Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Const.
(1987),
art.
III
No
person
shall
be
imprisoned
for
debt
or
non-‐
payment
of
a
poll
tax.
Sec.
1
Sec.
22
No
person
shall
be
deprived
of
life,
liberty,
or
property
without
due
process
of
law,
nor
shall
any
No
ex
post
facto
law
or
bill
of
attainder
shall
be
person
be
denied
the
equal
protection
of
the
laws.
enacted.
Sec.
14
*See
definition
of
ex
post
facto
law
on
page
1
and
bill
of
attainder
on
page
2.
1. No
person
shall
be
held
to
answer
for
a
criminal
offense
without
due
process
of
law.
2. In
all
criminal
prosecutions,
the
accused
shall
Reyes:
A
right
which
may
be
waived
is
the
right
of
be
presumed
innocent
until
the
contrary
is
the
accused
to
confrontation
and
cross-‐
proved,
and
shall
enjoy
the
right
to
be
heard
by
examination.
A
right
which
may
not
be
waived
is
himself
and
counsel,
to
be
informed
of
the
nature
and
cause
of
the
accusation
against
him,
the
right
of
the
accused
to
be
informed
of
the
nature
to
have
a
speedy,
impartial,
and
public
trial,
to
and
cause
of
the
accusation
against
him.
meet
the
witnesses
face
to
face,
and
to
have
compulsory
process
to
secure
the
attendance
of
The
reason
or
principle
underlying
the
difference
witnesses
and
the
production
of
evidence
in
his
between
rights
which
may
be
waived
are
personal,
behalf.
However,
after
arraignment,
trial
may
while
those
rights
which
may
not
be
waived
involve
proceed
notwithstanding
the
absence
of
the
public
interest
which
may
be
affected.
(2
Moran,
accused:
Provided,
that
he
has
been
duly
Rules
of
Court,
1952
Edition,
748)
notified
and
his
failure
to
appear
is
unjustifiable.
*Refer
to
Revised
Rules
on
Criminal
Procedure,
Rule
Sec.
18
115,
Sec.
1
for
the
relevant
statutory
rights
of
the
accused
on
page
4
1. No
person
shall
be
detained
solely
by
reason
of
his
political
beliefs
and
aspirations.
2. No
involuntary
servitude
in
any
form
shall
exist
except
as
a
punishment
for
a
crime
whereof
the
party
shall
have
been
duly
convicted.
Rañeses
4
Revised
Rules
on
Criminal
Procedure,
Rule
115
and
3)
three
certificates
of
inspections.
In
spite
of
the
papers,
the
carabaos
were
confiscated
by
the
Section
1.
Rights
of
accused
at
trial.
–
In
all
criminal
provincial
veterinarian
and
the
town’s
police
prosecutions,
the
accused
shall
be
entitled
to
the
station
commander
while
passing
through
following
rights:
Camarines
Norte.
Confiscation
was
based
on
EO
No.
(a)
To
be
presumed
innocent
until
the
contrary
is
626-‐A
which
prohibits
transportation
of
carabaos
&
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
carabeef
from
one
province
to
another.
(b)
To
be
informed
of
the
nature
and
cause
of
the
Issue:
WON
EO
No.
626-‐A,
providing
for
the
accusation
against
him.
confiscation
and
forfeiture
by
the
government
of
(c)
To
be
present
and
defend
in
person
and
by
carabaos
transported
from
one
province
to
another,
counsel
at
every
stage
of
the
proceedings,
from
dated
October
25,
1980
is
enforceable
before
arraignment
to
promulgation
of
the
judgment.
x
x
x
publication
in
the
Official
Gazette
on
June
14,
1982
(d)
To
testify
as
a
witness
in
his
own
behalf
but
Held:
No.
The
said
order
isn’t
enforceable
against
subject
to
cross-‐examination
on
matters
covered
by
the
Pesigans
on
April
2,
1982
because
it’s
a
penal
direct
examination.
His
silence
shall
not
in
any
manner
prejudice
him.
regulation
published
more
than
2
mos.
later
in
the
OG.
It
became
effective
only
fifteen
days
thereafter
(e)
To
be
exempt
from
being
compelled
to
be
a
as
provided
in
A2
of
the
CC
&
§11
of
the
Revised
witness
against
himself.
Administrative
Code.
The
word
“laws”
in
article
2
includes
circulars
&
regulations
which
prescribe
(f)
To
confront
and
cross-‐examine
the
witnesses
against
him
at
the
trial.
x
x
x
penalties.
Publication
is
necessary
to
apprise
the
public
of
the
contents
of
the
regulations
&
make
the
(g)
To
have
compulsory
process
issued
to
secure
said
penalties
binding
on
the
persons
affected
the
attendance
of
witnesses
and
production
of
other
thereby.
Commonwealth
Act
No.
638
requires
that
evidence
in
his
behalf.
all
Presidential
EOs
having
general
applicability
(h)
To
have
speedy,
impartial
and
public
trial.
should
be
published
in
the
OG.
It
provides
that
“every
order
or
document
which
shall
prescribe
a
(i)
To
appeal
in
all
cases
allowed
and
in
the
manner
penalty
shall
be
deemed
to
have
general
prescribed
by
law.
applicability
and
legal
effect.
This
applies
to
a
violation
of
EO
No.
626-‐A
because
its
confiscation
&
forfeiture
provision
or
sanction
makes
it
a
penal
Civil
Code,
Art.
2
statute.
It
results
that
they
have
cause
of
action
for
the
recovery
of
the
carabaos.
The
summary
Laws
shall
take
effect
after
fifteen
days
following
confiscation
wasn’t
in
order.
The
recipients
of
the
the
completion
of
their
publication
in
the
Official
carabaos
should
return
them
to
the
Pesigans.
Gazette,
unless
it
is
otherwise
provided.
This
Code
However,
they
cannot
transport
the
carabaos
to
shall
take
effect
one
year
after
such
publication.
(1a)
Batangas
because
they
are
now
bound
by
the
said
executive
order.
Neither
can
they
recover
damages.
Doctor
Miranda
&
Zenerosa
acted
in
good
faith
in
Pesigan
v.
Angeles,
129
SCRA
174
(1984)
ordering
the
forfeiture
and
dispersal
of
the
Facts:
Anselmo
and
Marcelo
Pesigan
transported
in
carabaos.
the
evening
of
April
2,
1982
twenty-‐six
carabaos
and
a
calf
from
Camarines
Sur
with
Batangas
as
Doctrine:
Publication
is
necessary
to
apprise
the
their
destination.
They
were
provided
with
three
public
of
the
contents
of
the
regulations
&
make
the
certificates:
1)
a
health
certificate
from
the
said
penalties
binding
on
the
persons
affected
provincial
veterinarian,
2)
permit
to
hereby.
Justice
&
fairness
dictate
that
the
public
transfer/transport
from
the
provincial
commander;
Rañeses
5
must
be
informed
of
that
provision
by
means
of
the
*Refer
to
page
3
for
the
relevant
constitutional
publication
on
the
Gazette.
provision
(Art.
III,
Sec.
22)
and
page
1
for
the
definition
of
an
ex-‐post
facto
law.
Tañada
v.
Tuvera,
136
SCRA
27
(1985)
Facts:
Invoking
the
people’s
right
to
be
informed
on
In
re:
Kay
Villegas
Kami,
Inc.,
35
SCRA
429
matters
of
public
concern,
a
right
recognized
in
(1970)
Section
6,
Article
IV
of
the
1973
constitution,
Facts:
Kay
Villegas
Kami
Inc.
claiming
to
be
a
petitioners
seek
a
writ
of
mandamus
to
compel
recognized
non-‐stock,
non-‐profit
corporation
respondent
public
officials
to
publish,
and/or
cause
contests
validity
of
RA
6132
Sec.
8
saying
it
violates
the
publication
in
the
Official
Gazette,
of
various
due
process
rights
of
association,
freedom
of
presidential
decrees,
letters
of
instructions,
general
expression
and
is
an
ex
post
facto
law
orders,
proclamations,
executive
orders,
letter
of
implementation
and
administrative
orders.
The
Issues:
respondents
would
have
this
case
dismissed
on
the
1. WON
it
violates
three
rights?
ground
that
petitioners
have
no
legal
personality
to
2. WON
it
is
an
ex
post
facto
law?
bring
this
petition.
Petitioners
maintain
that
since
the
subject
of
the
petition
concerns
a
public
right
Held:
and
its
object
is
to
compel
public
duty,
they
need
1. No.
It’s
set
up
to
prevent
prostitution
of
not
show
any
specific
interest.
Respondents
further
electoral
process
and
equal
protection
of
contend
that
publication
in
the
OG
is
not
a
sine
qua
laws.
non
requirement
for
the
effectivity
of
laws
where
2. No.
Ex
post
facto
law
defined:
the
laws
themselves
provide
for
their
own
a. Makes
criminal
an
act
done
before
law
effectivity
dates.
was
passed
and
punishes
act
innocent
when
done.
Issue:
WON
publication
in
the
Official
Gazatte
is
an
b. Aggravates
a
crime,
makes
it
greater
indispensable
requirement
for
the
effectivity
of
the
than
it
was
PDs,
LOIs,
general
orders,
EOs,
etc.
where
laws
c. Inflicts
greater
punishment
than
the
law
themselves
provide
for
their
own
effectivity
dates.
prescribed
when
committed
d. Alters
legal
rules
of
evidence
and
Held:
Yes.
