US V TAYONGTONG

Facts:
Driver Policarpio Tayongtong files for an appeal from the judgment of the lower
court, which found him guilty of homicide by negligence for running over Severino
Resume, while the latter was painting telephone poles along the highway of Jaro
and Iloilo.
Tayongtong was driving a large passenger automobile at the time of the incident
and was making his third trip from Iloilo to Jaro, with the vehicle loaded at its fullest
capacity (capable of carrying 35 passengers and their baggage).
Principal witness Pablo Tayson alleges that the driver was moving very fast towards
them, raising a cloud of dust, moving the steering wheel from one direction to
another, causing the vehicle to zigzag from its track, cross the other side of the road
and strike the deceased eventually creating a suction which drew the victim
under the vehicles wheel. From the testimony, the deceased did not appear to have
moved or stirred to avoid the collision.
The driver denies these, saying he was driving at a moderate speed when the victim
suddenly crossed the road.
Issue:
W/N the driver run over the victim by negligence or pure accident
Held:
Accident. Conviction was reversed and the accused acquitted because the Court
finds that the witness made unreasonable, improbable and conflicting comments in
his testimony. It was established by the Court upon fair preponderance of evidence
that the driver, having been a thoroughly qualified driver who served his
apprenticeship on the very road, using the very machine employed, was actually
driving the vehicle under a moderate speed. There was no reason to show that he
was doing otherwise, as corroborated by other disinterested witnesses, and the fact
that a vehicle so large couldnt have gone at the rate of speed described. Per
Taysons testimony, it was also unreasonable that the deceased, seeing plainly that
the vehicle was moving towards him, did not move to save himself.

People vs. Nocumm

FACTS:
On or about September 12, 1998 in Muntinlupa City, REYNALDO MALLARI together
with ARNEL NOCUM, REY JOHNNY RAMOS, CARLOS JUN POSADAS,
PANDAO POLINGPANGANDAG took and carried away one Toyota Tamaraw FX valued
at more or less Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to the damage

and [prejudice] of its owner, Lourdes Eleccion. In the course of the commission
thereof, Erico Medel, the driver of the said vehicle, was killed. When the case was
called for arraignment on November 10, 2000, only Mallari appeared as his coaccused remain at-large. He pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecutions lone witness was Chris Mahilac (Mahilac), a self-confessed
member of FXgang, a syndicate notorious for carjacking Toyota FX vehicles.
Mahilac testified that the FXgang was active in Metro Manila and Mindanao.
Nocum led the syndicates criminal activities
in Metro Manila while Pangandag, who was the head of the Land Transportation
Office in Lanao Del Norte, led the Mindanao operations. Ramos, Posadas and Mallari
were members of the gang. On December 15, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision
finding Mallari guilty beyond reasonable doubt of car napping with homicide. The
trial court ruled that the testimony of Mahilac that Mallari participated in the theft of
the FX taxi and the killing of its driver, Medel, cannot be negated by Mallaris
denial and uncorroborated alibi.
ISSUE:
WON there is a lack of material evidence to justify the accuseds conviction.

RULING:
We find no reason to deviate from these courts evaluation as to Mallaris culpability.

US vs.EDUARDO ELICANAL

Facts:
-11 December 1914, Accused (Elicanal) was on board the Iorcha Cataluna as a crew
with Guillermo Guiloresa as the Chiefmate & Juan Nomo as the Captain; Accused is
22 years old, w/out education & physically weak.-The ship barely leaving the mouth
of Iloilo River, Guiloresa approached the accused & told him that he would kill the
captain which the accused thought as a joke since per his knowledge, no member of
the crew has any resentment towards the captain-Following morning, Guiloresa
assaulted the captain inside his cabin, attempting to seize and hold the hands of the
captain, at the same time calling the rest of the crew to come forward and help himAt the request of Guiloresa, the crew except Elicanal got hold of the captain and
tied his hands with a rope-At this instance, Guiloresa struck the captain in the back
of the neck with an iron bar and immediately handed the iron bar to Elicanal &
ordered him to come forward and help in disposing of the captain.-While the captain
still struggling, he seized the iron bar and struck the captain on the head which
caused his death

Issue: WON,
there was a threat directed to the accused that would deprive him of his own
volition and make him a mere instrument of the person who threatened him.
ruling:
No.

