. 173793 December 4, 2007 petitioner was aggrieved, alleging that he acted on self-defense, hence this
FACTS: instant case.
In the evening of November 15, 1998 in Las Pinas City, complainant Virginia ISSUE:
Boji and her husband Domingo Boji rode a PUJ wherein the accused Glino Were the lower courts correct in ruling that petitioner was guilty of the crime
and Baloes were also passengers. The accused were intoxicated, with Glino of frustrated homicide against Michael Ferrer who was shot in the right
leaning on Virginia violating her personal space. Virginia and Domingo shoulder?
reminded Glino to sit properly but Glino and Baloes took offense and made HELD:
their retorts. Later, the accused were seen whispering together. When the No, as this was changed by the SC into attempted homicide. The petitioner
accused announced their plan to alight from the PUJ, they suddenly and merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt act and did
repeatedly stabbed Domingo, with Virginia sustaining a wounded hand from not perform all the acts of execution, which fits the definition of an
the scuffle. The accused were then apprehended by authorities. While in attempted felony. Further, Michael’s wound was not fatal or mortal, as was
custody, Baloes died of cardiopulmonary arrest, leaving Glino to contend stipulated by his medical certificate. If Michael were to have been shot in
with the case. Glino denied the allegations against him, stating that he was the head and survives due to timely medical intervention, then the petitioner
merely one of the passengers in the PUJ and not a participant of the crime. It would have been deemed guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide.
was alleged that Baloes stabbed Domingo first and that Virginia was unable
to identify her assailant. Still, the RTC and CA held Glino guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder. Hence, this present CASE 31 People vs. Opang GR No. 177822 June 17, 2008
appeal. FACTS:
ISSUE: Complainant AAA, a 15-year-old female, was employed as a housemaid in
Should Glino still be convicted guilty of murdering Domingo even if it was Supt. Macadindang’s quarters in Davao City. In the eve of May 2, 1999,
Baloes who initiated the action? appellant Hilario Opang, employed as a grass cutter in that vicinity, allegedly
HELD: forced AAA into her room and raped her twice that evening. Allegedly, this
Yes, as the SC held in way of conspiracy. It matters not who among the was again repeated in the eve of May 9, 1999. On June 4, 1999, AAA
accused actually killed the victim. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of admitted to Mrs. Macadindang about the incident. AAA and appellant were
all. Each of the accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime then brought to the precinct for investigation. Medico-legal report stated
committed. Also, proof that accused acted in concert, each of them doing his that AAA had an intact and distensible hymen. Appellant denied these
part to fulfill the common design to kill the victim will suffice to support a allegations. After trial, the RTC convicted the appellant of two counts of
conviction, as further demonstrated in the case of People vs. Deuna. Thus, simple rape, which was also affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal.
Glino was rightly convicted. ISSUE:
Did the trial court err in ruling the appellant guilty of consummated rape
instead of attempted rape?
CASE 28 Ramos-Andan vs. People GR No. 136388 March 14, 2006 HELD:
FACTS: No. Carnal knowledge occurred, basing it on AAA’s testimony, which was
Petitioner Ramos-Andan and Potenciana approached complainant Elizabeth established to be trial courts. There is carnal knowledge from the time the
Calderon to buy the latter’s diamond ring. Elizabeth agreed to the three penis enters through the labia. In rape, the consummated stage is reached
post-dated checks issued by Potenciana and a receipt of transaction was once carnal knowledge occurs. Hymen may remain unbroken even after
signed by them with petitioner being the witness. Upon encashment, the several sexual intercourse especially when it is elastic and distensible, as was
checks bounced for the reason “Account Closed”. An information was filed proven by the medico-legal report. It does not qualify under attempted rape
with the RTC which led to the arraignment of petitioner; however, since carnal knowledge occurred, nor would it fall under frustrated rape
Potenciana remained at large. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and denied because there was no failure in penetration. In general, rape has no
buying the ring, maintaining that she signed the checks and the receipts frustrated stage.
merely as a witness. The RTC held that petitioner induced Elizabeth to agree
with the transaction thus cannot escape liability. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
decision with some modification, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not conspiracy was involved in the case at bar
HELD:
Yes, conspiracy was involved and thus the SC held petitioner guilty of Estafa.
While Potenciana was the drawer of the checks, it was petitioner who
directly and personally negotiated the same. It was she who signed the
receipt evidencing the sale and endorsed them as payment to Elizabeth. It is
thus clear that petitioner and Potenciana acted in concert for the purpose of
inducing and defrauding Elizabeth to part with her jewelry.
CASE 32 Ladonga vs. People GR No. 141066 February 17, 2005 inconsistent and unreliable; however, they modified the trial court’s findings
FACTS: convicting him instead guilty of homicide.
Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses Adronico and Evangeline
obtained a P9,075.55 loan from Alfredo Otculam, guaranteed by a post-dated
UCPB Check issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and CASE 35 Baxinela vs. People GR No. 149652 March 24, 2006
during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an FACTS:
additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by another post-dated UCPB check According to petitioner’s defense, they went to Superstar Disco Pub in
issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses response to Manuba’s claim that a man armed with a gun was creating
obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by a post- trouble. Upon their arrival, they saw Ruperto F. Lajo with a gun tucked