It
is
the
people’s
right
to
be
informed
on
authorizes
conviction
upon
less
or
matters
of
public
concern
&
corollary
access
to
different
tests
official
records,
&
to
documents
&
papers
e. Assuming
to
regulate
civil
rights
and
pertaining
to
official
acts,
transactions,
or
decisions,
remedies
only
in
effect
imposes
penalty
shall
be
afforded
the
citizens
subject
to
such
or
deprivation
of
right
which
when
done
limitation
as
may
be
provided
by
law
(§6
AIV,
1973
was
lawful
Constitution).
Laws,
to
be
valid
&
enforceable,
must
f. Deprives
a
person
accused
of
a
crime
be
published
in
the
OG
or
otherwise
effectively
some
lawful
protection
to
which
he
has
promulgated.
The
fact
that
a
PD
or
LOI
states
its
become
entitled,
such
as
the
protection
date
of
effectivity
does
not
preclude
their
of
a
former
conviction
of
acquittal
or
a
publication
in
the
OG
as
they
constitute
important
proclamation
of
amnesty.
legislative
acts.
The
publication
of
presidential
Constitutional
inhibition
refers
only
to
issuances
“of
public
nature”
or
“of
general
criminal
laws.
Penalty
in
law
imposed
to
applicability”
is
a
requirement
of
due
process.
acts
committed
after
approval
of
law
Before
a
person
may
be
bound
by
law,
he
must
first
be
officially
informed
of
its
contents.
People
v.
Villaraza,
81
SCRA
95
(1978)
Ex-‐post
facto
law
Facts:
On
December
3,
1975
an
assistant
fiscal
charged
Caesar
Puerto
with
estafa
in
the
city
court
Rañeses
6
of
CDO
for
having
issues
two
bouncing
checks.
A
complaint
was
filed
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
Judge
Villaraza,
upon
confirming
that
the
accused
of
the
city
of
Manila
on
May
6,
1921,
charging
the
had
waived
his
right
to
the
second
stage
of
defendants
with
a
violation
of
the
Usury
Law
(Act
preliminary
investigation,
directed
the
case
be
No.
2655).
Upon
said
complaint
they
were
arrested,
elevated
to
the
CFI.
The
CFI
of
Misamis
Oriental,
charged,
and
pleaded
not
guilty.
On
September
1,
returned
the
case
to
the
city
court.
Disagreeing
with
1921,
the
case
was
finally
brought
on
for
trial.
At
the
CFI’s
decision,
Judge
Villaraza
once
again
raised
the
end
of
the
trial,
with
consideration
to
the
it
to
the
CFIwith
the
belief
that
estafa
committed
by
evidences
cited
in
court,
Hon.
M.
V.
del
Rosario,
the
accused
is
punishable
by
prision
mayor
medium
judge,
found
that
the
defendants
were
guilty
of
the
under
P.D.
No.
818,
which
took
effect
on
October
22,
crime
charged
in
the
complaint
and
sentenced
each
1975
and
which
amended
Art.
315
of
the
RPC.
of
them
to
pay
a
fine
of
P120
and,
if
they
cannot
meet
their
debt
obligations,
the
defendants
would
Issue:
WON
Puerto
is
punishable
with
prision
suffer
subsidiary
imprisonment
in
accordance
with
mayor
medium
under
P.D.
818
which
amended
Art.
the
provisions
of
the
law.
From
that
sentence
each
315
of
the
RPC.
of
the
defendants
made
an
appeal.
Held:
No.
The
penalty
of
prision
mayor
medium
Issue:
WON
the
Usury
law
would
apply
to
the
imposed
by
P.D.
818
applies
only
to
swindling
appellants
considering
that
they
executed
the
committed
on
or
after
October
22,
1975.
The
contract
before
the
passage
of
said
law.
increased
penalty
does
not
apply
to
Puerto
to
the
estafa
committed
on
October
16,
1974.
To
do
so
Held:
No.
The
court
held
that
the
acts
complained
would
make
it
an
ex-‐post
facto
law,
which
is
clearly
of
by
the
defendants
did
not
constitute
a
crime
at
repugnant
to
Art.
21
and
22
of
the
RPC
and
Sec.
12,
the
time
they
were
committed.
A
law
imposing
a
Art.
IV
of
the
Constitution.
new
penalty,
liability
or
disability,
or
giving
a
new
right
of
action,
must
not
be
construed
as
having
a
U.S.
v.
Diaz-‐Conde,
42
Phil.
766
(1922)
retroactive
effect.
It
is
an
elementary
rule
of
Facts:
On
December
30,
1915,
Bartolome
Oliveros
contract
that
the
laws
in
force
at
the
time
of
the
and
Engracia
Lianco
accomplished
and
delivered
to
contract
were
made
must
govern
its
interpretation
the
defendants
a
contract
(named
‘Exhibit
B’)
which
and
application.
Laws
must
be
construed
stated
that
the
Oliveros
and
Lianco
had
borrowed
prospectively
and
not
retrospectively.
If
a
contract
from
the
latter
a
sum
of
three
hundred
pesos
(Php
is
legal
at
its
commencement,
it
cannot
be
rendered
300),
and
by
virtue
of
the
terms
of
said
contract,
illegal
by
any
subsequent
legislation.
To
make
it
Oliveros
and
Lianco
obligated
themselves
to
pay
to
applicable
in
the
present
case
would
make
it
an
ex-‐
the
defendants
interest
at
the
rate
of
five
percent
post
facto
law.
(5%)
per
month,
payable
within
the
first
ten
days
of
each
and
every
month,
the
first
payment
to
be
made
Bill
of
attainder
on
the
January
10,
1916.
*Refer
to
page
3
for
the
relevant
constitutional
provision
(Art.
III,
Sec.
22)
and
page
2
for
the
On
May
1,
1916,
Act
no.
2655
or
the
Usury
Law
definition
of
a
bill
of
attainder.
came
into
effect.
The
law
stated
that
that
the
legal
rate
of
interest
for
the
loan
or
forbearance
of
any
People
v.
Ferrer
48
SCRA
382
(1972)
money,
goods
or
credits,
[…]
shall
be
12%
per
Facts:
Hon.
Judge
Simeon
Ferrer
is
the
Tarlac
trial
annum.
Any
amount
of
interest
paid
or
to
be
paid
in
court
judge
that
declared
RA1700
or
the
Anti-‐
excess
of
that
fixed
by
law
is
considered
usurious,
Subversive
Act
of
1957
as
a
bill
of
attainder.
Thus,
therefore
unlawful.
dismissing
the
information
of
subversion
against
the
following:
1.)
Feliciano
Co
for
being
an
officer/leader
of
the
Communist
Party
of
the
Rañeses
7
Philippines
(CPP)
aggravated
by
circumstances
of
1. No.
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
statute
simply
contempt
and
insult
to
public
officers,
subversion
declares
the
CPP
as
an
organized
conspiracy
by
a
band
and
aid
of
armed
men
to
afford
impunity.
for
the
overthrow
of
the
Government
for
2.)
Nilo
Tayag
and
5
others,
for
being
purposes
of
example
of
Sec.
4
of
the
Act.
The
members/leaders
of
the
NPA,
inciting,
instigating
Act
applies
not
only
to
the
CPP
but
also
to
people
to
unite
and
overthrow
the
Philippine
other
organizations
having
the
same
Government.
Attended
by
Aggravating
purpose
and
their
successors.
The
Act’s
Circumstances
of
Aid
or
Armed
Men,
Craft,
and
focus
is
on
the
conduct
not
person.
Fraud.
The
trial
court
is
of
opinion
that
1.)
The
Congress
usurped
the
powers
of
the
judge
2.)
The
statute
is
PROSPECTIVE
in
nature.
Sec.
Assumed
judicial
magistracy
by
pronouncing
the
44
prohibits
acts
committed
after
approval
guilt
of
the
CPP
without
any
forms
of
safeguard
of
a
of
the
act.
The
members
of
the
subversive
judicial
trial.
3.)
It
created
a
presumption
of
organizations
before
the
passing
of
this
Act
organizational
guilt
by
being
members
of
the
CPP
are
given
an
opportunity
to
escape
liability
regardless
of
voluntariness.
by
renouncing
membership
in
accordance
with
Sec.
8.
The
Anti-‐Subversive
Act
of
1957
was
approved
on
2. Yes,
but
it
is
justified.
The
declaration
of
June
20
1957.
It
is
an
act
to
outlaw
the
CPP
and
that
the
CPP
is
an
organized
conspiracy
to
similar
associations
penalizing
membership
therein,
overthrow
the
Philippine
Government
and
for
other
purposes.
It
defined
the
Communist
should
not
be
the
basis
of
guilt.
This
Party
being
although
a
political
party
is
in
fact
an
declaration
is
only
a
basis
of
Section
4
of
the
organized
conspiracy
to
overthrow
the
Act.
The
existence
of
substantive
evil
Government,
not
only
by
force
and
violence
but
also
justifies
the
limitation
to
the
exercise
of
by
deceit,
subversion
and
other
illegal
means.