US vs. quiloy
Facts: Respondent Toribio is an owner of carabao, residing in the town of Carmen in
the province of Bohol. The trial court of Bohol found that the respondent
slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a carabao without a permit from the
municipal treasurer of the municipality wherein it was slaughtered, in violation of
Sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act regulating the registration, branding,
and slaughter of Large Cattle. The act prohibits the slaughter of large cattle fit for
agricultural work or other draft purposes for human consumption.
The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is (1) prohibiting is the
slaughter of large cattle in the municipal slaughter house without a permit given by
the municipal treasurer. Furthermore, he contends that the municipality of Carmen
has no slaughter house and that he slaughtered his carabao in his dwelling, (2) the
act constitutes a taking of property for public use in the exercise of the right of
eminent domain without providing for the compensation of owners, and it is an
undue and unauthorized exercise of police power of the state for it deprives them of
the enjoyment of their private property.
Issue: Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding and
slaughter of large cattle, is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power.
Held: It is a valid exercise of police power of the state.
US v. PHELPS
FACTS
While in international saloon in Jolo, Homer G. Smith (the lone prosecution witness)
heard James O. Phelps (the accused) smokes opium in some occasions. Smith asked
the accused if Phelps smoke opium. Phelps answered yes. Smith said that he
wanted to smoke opium. On the first invitation by the accused Phelps, he was not
able to prepare a room for
smoking. They made another agreement and went together at a certain house in Tul
ay. AChinaman prepared the room and the pipe for smoking. Smith gave the
Chinaman P2.00. The Chinaman gave the pipe to Smith. Smith then left, with the
pipe, and reported the accused to the Justice of peace. Phelps was later
arrested. The Chinaman corroborated the testimony of the accused that Smith
visits him (Phelps)seeking where he (Smith) can smoke opium. Also, the attending

doctor testified that Phelps was a strong, robust man and presents no appearance
of an opium smoker. The Court of First Instance convicted Phelps of violating Act.
No. 1761.Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
Is Phelps liable?
RULING
No, because the commission of the crime was intended by Smith and Phelps was
only induced in its commission. Phelps is only charged with having smoked opium
this one time in the house of the Chinaman, and the prosecution rests its case solely
upon the testimony of the witness Smith, who was an employee of Bureau of
Internal Revenue, secretly acting in that capacity in Jolo. Smith stated to the
accused that he (Smith) was desirous of smoking.

PEOPLE VS. RIVERA

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Faustino Rivera was being charged by the crime of Indictment of the
Innocent planned and punished under the Art 363 of the Revised Penal Code. The
Provincial Prosecutor filed a case against Rivera for filing a complaint in writing and
executing an oath accusing falsely and without probable cause Vito Sunday and
Felisa Moreno of the crime of theft.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Does Art 363 of the R.P.C apply in this case?
HELD:
COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED FAUSTINO RIVERA IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME
FO INCRIMINATION OF THE INNOCENT.

BENITO ASTORGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS
On September 1, 1997, private offended parties together with SPO3 Andres B.
Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian, were sent to the Island of Daram, Western
Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. At
around 4:30-5:00 p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18 meters in length
and 5 meters in breadth being constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they
met petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner
of the boats. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team.
Petitioner called for reinforcements and, moments later, a boat bearing ten armed
men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene. The DENR team was then

brought to petitioners house in Daram, where they had dinner and drinks. The team
left at 2:00 a.m.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of Arbitrary Detention

Held: Petitioner Benito Astorga is acquitted of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on

the ground of reasonable doubt.