dated UCPB Check issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon behind his waist. Petitioner approached him and inquired about the gun;
presentment for the reason “CLOSED ACCOUNT”; when the Ladonga spouses however, Lajo suddenly drew his gun and aimed it at petitioner but the latter
failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal was able to beat him with the draw shooting Lajo on the left arm, acting in
complaint against them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico self-defense. The prosecution on the other hand refuted the statements and
bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, alleged that petitioner while approaching Lajo already had his gun aimed at
the Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the latter. When Lajo was about to draw his wallet to identify himself for the
the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks petitioner, he was then shot on the left side, leading to his mortal wounds.
when they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and Upon discovery of his identity, petitioner and his companion Insp. Joel
had no participation in the issuance thereof. The RTC rendered a joint Regimen fled. The RTC found the prosecution’s allegations more convincing
decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of and held petitioner guilty of homicide, with mitigating circumstances. Upon
violating B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The appeal, the CA ruled the same, only disallowing the mitigating circumstance
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner. of sufficient provocation, hence this petition.
Issue: Should the provision of the RPC Article 10 be invoked to apply the ISSUE:
principle of conspiracy in the above-case? Whether or not the justifying circumstances of self-defense under Article 11
Held: Yes, since B.P. Blg. 22 is a special law and does not proscribe the paragraph 1 of the RPC should be in favor of the petitioner.
suppletory application of Article 10 of the RPC. In general, Article 10 of the HELD:
RPC is provided to supplement special laws, unless it expresses otherwise. No. Under paragraph 1 (self-defense), petitioner’s defense failed to establish
However, the conviction of the petitioner as a co-conspirator must fail unlawful aggression which is a sine qua non element to that justifying
because the prosecution failed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. In circumstance. As the evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that
the present case, the only semblance of overt act that may be attributed to necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment. In fact, it was petitioner who
petitioner is that she was present when the first check was issued. However, was the aggressor when he grabbed Lajo’s shoulder and started questioning
this inference cant be stretched to mean concurrence w the criminal design. him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears that he was just turning around to
face the petitioner. None of these acts could be deemed as unlawful
CASE 33 Go-Tan vs. Tan et al GR No. 168852 September 30, 2008 aggression on the part of Lajo.
FACTS:
Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) were married,
having two female children from their union. Barely six years into the
marriage, petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a TPO
against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L.
Tan (respondents) before the RTC. She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy
with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses
upon her in violation of Republic Act R.A. No. 9262, aka “Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004”. This was granted by the
RTC; however, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the
RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-law of the
petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262. On March 7, 2005, the
RTC dismissed the case as to respondents on the ground that, being the
parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not included/covered as
respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law
“expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” After several motions between the 2
parties, the RTC reasoned that to include respondents under the coverage of
R.A. No. 9262 would be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law.
Hence, the present petition on a pure question of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents may be included in the petition for the issuance
of a protective order, in accordance with republic act no. 9262
HELD:
Yes. The court rules in favor of the petitioner. Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No.
9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC, stating
that: SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this Act, the Revised
Penal Code and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application.
Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides The RPC shall be
supplementary to special laws, unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be
applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws,
such as R.A. No. 9262, in wc the special law is silent on a particular matter.

CASE 34 People vs. Tabuelog GR No. 178059 January 22, 2008


FACTS:
On October 12, 2002, the accused Christopher Tabuelog and the victim
Clinton Badinas along with other students from Abra Valley College went on
a field trip to Fort Ilocandia, Laoag City. According to the facts found by the
trial court, Clinton Badinas had an encounter with Roger Domingo, one of the
companions of the accused. Suddenly, the accused appeared behind Clinton
and stabbed him with a knife on the left side just under his armpit. The
accused on the other hand alleged that he acted in self-defense as Clinton
was about to attack him. Finding the defense testimony weak, the RTC gave
credence to the prosecution and the accused was convicted guilty of the
crime of murder. This was affirmed in toto by the CA, hence, the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the plea of self-defense worked in favor of the accused.
HELD:
No. Self-defense, like an alibi, can be easily concocted. In invoking self-
defense, the onus probandi is shifted to the accused to prove by clear and
convincing evidence all the justifying circumstance. Further, the accused
must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution’s evidence. The court found the defense’s testimonies

Você também pode gostar