It
“Freedom
of
Expression
and
Association”
in
declares
that
the
CPP
is
a
clear
and
present
danger
this
matter.
to
the
security
of
the
Philippines.
Section
4
provided
that
affiliation
with
full
knowledge
of
the
illegal
acts
D. Characteristics
of
Criminal
Law
of
the
CPP
is
punishable.
Section
5
states
that
due
investigation
by
a
designated
prosecutor
by
the
General:
Secretary
of
Justice
be
made
prior
to
filing
of
information
in
court.
Section
6
provides
for
penalty
Const.
(1987),
Art.
VI,
sec.
1
for
furnishing
false
evidence.
Section
7
provides
for
2
witnesses
in
open
court
for
acts
penalized
by
The
legislative
power
shall
be
vested
in
the
prision
mayor
to
death.
Section
8
allows
the
Congress
of
the
Philippines
which
shall
consist
of
a
renunciation
of
membership
to
the
CPP
through
Senate
and
a
House
of
Representatives,
except
to
writing
under
oath.
Section
9
declares
the
the
extent
reserved
to
the
people
by
the
provision
constitutionality
of
the
statute
and
its
valid
exercise
on
initiative
and
referendum.
under
freedom
if
thought,
assembly
and
association.
Civil
Code,
Art.
14
Issues:
1. WON
or
not
RA
1700
is
a
bill
of
attainder/
Penal
laws
and
those
of
public
security
and
safety
ex
post
facto
law.
shall
be
obligatory
upon
all
who
live
or
sojourn
in
2. WON
RA
1700
violates
freedom
of
the
Philippine
territory,
subject
to
the
principles
of
expression.
public
international
law
and
to
treaty
stipulations.
(8a)
Held:
Rañeses
8
Agreement
between
the
Government
of
the
Republic
personnel
subject
to
the
military
law
of
the
United
States
of
the
Philippines
and
the
Government
of
the
United
in
relation
to:
States
of
America
Regarding
the
Treatment
of
United
States
Armed
Forces
Visiting
the
Philippines,
10
(1)
offenses
solely
against
the
property
or
security
of
the
February
1998
(Visiting
Forces
Agreement)
United
States
or
offenses
solely
against
the
property
or
person
of
United
States
personnel;
and
Article
V
Criminal
Jurisdiction
(2)
offenses
arising
out
of
any
act
or
omission
done
in
performance
of
official
duty.
1.
Subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
article:
(c)
The
authorities
of
either
government
may
request
the
(a)
Philippine
authorities
shall
have
jurisdiction
over
authorities
of
the
other
government
to
waive
their
United
States
personnel
with
respect
to
offenses
primary
right
to
exercise
jurisdiction
in
a
particular
case.
committed
within
the
Philippines
and
punishable
under
the
law
of
the
Philippines.
(d)
Recognizing
the
responsibility
of
the
United
States
military
authorities
to
maintain
good
order
and
(b)
United
States
military
authorities
shall
have
the
right
discipline
among
their
forces,
Philippine
authorities
will,
to
exercise
within
the
Philippines
all
criminal
and
upon
request
by
the
United
States,
waive
their
primary
disciplinary
jurisdiction
conferred
on
them
by
the
right
to
exercise
jurisdiction
except
in
cases
of
particular
military
law
of
the
United
States
over
United
States
importance
to
the
Philippines.
If
the
Government
of
the
personnel
in
the
Philippines.
Philippines
determines
that
the
case
is
of
particular
importance,
it
shall
communicate
such
determination
to
2.
(a)
Philippine
authorities
exercise
exclusive
the
United
States
authorities
within
twenty
(20)
days
jurisdiction
over
United
States
personnel
with
respect
to
after
the
Philippine
authorities
receive
the
United
States
offenses,
including
offenses
relating
to
the
security
of
the
request.
Philippines,
punishable
under
the
laws
of
the
Philippines,
but
not
under
the
laws
of
the
United
States.
(e)
When
the
United
States
military
commander
determines
that
an
offense
charged
by
authorities
of
the
(b)
United
States
authorities
exercise
exclusive
Philippines
against
United
States
personnel
arises
out
of
jurisdiction
over
United
States
personnel
with
respect
to
an
act
or
omission
done
in
the
performance
of
official
offenses,
including
offenses
relating
to
the
security
of
the
duty,
the
commander
will
issue
a
certificate
setting
forth
United
States,
punishable
under
the
laws
of
the
United
such
determination.
This
certificate
will
be
transmitted
States,
but
not
under
the
laws
of
the
Philippines.
to
the
appropriate
authorities
of
the
Philippines
and
will
constitute
sufficient
proof
of
performance
of
official
duty
(c)
For
the
purposes
of
this
paragraph
and
paragraph
3
for
the
purposes
of
paragraph
3(b)(2)
of
this
article.
In
of
this
article,
an
offense
relating
to
security
means:
those
cases
where
the
Government
of
the
Philippines
believes
the
circumstances
of
the
case
require
a
review
(1)
treason;
of
the
duty
certificate,
United
States
military
authorities
and
Philippine
authorities
shall
consult
immediately.
(2)
sabotage,
espionage
or
violation
of
any
law
relating
to
Philippine
authorities
at
the
highest
levels
may
also
national
defense.
present
any
information
bearing
on
its
validity.
United
States
military
authorities
shall
take
full
account
of
the
3.
In
cases
where
the
right
to
exercise
jurisdiction
is
Philippine
position.
Where
appropriate,
United
States
concurrent,
the
following
rules
shall
apply:
military
authorities
will
take
disciplinary
or
other
action
against
offenders
in
official
duty
cases,
and
notify
the
(a)
Philippine
authorities
shall
have
the
primary
right
to
Government
of
the
Philippines
of
the
actions
taken.
exercise
jurisdiction
over
all
offenses
committed
by
United
States
personnel,
except
in
cases
provided
for
in
(f)
If
the
government
having
the
primary
right
does
not
paragraphs
l
(b),
2
(b),
and
3
(b)
of
this
Article.
exercise
jurisdiction,
it
shall
notify
the
authorities
of
the
other
government
as
soon
as
possible.
(b)
United
States
military
authorities
shall
have
the
primary
right
to
exercise
jurisdiction
over
United
States
Rañeses
9
(g)
The
authorities
of
the
Philippines
and
the
United
8.
When
United
States
personnel
have
been
tried
in
States
shall
notify
each
other
of
the
disposition
of
all
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
this
article
and
have
cases
in
which
both
the
authorities
of
the
Philippines
and
been
acquitted
or
have
been
convicted
and
are
serving,
the
United
States
have
the
right
to
exercise
jurisdiction.
or
have
served
their
sentence,
or
have
had
their
sentence
remitted
or
suspended,
or
have
been
pardoned,
they
may
4.
Within
the
scope
of
their
legal
competence,
the
not
be
tried
again
for
the
same
offense
in
the
Philippines.
authorities
of
the
Philippines
and
the
United
States
shall
Nothing
in
this
paragraph,
however,
shall
prevent
United
assist
each
other
in
the
arrest
of
United
States
personnel
States
military
authorities
from
trying
United
States
in
the
Philippines
and
in
handing
them
over
to
personnel
for
any
violation
of
rules
of
discipline
arising
authorities
who
are
to
exercise
jurisdiction
in
accordance
from
the
act
or
omission
which
constituted
an
offense
for
with
the
provisions
of
this
article.
which
they
were
tried
by
Philippine
authorities.
5.
United
States
military
authorities
shall
promptly
notify
9.
When
United
States
personnel
are
detained,
taken
into
Philippine
authorities
of
the
arrest
or
detention
of
United
custody,
or
prosecuted
by
Philippine
authorities,
they
States
personnel
who
are
subject
to
Philippine
primary
shall
be
accorded
all
procedural
safeguards
established
or
exclusive
jurisdiction.
Philippine
authorities
shall
by
the
law
of
the
Philippines.
At
the
minimum,
United
promptly
notify
United
States
military
authorities
of
the
States
personnel
shall
be
entitled:
arrest
or
detention
of
any
United
States
personnel.
(a)
To
a
prompt
and
speedy
trial;
6.
The
custody
of
any
United
States
personnel
over
whom
the
Philippines
is
to
exercise
jurisdiction
shall
(b)
To
be
informed
in
advance
of
trial
of
the
specific
immediately
reside
with
United
States
military
charge
or
charges
made
against
them
and
to
have
authorities,
if
they
so
request,
from
the
commission
of
reasonable
time
to
prepare
a
defense;
the
offense
until
completion
of
all
judicial
proceedings.
United
States
military
authorities
shall,
upon
formal
(c)
To
be
confronted
with
witnesses
against
them
and
to
notification
by
the
Philippine
authorities
and
without
cross
examine
such
witnesses;
delay,
make
such
personnel
available
to
those
authorities
in
time
for
any
investigative
or
judicial
proceedings
(d)
To
present
evidence
in
their
defense
and
to
have
relating
to
the
offense
with
which
the
person
has
been
compulsory
process
for
obtaining
witnesses;
charged.
In
extraordinary
cases,
the
Philippine
Government
shall
present
its
position
to
the
United
(e)
To
have
free
and
assisted
legal
representation
of
their
States
Government
regarding
custody,
which
the
United
own
choice
on
the
same
basis
as
nationals
of
the
States
Government
shall
take
into
full
account.