US vs. Taylor
FACTS: A libel case was filed against Carson Taylor, who was the acting editor,
proprietor, manager, printer and publisher of a Manila Daily Bulletin. The complaint
alleges that he, on September 25, 1913, intended to impeach the honesty, virtue
and reputation of Ramon Sotelo as well as to expose him to public hatred, contempt
and ridicule by composing, printing, editing, publishing, circulating and/ or procuring
to compose an article, which they have alleged to be false and to be a malicious
defamation and libel of Ramon Sotelo. According to the article entitled Owners fired
building to collect insurance, criminal charges follows civil suit, there was a
conspiracy to defraud the insurance company. The house in Calle ODonnell was
intentionally burnt and claims were made from the insurance companies. In this
conspiracy, the name of Ramon Sotello was implicated and was therefore charged
with conspiracy and fraud. Taylor was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of
P200.He then appealed and made assignment of errors.
ISSUES:1.
Whether or not the defendant was responsible for and guilty of alleged libel2.
Whether or not the defendant is the proprietor and publisher of Manila Daily Bulletin
HELD: The court ruled in favor of the defendant and ordered that the ruling of the
lower court be reversed. According to Act No. 277 Section Six, every author, editor
or proprietor of any book, newspaper, or serial publication is chargeable with the
publication of any words contained in any part of said book or number of each
newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the author of the same.
However, in this case, the Solicitor-General said that no one is represented to be the
author, editor andproprietor.
Coronel v. CA
Facts:

The case arose from a complaint for specific performance filed by private
respondent Alcaraz against petitioners to consummate the sale of a parcel of land in
Quezon City.
On January 19, 1985, petitioners executed a Receipt of Down Payment of P50,000
in favor of plaintiff Ramona Alcaraz, binding themselves to transfer the ownership of
the land in their name from their deceased father, after which the balance of
P1,190,000 shall be paid in full by Alcaraz. On February 6, 1985, the property was
transferred to petitioners. On February 18, 1985, petitioners sold the property to
Mabanag. For this reason, Concepcion, Ramonas mother, filed an action for specific
performance.
Issue:
Whether the contract between petitioners and private respondent was that of a
conditional sale or a mere contract to sell
Held:
Sale, by its very nature, is a consensual contract because it is perfected by mere
consent. The essential elements of a contract of sale are the following: a) Consent
or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the
price; b) Determinate subject matter; and c) Price certain in money or its
equivalent.
Tavera vs valdez
Facts:
The defendant is the editor of Miau, a periodical published and circulated in
Manila, and that an article containing the alleged injurious matter was published in
the issue of that periodical of September 15, 1901. The article is couched
throughout in grossly abusive language, and in terms not capable of being
misunderstood; charges the private prosecutor, who had been then recently
appointed a member of the United States Philippine Commission, with having
displayed cowardice at the time of the murder of his mother and sister and with
having subsequently entered into intimate political relations with the assassin. The
article contains other statements and imputations of a derogatory character.

Issue: W/N the offense is injuries grave and punishable under Article 458 of the
RPC.

Held: It is urged by counsel that the official position of the private prosecutor
should be considered as an aggravating circumstance under Penal Code, article 10,
No. 20.
People vs romualdo

FACTS:
The People of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG), filed on July 12, 1989 an information before the anti-graft court
charging the accused with violation of Section 5, Republic Act No. 3019,5 as
amended. That on or about and during the period from July 16, 1975 to July 29,
1975, in Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
Alfredo T. Romualdez, brother-in-law of Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the
Philippines, and therefore, related to the latter by affinity within the third civil
degree, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, and with evident bad faith, for
the purpose of promoting his self-interested and/or that of others, intervene directly
or indirectly, in a contract between the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation
(NASSCO), a government-owned and controlled corporation and the Bataan
Shipyard and Engineering Company(BASECO), a private corporation, the majority
stocks of which is owned by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, whereby
the NASSCO sold, transferred and conveyed to the BASECO its ownership and all its
titles and interests overall equipment and facilities including structures, buildings,
shops, quarters, houses, plants and expendable and semi-expendable assets,
located at the Engineer Island known as the Engineer Island Shops including some
of its equipment and machineries from Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte needed
by BASECO in its shipbuilding and ship repair program for the amount
of P5,000,000.00.
ISSUE:
Whether the constitutional right of the petitioner to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him was violated for not specifying the acts
of intervention that he supposedly performed.
HELD:
The Court did not agree with the petitioner's contention.