In
the
Philippines;
event
Philippine
judicial
proceedings
are
not
completed
within
one
year,
the
United
States
shall
be
relieved
of
any
(f)
To
have
the
services
of
a
competent
interpreter;
obligations
under
this
paragraph.
The
one
year
period
will
not
include
the
time
necessary
to
appeal.
Also,
the
(g)
To
communicate
promptly
with
and
to
be
visited
one
year
period
will
not
include
any
time
during
which
regularly
by
United
States
authorities,
and
to
have
such
scheduled
trial
procedures
are
delayed
because
United
authorities
present
at
all
judicial
proceedings.
These
States
authorities,
after
timely
notification
by
Philippine
proceedings
shall
be
public
unless
the
court,
in
authorities
to
arrange
for
the
presence
of
the
accused,
accordance
with
Philippine
law,
excludes
persons
who
fail
to
do
so.
have
no
role
in
the
proceedings.
7.
Within
the
scope
of
their
legal
authority,
United
States
10.
The
confinement
or
detention
by
Philippine
and
Philippine
authorities
shall
assist
each
other
in
the
authorities
of
United
States
personnel
shall
be
carried
carrying
out
of
all
necessary
investigations
into
offenses
out
in
facilities
agreed
on
by
appropriate
Philippine
and
and
shall
cooperate
in
providing
for
the
attendance
of
United
States
authorities.
United
States
personnel
witnesses
and
in
the
collection
and
production
of
serving
sentences
in
the
Philippines
shall
have
the
right
evidence,
including
seizure
and,
in
proper
cases,
the
to
visits
and
material
assistance.
delivery
of
objects
connected
with
an
offense.
11.
United
States
personnel
shall
be
subject
to
trial
only
in
Philippine
courts
of
ordinary
jurisdiction,
and
shall
not
Rañeses
10
be
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
Philippine
military
or
person
of
any
ambassador
or
public
minister
of
any
religious
courts.
foreign
State,
authorized
and
received
as
such
by
the
President,
or
any
domestic
or
domestic
servant
of
any
Republic
Act
no.
75
such
ambassador
or
minister
is
arrested
or
imprisoned,
or
his
goods
or
chattels
are
distrained,
seized,
or
An
act
to
penalize
acts
which
would
impair
the
attached,
shall
be
deemed
void,
and
every
person
by
proper
observance
by
the
republic
and
inhabitants
of
whom
the
same
is
obtained
or
prosecuted,
whether
as
the
Philippines
of
the
immunities,
right,
and
party
or
as
attorney,
and
every
officer
concerned
in
privileges
of
duly
accredited
foreign
diplomatic
and
executing
it,
shall
upon
conviction,
be
punished
by
consular
agents
in
the
Philippines
imprisonment
for
not
more
than
three
years
and
a
fine
of
not
exceeding
two
hundred
pesos
in
the
discretion
of
the
Section
1.
Any
person
who
shall
falsely
assume
and
take
court.
upon
himself
to
act
as
a
diplomatic,
consular,
or
any
other
official
of
a
foreign
government
duly
accredited
as
Section
5.
The
provisions
of
section
four
hereof
shall
not
such
to
the
Government
of
the
Republic
of
the
apply
to
any
case
where
the
person
against
whom
the
Philippines
with
intent
to
defraud
such
foreign
process
is
issued
is
a
citizen
or
inhabitant
of
the
Republic
government
or
the
Government
of
the
Philippines,
or
any
of
the
Philippines,
in
the
service
of
an
ambassador
or
a
person,
or
in
such
pretended
character
shall
demand
or
public
minister,
and
the
process
is
founded
upon
a
debt
obtain,
or
attempt
to
obtain
from
person
or
from
said
contracted
before
he
entered
upon
such
service;
nor
foreign
government
or
the
Government
of
the
shall
the
said
section
apply
to
any
case
where
the
person
Philippines,
or
from
any
officer
thereof,
any
money,
against
whom
the
process
is
issued
is
a
domestic
servant
paper,
document,
or
other
thing,
of
value,
shall
be
fined
of
an
ambassador
or
a
public
minister,
unless
the
name
not
more
than
five
thousand
pesos,
or
shall
be
of
the
servant
has,
before
the
issuing
thereof,
been
imprisoned
for
not
more
than
five
years,
or
both,
in
registered
in
the
Department
of
Foreign
Affairs,
and
addition
to
the
penalties
that
may
be
imposed
under
the
transmitted
by
the
Secretary
of
Foreign
Affairs
to
the
Revised
Penal
Code.
Chief
of
Police
of
the
City
of
Manila,
who
shall
upon
receipt
thereof
post
the
same
in
some
public
place
in
his
Section
2.
Any
person,
other
than
a
diplomatic
or
office.
All
persons
shall
have
resort
to
the
list
of
names
so
consular
officer
or
attaché,
who
shall
act
in
the
Republic
posted
in
the
office
of
the
Chief
of
Police,
and
take
copies
of
the
Philippines
as
an
agent
of
a
foreign
government
without
fee.
without
prior
notification
to,
and
registration
with,
the
Secretary
of
Foreign
Affairs
shall
be
fined
not
more
than
Section
6.
Any
person
who
assaults,
strikes,
wounds,
five
thousand
pesos,
or
imprisoned
not
more
than
five
imprisons
or
in
any
other
manner
offers
violence
to
the
years,
or
both,
aside
from
other
penalties
that
may
be
person
of
an
ambassador
or
a
public
minister,
in
imposed
by
law.
violation
of
the
law
of
nations,
shall
be
imprisoned
not
more
than
three
years,
and
fined
not
exceeding
two
Section
3.
Any
person,
who
with
intent
to
deceive
or
hundred
pesos,
in
the
discretion
of
the
court,
in
addition
mislead,
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Republic,
wear
any
to
the
penalties
that
may
be
imposed
under
the
Revised
naval,
military,
police,
or
other
official
uniform,
Penal
Code.
decoration,
or
regalia
of
any
foreign
State,
nation
or
government
with
which
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines
is
Section
7.
The
provisions
of
this
Act
shall
be
applicable
at
peace,
or
any
uniform,
decoration
or
regalia
so
nearly
only
in
case
where
the
country
of
the
diplomatic
or
resembling
the
same
as
to
be
calculated
to
deceive,
consular
representative
adversely
affected
has
provided
unless
such
wearing
thereof
be
authorized
by
such
State,
for
similar
protection
to
duly
accredited
diplomatic
or
nation,
or
government,
shall
upon
conviction,
be
consular
representatives
of
the
Republic
of
the
punished
by
a
fine
not
exceeding
two
hundred
pesos
or
Philippines
by
prescribing
like
or
similar
penalties
for
imprisonment
not
exceeding
six
months,
or
by
both
such
like
or
similar
offenses
herein
contained.itc-‐alf
fine
and
imprisonment.1awphil-‐itc-‐alf
Section
8.
This
Act
shall
take
effect
upon
its
approval.
Section
4.
Any
writ
or
process
sued
out
or
prosecuted
by
any
person
in
any
court
of
the
Republic
of
the
Approved:
October
21,
1946
Philippines,
or
by
any
judge
or
justice,
whereby
the
Rañeses
11
Republic
Act
no.
7055
Sec.
3.
Presidential
Decree
Nos.
1822,
1822-‐A,
1850
and
1952,
and
all
acts,
general
orders,
executive
orders,
and
An
act
strengthening
civilian
supremacy
over
the
other
presidential
issuances,
rules
and
regulations
military
by
returning
to
the
civil
courts
the
inconsistent
with
this
Act
are
hereby
repealed
or
jurisdiction
over
certain
offenses
involving
members
amended
accordingly.
of
the
armed
forces
of
the
Philippines,
other
persons
subject
to
military
law,
and
the
members
of
the
Sec.
4.
This
Act
shall
take
effect
fifteen
(15)
days
Philippine
national
office,
repealing
for
the
purpose
following
its
publication
in
the
Official
Gazette
orin
at
certain
presidential
decrees
least
two
(2)
newspapers
of
general
circulation.
Be
it
enacted
by
the
Senate
and
House
of
Representatives
Presidential
Decree
no.
1850
of
the
Philippines
in
Congress
assembled:
Presidential
decree
no.
1850
-‐
providing
for
the
trial
Section
1.
Members
of
the
Armed
forces
of
the
by
courts-‐martial
of
members
of
the
integrated
Philippines
and
other
persons
subject
to
military
law,
national
police
and
further
defining
the
jurisdiction
including
members
of
the
Citizens
Armed
Forces
of
courts-‐martial
over
members
of
the
armed
forces
Geographical
Units,
who
commit
crimes
or
offenses
of
the
Philippines
penalized
under
the
Revised
Penal
Code,
other
special
penal
laws,
or
local
government
ordinances,
regardless,
WHEREAS,
under
Section
12,
Article
XV
of
the
of
whether
or
not
civilians
are
co-‐accused,
victims,
or
Constitution,
the
State
shall
establish
and
maintain
an
offended
parties
which
may
be
natural
or
juridical
integrated
national
police
force
whose
organization,
persons,
shall
be
tried
by
the
proper
civil
court,
except
administration,
and
operation
shall
be
provided
by
law;
when
the
offense,
as
determined
before
arraignment
by
the
civil
court,
is
service-‐connected,
in
which
case
the
WHEREAS,
under
and
pursuant
to
existing
laws,
the
offense
shall
be
tried
by
court-‐martial:
Provided,
That
the
various
municipal/city
police
and
fire
departments
and
President
of
the
Philippines
may,
in
the
interest
of
jails
have
been
integrated
into
law-‐enforcement
units
justice,
order
or
direct
at
any
time
before
arraignment
under
the
operational
control
and
organization
set-‐up
of
that
any
such
crimes
or
offenses
be
tried
by
the
proper
the
Philippine
Constabulary;
civil
courts.
WHEREAS,
in
the
interest
of
discipline
and
public
service,
As
used
in
this
Section,
service-‐connected
crimes
or
it
is
desirable
that
members
of
the
Integrated
National
offenses
shall
be
limited
to
those
defined
in
Articles
54
to
Police
be
subject
to
trial
by
courts-‐martial
under
70,
Articles
70
to
92,
and
Articles
95
to
97
of
Commonwealth
Act
No.
408,
as
amended,
otherwise
Commonwealth
Act
No,
408,
as
amended.
known
as
the
"Article
of
War
for
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines,"
for
all
crimes
of
offenses
which
are
In
imposing
the
penalty
for
such
crimes
or
offenses,
the
heretofore
cognizable
by
the
civil
courts;
court-‐martial
may
take
into
consideration
the
penalty
prescribed
therefor
in
the
Revised
Penal
Code,
other
WHEREAS,
as
a
complementary
measure,
there
is
a
need
special
penal
laws,
or
local
government
ordinances.
to
clarify
existing
provisions
of
law
relating
to
jurisdiction
of
courts-‐martial
and
the
Sec.
2.
Subject
to
the
provisions
of
Section
1
hereof,
all
Tanodbayan/Sandiganbayan
and
the
regular
civil
courts
cases
filed
or
pending
for
filing
with
court-‐martial
or
over
crimes
and
offenses
committed
by
members
of
the
other
similar
bodies,
except
those
where
the
accused
had
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines.
already
been
arraigned,
shall,
within
thirty
(30)
days
following
the
effectivity
of
this
Act,
be
transferred
to
the
NOW,
THEREFORE,
I,
FERDINAND
E,
MARCOS,
President
proper
civil
courts:
Provided,
That
the
Chief
of
the
Armed
of
the
Philippines,
by
virtue
of
the
powers
vested
in
me
Forces
of
the
Philippines
shall,
upon
petition
before
by
the
Constitution,
do
hereby
order
and
decree:
commencement
of
trial
and
with
written
consent
of
the
accused,
order
the
transfer
of
such
excepted
case
or
Section
1.
Court-‐Martial
Jurisdiction
over
Integrated
cases
to
the
proper
civil
courts
for
trial
and
resolution.
National
Police
and
Members
of
the
Armed
Forces.
—
Any
provision
of
law
to
the
contrary
notwithstanding
—
(a)
uniformed
members
of
the
Integrated
National
Police
Rañeses
12
who
commit
any
crime
of
offense
cognizable
by
the
civil
summary
courts-‐martial
when
empowered
by
the
courts
shall
henceforth
be
exclusively
tried
by
courts-‐ President.
martial
pursuant
to
and
in
accordance
with
Commonwealth
Act
No.
408,
as
amended,
otherwise
(b)
Where
military
personnel
and
Integrated
National
known
as
the
Articles
of
War;
(b)
all
persons
subject
to
Police
members
are
commonly
charged.
—
The
court-‐
military
law
under
Article
2
of
the
aforecited
Articles
of
martial
shall
be
appointed
by
the
appointing
authorities
War
who
commit
any
crime
or
offense
shall
be
specified
in
Articles
8,
9,
10
and
11
of
Commonwealth
Act
exclusively
tried
by
courts-‐martial
or
their
case
disposed
No.
408,
as
amended.
of
under
the
said
Articles
of
War;
Provided,
that,
in
either
of
the
aforementioned
situations,
the
case
shall
be
Section
4.
Composition
of
Courts-‐Martial.
—
disposed
of
or
tried
by
the
proper
civil
or
judicial
Membership,
whether
military
personnel
or
Integrated
authorities
when
court-‐martial
jurisdiction
over
the
National
Police
members,
in
a
general
or
special
court-‐
offense
has
prescribed
under
Article
38
of
martial
for
the
trial
of
a
member
of
the
Integrated
Commonwealth
Act
Numbered
408,
as
amended,
or
National
Police
shall
be
in
a
ratio
as
determined
by
the
court-‐martial
jurisdiction
over
the
person
of
the
accused
appointing
authority;
Provided,
however,
that
the
military
or
Integrated
National
Police
personnel
can
no
number
of
Integrated
National
Police
personnel
detailed
longer
be
exercised
by
virtue
of
their
separation
from
the
shall
not
be
less
than
one-‐third
of
the
total
membership
active
service
without
jurisdiction
having
duly
attached
of
the
court.
before
hand
unless
otherwise
provided
by
law.
Section
5.
Administrative
Action.
—
Court-‐martial
action
As
used
herein,
the
term
uniformed
members
of
the
against
uniformed
personnel
of
the
Integrated
National
Integrated
National
Police
shall
refer
to
police
officers,
Police
as
herein
provided
shall
not
preclude
the
taking
of
policemen,
firemen
and
jail
guards.
administrative
action
against
said
personnel
as
may
be
warranted
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
existing
law.
Section
2.
Segregation
of
Criminal
Cases
of
Armed
Forces
and
Integrated
National
Police
from
Civilian
Co-‐accused.
Section
6.
Transitory
Provisions.
—
All
cases
pending
—
In
cases
where
there
are
two
or
more
accused
one
or
before
the
civil
courts
against
military
personnel
in
the
some
of
whom
is
or
are
civilian(s),
the
case
against
the
active
service
Integrated
National
Forces
of
the
latter
shall
be
segregated
from
accused
Armed
Forces
or
Philippines
or
against
Integrated
National
Police
Integrated
National
Police
member,
and
filed
with
the
personnel
where,
on
the
effective
date
of
this
Decree,
the
appropriate
civil
court
for
trial
in
accordance
with
accused
have
been
arraigned,
shall
continue
to
be
tried
existing
laws;
Provided,
however,
that
should
such
and
decided
by
said
civil
courts.
All
other
cases
against
civilian
accused
waive
in
writing
civil
court
jurisdiction
such
personnel
shall
be
tried
by
courts-‐martial
or
and
submit
himself
to
court-‐martial
jurisdiction,
then
the
disposed
of
pursuant
to
this
Decree.
whole
case
involving
members
of
the
Armed
Forces
or
the
Integrated
National
Police
as
well
as
the
civilian(s)
Section
7.
Promulgation
of
Rules.
—
The
Chief
of
Staff,
shall
be
referred
for
trial
to
a
court-‐martial.
AFP,
shall
formulate
rules
and
regulations
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
this
Decree,
which
shall,
upon
Section
3.
Appointing
Authorities.
—
(a)
Where
recommendation
of
the
Minister
of
National
Defense,
be
uniformed
member(s)
of
the
Integrated
National
Police
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
President.
are
charged.
—
The
President
of
the
Philippines
and
the
Chief
of
Constabulary/Director
General,
Integrated
Section
8.
Appropriations.
—
The
amount
of
two
million
National
Police
are
hereby
empowered
to
appoint
pesos
(P2,000,000.00)
is
hereby
authorized
to
be
general,
special
and
summary
courts-‐martial
for
the
trial
appropriated
out
of
the
funds
in
the
National
Treasury
of
uniformed
members
of
the
Integrated
National
Police.
not
otherwise
appropriated
to
carry
out
the
purpose
of
The
Constabulary
Regional
Commanders/Directors,
this
Decree
and,
thereafter,
such
amounts
as
may
be
Integrated
National
Police
may
appoint
special
and
necessary
for
this
purpose
shall
be
included
in
the
annual
summary
courts-‐martial,
and
when
empowered
by
the
appropriation
of
the
Integrated
National
Police.
President,
they
may
also
appoint
general
courts-‐martial.
Other
subordinate
field
commanders
of
the
Philippine
Section
9.
Repealing
Clause.
—
All
laws,
rules
and
Constabulary/Integrated
National
Police
may
appoint
regulations,
or
portions
thereof,
which
are
contrary
to,
or
Rañeses
13
inconsistent
with,
the
provisions
of
this
Decree,
are
assault
charges
may
be
pressed
under
the
hereby
repealed
or
modified
accordingly.
RPC.
3. No.
The
application
of
the
general
principle
Section
10.
Effectivity.
—
This
Decree
shall
take
effect
that
the
jurisdiction
of
the
civil
tribunals
is
immediately.
unaffected
by
the
military
or
other
special
character
brought
before
them
for
trial
(R.A.
Done
in
the
City
of
Manila,
this
4th
day
of
October,
the
year
of
Our
Lord,
nineteen
hundred
and
eighty-‐two.
No.
7055).
Appellant
claims
that
the
act
was
service
connected.
If
this
were
true,
it
may
U.S.
v.
Sweet,
1
Phil.