PEOPLE vs. Lacson,

FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive application of penal laws should also cover
procedures, and that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the
accused. Petitioner asserts that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to provide
relief to the accused in line with the constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy
trial.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 5 Associate Justices inhibit themselves from deciding in the
Motion for Reconsideration given they were only appointed in the SC after his Feb.
19, 2002 oral arguments.
The rule should be applied prospectively. The court upheld the petitioners
contention that while Sec.8 secures the rights of the accused, it does not and should

not preclude the equally important right of the State to public justice. If a procedural
rule impairs a vested right, or would work injustice, the said rule may not be given a
retroactive application.
2. WON the application of the time-bar under Section 8 Rule 117 be given a
retroactive application without reservations, only and solely on the basis of its being
favorable to the accused.
Ruling: The Court is not mandated to apply rules retroactively simply because it is
favorable to the accused. The time-bar under the new rule is intended to benefit
both the State and the accused. When the rule was approved by the court, it
intended that the rule be applied prospectively and not retroactively, for to do so
would be tantamount to the denial of the States right to due process. A retroactive
application would result in absurd, unjust and oppressive consequences to the State
and to the victims of crimes and their heirs.
People vs Hernandez
Facts: Defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of Congress of
Labor Organizations. CLO is an affiliate of Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, a known
group performing rebellious activities. Hernandez was charged and convicted of the
crime of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robbery and was sentenced
to life imprisonment. Prosecution maintains that capital punishment may be
imposed for the crime he was convicted of. Defense contends that there is no
complex crime in the crime of rebellion. It was deemed best not to disturb the
course of action taken by the lower court, which denied bail to Hernandez, hence
the motion to post bail.
Issue: Whether or not equal protection was observed in the administration of
justice?
Ruling: Motion for bail granted. The ingredients of a crime form part and parcel
thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either
separately there from. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can
be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said
offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such
case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose
than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each
offense, if imposed separately.
People vs OSO
Facts:
On June 1, 1996 the accused stabbed one Mary Ann Arrojado with a knife with
treachery and evident premeditation on the different parts of her body inflicting
serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her
death. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder andsentenced him to imprisonment of 30 years of reclusion
perpetua.The trial court held that there was a circumstantial evidence to convict

accused-appellant for thedeath of the victim. Appelant argued that the victim
committed suicide. He claimed that most of the victims woundswere inflicted after
she committed suicide to make it appear that she was murdered. He also stated
thathe only saw one wound in the victims stomach.
Issue:Whether or not the victim was murdered by the accused-appellantWhether or
not the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can appreciated andwould
elevate the penalty of murder from reclusion perpetua to death eventhough it was
notalleged in the said information.
Ruling: Yes.
People vs. Quitain
Facts: the peculiar nature of rape is that conviction or acquittal depends almost
entirely upon the word of the private complainant because it is essentially
committed in relative isolation or even in secrecy, and it is usually only the victim
who can testify of the unconsented coitus. Thus, the long standing rule is that when
an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has indeed been committed. Since the participants are
usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature and the accused's conviction or
acquittal virtually depends on the private complainant's testimony, it must be
received with utmost caution. It is then incumbent upon the trial court to be very
scrupulous in ascertaining the credibility of the victim's testimony. Judges must free
themselves of the natural tendency to be overprotective of every woman claiming
to have been sexually abused and demanding punishment for the abuser. While
they ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation the rape victim goes
through as she demands justice, judges should equally bear in mind that their
responsibility is to render justice according to law.
Ruling:
Decision of the Court of Appeals, finding appellant FELIMON PATENTES y ZAMORA
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Forcible Abduction with Rape, is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. FELIMON PATENTES y ZAMORA is ACQUITTED on the ground of
reasonable doubt. His immediate release from confinement is hereby ordered unless
he is being detained for some other charge.

People v. Jaime Jose

Facts:
On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Eduardo
Aquino and Rogelio Caal conspired together, confederated with and mutually
helped one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena Maggie dela Riva, 25 years old and
single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four
principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon, have
carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to the

Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible Abduction
with Rape.
Having established the element of conspiracy, the trial court finds the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape and
sentences each of them to the death penalty.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court made a proper ruling of the case considering the
element of conspiracy.