18
(1901)
be
used
as
a
defense
but
this
cannot
affect
Facts:
Sweet
was
employed
by
the
United
States
the
right
of
the
Civil
Court
to
takes
military
who
committed
an
offense
against
a
POW.
jurisdiction
of
the
case.”
His
case
is
filed
with
the
CFI,
who
is
given
original
jurisdiction
in
all
criminal
cases
for
which
a
penalty
Doctrine:
Jurisdiction
of
the
civil
courts
is
not
of
more
than
6
months
is
imposed.
He
is
now
affected
by
the
military
character
of
the
accused.
contending
that
the
courts
are
without
jurisdiction
because
he
was
“acting
in
the
line
of
duty.”
Reyes:
1. Civil
courts
have
concurrent
jurisdiction
Issues:
with
general
courts-‐martial
over
soldiers
1. WON
this
case
is
within
the
jurisdiction
of
of
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines.
the
CFI.
2. The
RPC
or
other
penal
laws
is
not
2. WON
an
assault
committed
by
a
soldier
or
applicable
when
the
military
court
takes
military
employee
upon
a
prisoner
of
war
is
cognizance
of
the
case.
When
the
military
not
an
offence
under
the
penal
code.
court
takes
cognizance
of
the
case
involving
3. Assuming
that
it
is
an
offence
under
the
a
person
subject
to
military
law,
the
Articles
penal
code,
WON
the
military
character
of
War
apply.
sustained
by
the
person
charged
with
the
3.
The
prosecution
of
an
accused
before
a
offence
at
the
time
of
its
commission
court-‐martial
is
a
bar
to
another
exempts
him
from
the
ordinary
jurisdiction
prosecution
of
the
accused
for
the
same
of
the
civil
tribunals.
offense.
4. Offenders
of
war
crimes
are
triable
by
Held:
military
courts.
1. Yes.
By
Act
No.
136
of
the
US-‐Phil
5. There
are
exceptions
to
the
general
Commission,
the
CFIs
are
given
original
application
of
Criminal
Law
in
the
jurisdiction
in
all
criminal
cases
in
which
a
Philippines.
penalty
more
than
6
months
imprisonment
• The
opening
sentence
of
Art.
2
of
the
or
a
fine
greater
than
$100
may
be
imposed.
RPC
says
that
the
provisions
of
this
Furthermore,
CFIs
have
jurisdiction
to
try
Code
shall
be
enforced
within
the
offenders
charged
with
violation
of
the
Philippine
Archipelago,
“except
as
Penal
Code
within
their
territorial
limits,
provided
in
the
treaties
and
laws
or
regardless
of
the
military
character
of
the
preferential
application.”
(i.e.
Treaty
accused.
The
defendant
and
his
acts
are
–
VFA)
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
CFI
because
he
• Art.
14
of
the
new
Civil
Code
failed
to
prove
that
he
was
indeed
acting
in
provides
that
penal
laws
and
those
the
line
of
duty.
of
public
safety
shall
be
obligatory
2. Yes.
Though
assault
by
military
officer
upon
all
who
live
or
sojourn
in
against
a
POW
isn’t
in
the
RPC,
physical
Philippine
territory,
subject
to
the
principles
of
public
international
law
Rañeses
14
and
to
treaty
stipulations.
(i.e.
Law
judicial
dept,
to
determine
if
war
has
ended.
of
preferential
application
–
R.A.
Fact
that
delivery
of
certain
persons
under
no.
75,
which
favors
diplomatic
custody
of
the
US
Army
has
already
begun
representatives
and
their
servants;
doesn’t
mean
that
the
war
has,
in
the
legal
Principle
of
public
international
sense,
already
terminated,
w/c
clearly
it
law
–
immunity
for
(1)
sovereigns
hasn’t.
Delivery
w/in
power
of
military
and
other
chiefs
of
state,
(2)
authorities
to
make
even
before
was
ambassadors,
ministers
terminated.
plenipotentiary,
ministers
resident
2. No.
Civil
Courts
shouldn’t
interfere.
A
and
charges
d’affaires.)
foreign
army
permitted
to
march
through
a
friendly
country
or
to
be
stationed
in
it,
is
Raquiza
v.
Bradford,
75
Phil.
50
(1945)
exempt
from
civil
&
criminal
jurisdiction
of
Facts:
By
virtue
of
the
proclamation
issued
by
the
place.
Grant
of
free
passage
implies
a
General
of
the
Army
MacArthur,
petitioners
were
waiver
of
all
jurisdiction
over
troops
during
arrested
by
the
306
CIC
and
detained
under
passage
(let
them
exercise
their
own
security
commitment
order
No
385.
The
petitioners
discipline).
Any
attempt
by
our
civil
Courts
Raquiza,
Tee
Han
Kee,
and
Infante
were
charged
to
exercise
jurisdiction
over
US
troops
with
Espionage
activity
with
the
Japanese
&
active
would
be
a
violation
of
our
country’s
faith.
collaboration
with
the
enemy
respectively.
Power
of
On
the
other
hand,
petitioners
may
have
Commander
of
the
US
Army
to
proclaim
by
virtue
of
recourse
to
proper
military
authorities.
military
necessity
is
not
questioned.
He
based
proclamation
on
reasons
that
apprehended
have
Liang
v.
People,
323
SCRA
692
(2000)
violated
due
allegiance
to
US
and
it
is
a
military
Facts:
Petitioner
is
an
economist
for
ADB
who
was
necessity.
Petitioners
move
for
writ
of
Habeas
charged
by
the
Metropolitan
TC
of
Mandaluyong
Corpus.
City
for
allegedly
uttering
defamatory
words
against
her
fellow
worker
w/
2
counts
of
grave
oral
Issues:
defamation.
MeTC
judge
then
received
an
office
of
1. WON
the
war
terminated
within
the
protocol
from
the
Department
of
Foreign
Affairs,
meaning
of
that
part
in
the
proclamation?
stating
that
petitioner
is
covered
by
immunity
from
[Note:
The
power
of
commander
in
chief
of
legal
process
under
section
45
of
the
agreement
bet
the
US
Army
to
issue
a
proclamation
ADB
&
the
gov’t.
MeTC
judge,
w/o
notice,
dismissed
providing
for
military
measures
to
be
taken
the
two
criminal
cases.
Prosecution
filed
writ
of
upon
the
apprehension
of
Filipino
citizens
mandamus
&
certiorari
and
ordered
the
MeTC
to
who
voluntarily
have
given
aid,
comfort
and
enforce
the
warrant
of
arrest.
sustenance
to
the
enemy,
cannot
be
seriously
questioned.]
Issue:
WON
the
petitioner
is
covered
by
immunity
2. WON
this
court
has
jurisdiction
or
legal
under
the
agreement
and
that
no
preliminary
power
to
afford
relief
to
the
petitioners
in
investigation
was
held
before
the
criminal
cases
the
sad
and
sorry
plight
to
which
they
have
were
filed
in
court.
been
and
are
being
subjected?
Held:
No.
He
is
not
covered
by
immunity
because
Held:
the
commission
of
a
crime
is
part
of
the
1. No.
“The
war,
in
the
legal
sense,
continues
performance
of
official
duty.
Courts
cannot
blindly
until,
and
terminated
at
the
same
time
of,
adhere
and
take
on
its
face
the
communication
from
some
formal
proclamation
of
peace
by
an
the
DFA
that
a
certain
person
is
covered
by
authority
competent
to
proclaim
it.
It
is
the
immunity.
That
a
person
is
covered
by
immunity
is
province
of
the
political
dept,
&
not
the
Rañeses
15
preliminary.
Due
process
is
right
of
the
accused
as
such
as
acting
ambassadors
or
nuncios,
or
much
as
the
prosecution.
internuncios
and
charges
d’affaires
are
exempted
from
the
exercise
of
local
Slandering
a
person
is
not
covered
by
the
jurisdiction.
The
remedy
of
a
local
state
is
to
agreement
because
our
laws
do
not
allow
the
consider
him
persona
non
grata.
commission
of
a
crime
such
as
defamation
in
the
• Immunities
of
consuls:
Consuls
do
not
name
of
official
duty.
Under
Vienna
convention
on
belong
to
the
class
of
diplomatic
agents.
Diplomatic
Relations,
commission
of
a
crime
is
not
They
do
not
enjoy
immunity
from
local
part
of
official
duty.
jurisdiction
from
private
or
commercial
transactions
not
connected
with
consular
On
the
contention
that
there
was
no
preliminary
duties.
investigation
conducted,
suffice
it
to
say
that
• Honorary
consuls:
Are
appointed
to
preliminary
investigation
isn’t
a
matter
of
right
in
perform
limited
curricular
duties.
They
have
cases
cognizable
by
the
MeTC
such
as
the
one
at
bar.
no
specific
“definition”
in
the
Vienna
Being
purely
a
statutory
right,
preliminary
Convention.
Their
immunities
are
limited
to
investigation
may
be
invoked
only
when
specifically
the
level
necessary
for
their
proper
exercise
granted
by
law.
The
rule
on
criminal
procedure
is
of
official
consular
functions.
Consular
clear
than
no
preliminary
investigation
is
required
employees
at
a
post
headed
by
an
honorary
in
cases
falling
w/in
the
jurisdiction
of
the
MeTC.
consul
and
members
of
the
honorary
Besides,
the
absence
of
preliminary
investigation
consul’s
family
are
granted
none
of
the
doesn’t
affect
the
court’s
jurisdiction
nor
does
it
privileges
provided
in
the
convention.
impair
the
validity
of
the
information
or
otherwise
• Immunity
of
Officials
Representing
a
render
it
defective.
Sovereign
State:
Officers
representing
the
sovereign
state
are
exempted
from
local
Various
Categories
of
Diplomatic
Immunity
jurisdiction.
from
Local
Jurisdiction
• Immunity
of
Officials
of
International
• Immunity
from
the
exercise
of
local
Organizations:
The
immunities
enjoyed
by
jurisdiction
may
be
generally
classified
as
the
UN
includes
immunity
for
UN
assets
absolute
or
relative.
from
any
legal
process;
from
search,
• Absolute
and
Relative
Immunity:
A
requisition,
expropriation,
confiscation,
and
foreign
sovereign
could
not,
without
his
any
sort
of
interference;
of
archives;
consent,
be
made
a
defendant
in
the
courts
freedom
from
all
financial
controls,
of
another
sovereign.
In
a
newer
and
moratoriums,
or
other
monetary
restrictive
theory
of
sovereign
immunity,
regulations;
freedom
to
hold
funds
in
any
such
exemption
has
been
recognized
only
desired
currency
or
metal;
freedom
to
with
respect
to
sovereign
or
public
acts
of
transfer
funds;
an
absolute
exemption
of
all
state
and
not
necessarily
with
respect
to
its
assets
and
revenue
from
all
direct
taxes;
so-‐called
private
acts.
Regardless
of
exemption
from
all
customs
duties
as
well
whether
an
individual
is
constitutionally
the
as
from
any
foreign
trade
prohibitions
on
actual
head
of
state
or
only
its
nominal
needed
goods;
guarantee
of
most
favored
head,
he
or
she
enjoys
complete
immunity
diplomatic
treatment;
exemption
from
from
suit
in
the
territory
of
another
state.
censorship,
etc.
Officers
of
the
UN
enjoy
And
whatever
the
sovereign
may
do
in
the
immunity
from
local
jurisdiction.
territory
of
another
state,
he
is
immune
from
all
prosecution,
civil
or
criminal.
Similarly,
representatives
of
the
European
• 1961
Vienna
Convention
on
Diplomatic
Economic
Community
and
the
EURATOM
Relations:
heads
of
diplomatic
missions,
Rañeses
16
possess
customary
diplomatic
privileges
was
overruled,
he
filed
a
petition
for
a
writ
of
and
immunities.
prohibition
to
prevent
the
CFI
from
taking
cognizance
of
the
criminal
action
filed
against
him.
Members
of
special
diplomatic
missions
Aside
from
this,
he
contended
that
original
enjoy
civil
and
criminal
immunities,
and
are
jurisdiction
over
cases
affecting
ambassadors
and
exempted
from
customs
duties
and
consuls
is
conferred
exclusively
upon
the
Supreme
inspections.
Court
of
the
Philippines.
• Immunity
of
Intergovernmental
International
Organizations:
Issues:
Intergovernmental
international
1. WON
the
US
SC
has
Original
Jurisdiction
organizations
are
granted
privileges
and
over
cases
affecting
ambassadors,
consuls,
immunities
to
secure
them
from
legal
and
et.
al
&
such
jurisdiction
excludes
courts
of
practical
independence
in
the
performance
the
Phils.
of
their
duties.
(Jenks,
International
2. WON
original
jurisdiction
over
cases
Immunities,
London
[1961])
affecting
ambassadors,
consuls,
et.
al.
is
• Immunity
of
Non-‐Governmental
conferred
exclusively
upon
the
Supreme
Intergovernmental
International
Court
of
the
Philippines
Organizations:
The
principle
of
immunity
from
suit
has
been
extended
to
these
Held:
organizations
in
order
to
give
them
freedom
1. No.
First
of
all,
a
consul
is
not
entitled
to
the
of
performance
of
their
activities.
privilege
of
diplomatic
immunity.
A
consul
• Doctrine
of
Restrictive
Immunity:
the
is
not
exempt
from
criminal
prosecution
for
privileges
of
diplomatic
officials
are
not
violations
of
the
laws
of
the
country
where
altogether
unlimited.
Restrictive
theory
he
resides.
The
inauguration
of
the
limits
immunity
to
public
acts
and
excluding
Philippine
Commonwealth
on
Nov.
15,
1935
all
commercial
or
private
acts.
caused
the
Philippine
Constitution
to
go
into
• Immunity
of
As
Hoc
Diplomats:
members
full
force
and
effect.
This
Constitution
is
the
of
official
missions
and
delegates
traveling
supreme
law
of
the
land.
It
also
provides
abroad
to
attend
international
conference
that
the
original
jurisdiction
of
this
court
are
accorded
diplomatic
immunity
while
in
“shall
include
all
cases
affecting
the
performance
of
their
official
functions.
ambassadors,
consuls
et.al.”
• Proper
procedure
for
Liang
v.
People:
2. “The
Supreme
Court
shall
have
original
and
The
court
should
have
inquired
whether
the
appellate
jurisdiction
as
may
be
possessed
crime
committed
was
in
connection
with
his
and
exercised
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
official
duties
pursuant
to
the
agreement
Philippines
at
the
time
of
the
adoption
of
between
the
Government
of
the
RP
and
the
this
Constitution.”
According
to
Sec.
17.
of
ADB.
His
immunity
was
not
absolute,
as
the
Act
No.
136
and
by
virtue
of
it,
jurisdiction
principle
of
restrictive
immunity
applies
to
to
issue
writs
of
quo
warranto,
certiorari,
him.
mandamus,
prohibition
and
habeas
corpus
was
also
conferred
on
the
CFI’s.
As
a
result,
Schneckenburger
v.
Moran,
63
Phil.
249
(1936)
the
original
jurisdiction
possessed
and
Facts:
Schneckenburger,
who
is
an
honorary
consul
exercised
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
of
Uruguay
at
Manila
was
subsequently
charged
in
Philippines
at
the
time
the
Constitution
was
CFI-‐Manila
with
the
crime
of
falsification
of
a
adopted
was
not
exclusive
of,
but
private
document.
He
objected
to
this
saying
that
concurrent
with,
that
of
the
CFI’s.
The
under
the
US
and
Philippine
Constitution,
the
CFI
original
jurisdiction
conferred
to
SC
by
the
has
no
jurisdiction
to
try
him.
After
his
objection
Rañeses
17
Constitution
was
not
an
exclusive
U.S.
v.
Bull,
15
Phil.
7
(1910)
jurisdiction.
Facts:
Bull,
the
master
of
the
steamship
STANDARD,
carried,
transported
and
brought
into
the
port
&
Territorial
city
of
Manila,
aboard
said
vessel,
677
head
of
cattle
&
carabaos,
w/o
providing
suitable
means
for
securing
said
animals
while
in
transit,
so
as
to
avoid
RPC,
Art.
2
cruelty
&
unnecessary
suffering
to
the
said
animals.
Article
2.
Application
of
its
provisions.
-‐
Except
as
He
failed
to
provide
stalls
&
suitable
means
for
provided
in
the
treaties
and
laws
of
preferential
tying
&
securing
said
animals
in
a
proper
manner.
application,
the
provisions
of
this
Code
shall
be
Bull
even
caused
some
of
the
said
animals
to
be
tied
enforced
not
only
within
the
Philippine
Archipelago,
by
means
of
rings
through
their
noses
and
including
its
atmosphere,
its
interior
waters
and
permitted
others
to
be
transported
loose
in
the
hold
maritime
zone,
but
also
outside
of
its
jurisdiction,
&
on
the
deck
of
said
vessel
w/o
being
tied
or
against
those
who:
secured
in
stalls.
Bedding
for
all
the
said
animals
1.
Should
commit
an
offense
while
on
a
Philippine
was
not
provided
as
well.
Hence,
the
noses
of
some
ship
or
airship;
of
said
animals
were
cruelly
torn,
many
of
said
animals
were
tossed
upon
the
decks
of
hold
of
said
2.
Should
forge
or
counterfeit
any
coin
or
currency
vessels,
cruelly
wounded,
bruised
&
killed.
All
acts
note
of
the
Philippine
Islands
or
obligations
and
contrary
to
the
provisions
of
Acts
No.
55
&
No.
275
securities
issued
by
the
Government
of
the
Philippine
Islands;
of
the
Phil.
Commission.
3.
Should
be
liable
for
acts
connected
with
the
Issues:
introduction
into
these
islands
of
the
obligations
1. WON
the
trial
court
was
with
jurisdiction
to
and
securities
mentioned
in
the
preceding
number;
hear
and
determine
the
case.
4.
While
being
public
officers
or
employees,
should
2. WON
Act
No.
55,
as
amended,
is
in
violation
commit
an
offense
in
the
exercise
of
their
functions;
of
certain
provisions
of
the
Constitutions
of
or
the
US.
3. WON
Whether
or
not
the
evidence
is
5.
Should
commit
any
of
the
crimes
against
national
insufficient
to
support
the
conviction.
security
and
the
law
of
nations,
defined
in
Title
One
of
Book
Two
of
this
Code.
Held:
1. Yes.
Act
No.