Held:

No, the trial courts ruling was not proper. The SC ruled that since the element of
conspiracy was present, where the act of one is the act of all, each of the accused is
also liable for the crime committed by each of the other persons who conspired to
commit the crime. The SC modified the judgment as follows: appellants Jaime Jose,
Basilio Pineda Jr., and Eduardo Aquino are guilty of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape and each and every one of them is likewise convicted of three
(3) other crimes of rape.
People vs San pedro
Facts:Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler
(petitioner) was chargedbefore the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MTC), with
two separate offenses: (1) RecklessImprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L.Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2)
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage toProperty for
the death of respondent Ponces husband Nestor
C. Ponce and damage to thespouses Ponces vehicle.Petitioner posted bail for his
temporary release in both cases. On 2004, petitioner pleaded guiltyto the charge on
the first delict and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking
thisconviction, petitioner moved to quash the Information for the second delict for
placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence. The MTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two
cases. The petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City (RTC), in a petition
forcertiorari while Ivler sought from the MTC the suspension of proceedings in crimin
al case,including the arraignment his arraignment as a prejudicial question.Without
acting on petitioners motion, the MTC proceeded with the arraignment and,
because of petitioners absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest.Seven
days later, the MTC issued a resolution denying petitioners motion to suspend
proceedingsand postponing his arraignment until after his arrest. Petitioner sought
reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the motion remained

unresolved.ISSUES:1. Whether petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief from

his petition for certiorari when theMTC ordered his arrest following his nonappearance at the arraignment in Reckless ImprudenceResulting in Slight Physical
Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent;
and2. Whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause ba
rs furtherproceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property for the deathof respondent Ponces husband.HELD:(1) Petitioners nonappearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366 did not divest himof
personality to maintain the petition in S.C.A. 2803; and(2) The protection afforded
by the Constitution shielding petitioner from prosecutions placing himin jeopardy of
second punishment for the same offense bars further proceedings in Criminal
CaseNo. 82366
People vs jose
Facts:

Jaime Jose and George Tillman was acquitted in the crime of robbery but
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape in a criminal case and both are sentenced in the penalty of death but with
recommendation to be commuted to life imprisonment

Jose and Tillman to pay jointly and severally the amount of P6,000 to Zenaida
dela Cruz

July 4th 1966, Jose and Tillman along with John Doe and Roy, Peter and and
Richard Roe, armed and with a vehicle abducted Dela Cruz and with carnal
knowledge, raped her. (the other four guys are actually unidentified and the
whereabouts are unknown, the names were just stated in the facts)

The facts has two sides the prosecutor side and the defendant side:
Prosecutor: Dela Cruz whilst riding a golden taxicab driven by Osmundo delacruz
(no relation) was forcibly taken by five men in a Mercedes benz and the same five
men divested her jewelries. She was then taken to Queens Motel where she got
raped along with another woman named Araceli Sy.

Issue: W/ON civil liabilities are extinguished

Held: Yes, the court ruled that accused is relieved in this case of all personal and
pecuniary penalties attendant to his crime, his death occurring before rendition of
final judgment herein. (The ruling was different in the case of Torrijos vs CA)

People vs. Maingan

Facts:

From the personal account of Remigio Bernardo, the Barangay Chairman in the area,
as well as the personal account of the pedicab driver named Rolando Gruta, it was
at around 4:45 a.m. on January 2, 2001 when Remigio Bernardo and his tanods saw
the accused-appellant EDNA, one hired as a housemaid by Roberto Separa, Sr., with
her head turning in different directions, hurriedly leaving the house of her employer
at No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila. She was seen to have boarded a
pedicab which was driven by a person later identified as Rolando Gruta. She was
heard by the pedicab driver to have instructed that she be brought to Nipa Street,
but upon her arrival there, she changed her mind and asked that she be brought
instead to Balasan Street where she finally alighted, after paying for her fare.

Thirty minutes later, at around 5:15 a.m. Barangay Chairman Bernardos group later
discovered that a fire gutted the house of the employer of the housemaid. Barangay
Chairman Bernardo and his tanods responded to the fire upon hearing shouts from
the residents and thereafter, firemen from the Fire District 1-NCR arrived at the fire
scene to contain the fire.
Ruling: Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 2 September 2005, in CA G.R. CR HC
No. 01139, is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the conviction of accused-appellant EDNA
MALNGAN Y MAYO is concerned. The sentence to be imposed and the amount of
damages to be awarded, however, are MODIFIED. In accordance with Sec. 5 of
Presidential Decree No. 1613, accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION
PERPETUA. Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of each of the
victims P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
People vs. Bayotas
FACTS:
In Criminal Case filed before RTC Roxas City, Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova wascharged
with Rape and eventually convicted. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas
diedat the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to
hepaticencephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering.
Consequently, theSupreme Court in its Resolution, dismissed the criminal aspect of
the appeal. However, itrequired the Solicitor General to file its comment with regard
to Bayotas' civil liability arisingfrom his commission of the offense charged. In his
comment, the Solicitor General expressedhis view that the death of accusedappellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the
offense charged. The Solicitor General, relying on the case of Peoplev. Sendaydiego
insists that the appeal should still be resolved for the purpose of reviewinghis
conviction by the lower court on which the civil liability is based.Counsel for the
accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view of the Solicitor General
arguing that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is
pendingappeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties. In support of his
position, saidcounsel invoked the ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v. Castillo
and Ocfemia whichheld that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the

criminal liability and,therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die

before final judgment isrendered.
ISSUE/HELD:
WON death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
hiscivil liability? AFFIRMATIVE
Ruling: 'ART. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is
totallyextinguished:1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and
as to the pecuniary penaltiesliability therefor is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final judgment;
People vs Tamayo
Facts:
That on October 25, 1994 at 7:30 oclock in the evening, more or less, at sitio Tubod,
Cerdea, Municipality of Malabuyoc, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping with one another, with deliberate intent to kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously assault, attack and shoot Leodegario Fuentes and Renante Fuentes,
with the use of unknown caliber handgun, thereby inflicting upon them multiple
gunshot wounds which caused their instantaneous death.
Ruling WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accused-appellant
Florencio Patalinghug, Jr. is convicted as an accomplice, not as a principal, in the
crime of murder. He is therefore sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 8
years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years 8 months and 1 day
of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each of the two counts of murder. He shall
also, jointly and severally with the other accused, pay as civil indemnity the amount
of P50,000 for each count.
Francisco vs CA
FACTS:
Petitioner, the legal wife of private respondent Eusebio Francisco (Eusebio) by
hissecond marriage filed a suit for damages and for annulment of general power of
attorneyauthorizing Conchita Evangelista (Eusebios daughter in his first marriage)
to administer thehouse and lot together with the apartments allegedly acquired by
petitioner and Eusebio duringtheir conjugal partnership. The trial court rendered
judgment in favor of private respondents dueto petitioners failure to establish proof
that said properties were acquired during the existence of the second
conjugal partnership, or that they pertained exclusively to the petitioner. As such,
theCA ruled that those properties belong exclusively to Eusebio, and that he has the
capacity toadminister them.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellate court committed reversible error in affirming the
trialcourt's ruling that the properties, subject matter of controversy, are not
conjugal but the capitalproperties of Eusebio exclusively.
RULING:
SC resolved the issue of the nature of the contested properties based on
theprovisions of the New Civil Code. Indeed, Articles 158 and 160 of the New Civil
Code have beenrepealed by the Family Code of the Philippines. Nonetheless, SC
cannot invoke the new law inthis case without impairing prior vested rights pursuant
to Article 256 in relation to Article 105(second paragraph) of the Family Code.
Accordingly, the repeal of Articles 158 and 160 of theNew Civil Code does not
operate to prejudice or otherwise affect rights which have becomevested or accrued
while the said provisions were in force.
People Vs, DeguzMan
Facts: At around 8 pm on March 9, 1992, Luciano de Guzman and two others
entered the house of the Calamnos. Luciano and the two others let the victims face
the wall then after fired upon them. They even surrounded the victims. The accused
were later convicted for murder.
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and treachery be
appreciated.
HELD: The aggravating circumstance of nighttime as well as abuse of superior
strength (as the accused outnumbered and out armed the victims for they used
high powered guns) are absorbed by treachery. The means and ways employed by
the accused ensured them impunity as they fired upon the victims while the victims
were facing the wall giving the victims no means to defend themselves.