55
confers
jurisdiction
over
the
offense.
When
the
vessel
came
w/in
3
miles
Const.
(1987),
Art.
I
of
a
line
drawn
from
the
headlands
w/c
The
national
territory
comprises
the
Philippine
embraces
the
entrance
to
Manila
Bay,
she
archipelago,
with
all
the
islands
and
waters
was
w/in
territorial
waters.
The
completed
embraced
therein,
and
all
other
territories
over
forbidden
act
was
thus
done
w/in
American
which
the
Philippines
has
sovereignty
or
waters,
&
the
court
therefore
had
jurisdiction,
consisting
of
its
terrestrial,
fluvial
and
jurisdiction
over
the
subject–matter
of
the
aerial
domains,
including
its
territorial
sea,
the
offense
&
the
person
of
the
offender.
seabed,
the
subsoil,
the
insular
shelves,
and
other
The
treaty
does
not
deprive
the
local
courts
submarine
areas.
The
waters
around,
between,
and
of
jurisdiction
over
offenses
committed
connecting
the
islands
of
the
archipelago,
onboard
a
merchant
vessel
by
one
member
regardless
of
their
breadth
and
dimensions,
form
part
of
the
internal
waters
of
the
Philippines.
of
the
crew
against
another
w/c
amount
to
a
disturbance
of
the
order/tranquility
of
the
country.
A
fair
&
reasonable
construction
of
Visiting
Forces
Agreement,
Art.
V
the
language
requires
us
to
hold
that
any
*Refer
to
pp.
8-‐10
for
full
text
violation
of
criminal
laws
disturbs
the
Rañeses
18
order/tranquility
of
the
country.
The
vessel
or
they
refer
to
the
internal
offense
of
Bull,
master
of
the
said
vessel,
management
thereof.
This
is
the
rule
was
a
violation
of
the
criminal
law
of
the
followed
in
the
Philippines.
country
into
whose
port
he
came.
Hence,
2. Crimes
not
involving
a
breach
of
public
neither
by
reason
of
the
nationality
of
the
order
committed
on
board
a
foreign
vessel,
the
place
of
the
commission
of
the
merchant
vessel
in
transit
not
triable
by
offense,
or
the
prohibitions
of
any
treaty
or
our
courts.
general
principle
of
public
law,
are
the
3. Philippine
courts
have
no
jurisdiction
courts
of
the
Phil.
Islands
deprived
of
over
offenses
committed
on
board
jurisdiction
over
the
offense
charged
in
the
foreign
warships
in
territorial
waters.
In
information
in
this
case.
case
vessels
are
in
the
ports
or
territorial
2. No.
The
Constitution
of
the
US
operates
only
waters
of
a
foreign
country,
a
distinction
upon
the
States
of
the
Union.
It
has
no
must
be
made
between
merchant
ships
and
application
to
the
Government
of
the
warships.
The
former
are,
more
or
less,
Philippine
Islands.
The
power
to
regulate
subjected
to
territorial
laws.
Warships,
on
foreign
commerce
is
vested
in
Congress,
&
the
other
hand,
are
always
reputed
to
be
the
by
virtue
of
its
power
to
govern
the
territory
of
the
country
to
which
they
territory
belonging
to
the
US,
it
may
belong
and
cannot
be
subjected
to
the
laws
regulate
foreign
commerce
w/
such
of
another
state.
territory.
This
Act
has
remained
in
force
since
its
enactment
w/o
annulment
or
other
People
v.
Look
Chaw,
18
Phil.
573
(1910)
action
by
Congress,
and
must
be
presumed
Facts:
Between
11
and
12
o'clock
a.
m.
on
the
to
have
been
met
w/
the
body’s
approval.
present
month
(stated
as
August
19,
1909)s
everal
3. No.
The
evidence
is
SUFFICIENT
to
support
persons,
Jacks
and
Milliron,
chief
of
the
department
the
conviction.
15
of
the
said
cattle
had
of
the
Port
of
Cebu
and
internal
revenue
agent
of
broken
legs
&
3
others
have
died,
due
to
Cebu,
respectively,
went
aboard
the
steamship
their
broken
legs.
The
said
cattle
were
Erroll
to
inspect
and
search
its
cargo,
and
found
two
transported
&
carried
on
the
deck
&
in
the
sacks
containing
opium.
The
defendant
stated
freely
hold
of
said
ship,
w/o
suitable
precaution
&
and
voluntarily
that
he
had
bought
these
sacks
of
care
for
their
transportation
to
avoid
danger
opium
in
Hongkong
with
the
intention
of
selling
&
risk
to
their
lives
&
security.
them
as
contraband
in
Mexico
or
Vera
Cruz,
and
that
as
his
hold
had
already
been
searched
several
Doctrine:
Offense
committed
on
board
a
foreign
times
for
opium,
he
ordered
two
other
chinamen
to
merchant
vessel
while
on
Philippine
waters
is
keep
the
sack.
All
the
evidence
found
properly
triable
before
our
court
(Reyes).
constitutes
corpus
delicti.
Reyes:
It
was
established
that
the
steamship
Erroll
was
of
1. There
are
two
rules
as
to
jurisdiction
English
nationality,
that
it
came
from
Hongkong,
over
crimes
committed
aboard
foreign
and
that
it
was
bound
for
Mexico,
via
the
call
ports
merchant
vessels.
in
Manila
and
Cebu.
a. French
Rule
–
such
crimes
are
not
triable
in
the
courts
of
that
country,
Issue:
WON
a
local
court
can
exercise
its
unless
their
commission
affects
the
jurisdiction
over
foreign
vessels
stationed
in
its
port
peace
and
security
of
the
territory
or
the
safety
of
the
state
is
endangered.
Held:
Yes.
The
mere
possession
of
a
thing
of
b. English
Rule
–
such
crimes
are
prohibited
use
in
these
Islands,
aboard
a
foreign
triable
in
that
country,
unless
they
vessel
in
transit,
in
any
of
their
ports,
does
not,
as
a
merely
affect
things
within
the
general
rule,
constitute
a
crime
triable
by
the
courts
Rañeses
19
of
this
country,
on
account
of
such
vessel
being
personal
use
is
unlikely,
judging
from
the
size
of
the
considered
as
an
extension
of
its
own
nationality,
amount
brought.
the
same
rule
does
not
apply
when
the
article,
whose
use
is
prohibited
within
the
Philippine
People
v.
Lol-‐lo
and
Saraw,
43
Phil.
19
(1922)
Islands,
in
the
present
case,
a
can
of
opium,
is
Facts:
On
or
about
June
30,
1920,
two
boats
left
landed
from
the
vessel
upon
the
Philippine
soil,
matuta,
a
Dutch
possession,
for
Peta,
another
Dutch
thus
committing
an
open
violation
of
the
penal
law
possession.
In
one
of
the
boats
was
one
individual,
a
in
force
at
the
place
of
the
commission
of
the
crime,
Dutch
subject,
and
in
the
other
boat
eleven
men,
only
the
court
established
in
the
said
place
itself
has
women,
and
children,
likewise
subjects
of
Holland.
competent
jurisdiction,
in
the
absence
of
an
After
a
number
of
days
of
navigation,
at
about
7
agreement
under
an
international
treaty.
o'clock
in
the
evening,
the
second
boat
arrived
between
the
Islands
of
Buang
and
Bukid
in
the
U.S.
v.
Ah
Sing,
36
Phil.
978
(1917)
Dutch
East
Indies.
There
the
boat
was
surrounded
Facts:
The
defendant
is
a
subject
of
China
employed
by
six
vintas
manned
by
twenty-‐four
Moros
all
as
a
fireman
on
a
steamship.
The
steamship
is
a
armed.
The
Moros
first
asked
for
food,
but
once
on
foreign
steamer
which
arrived
at
the
port
of
Cebu
the
Dutch
boat,
too
for
themselves
all
of
the
cargo,
on
April
25,
1917,
after
a
voyage
direct
from
the
attacked
some
of
the
men,
and
brutally
violated
two
port
of
Saigon.
The
defendant
bought
8
cans
of
of
the
women
by
methods
too
horrible
to
the
opium
in
Saigon,
brought
them
on
board
the
described.
All
of
the
persons
on
the
Dutch
boat,
with
steamship
and
had
them
in
his
possession
during
the
exception
of
the
two
young
women,
were
again
the
trip
from
Saigon
to
Cebu.
When
the
steamer
placed
on
it
and
holes
were
made
in
it,
the
idea
that
anchored
in
the
port
of
Cebu,
the
authorities
on
it
would
submerge,
although
as
a
matter
of
fact,
making
the
search
found
the
cans
of
opium
hidden
these
people,
after
eleven
days
of
hardship
and
in
the
ashes
below
the
boiler
of
the
steamer's
privation,
were
succored
violating
them,
the
Moros
engine.
The
defendant
confessed
that
he
was
the
finally
arrived
at
Maruro,
a
Dutch
possession.
Two
owner
of
the
opium
and
that
he
had
purchased
it
in
of
the
Moro
marauder
were
Lol-‐lo,
who
also
raped
Saigon.
He
did
not
confess,
however,
as
to
his
one
of
the
women,
and
Saraw.
At
Maruro
the
two
purpose
in
buying
the
opium.
He
did
not
say
that
it
women
were
able
to
escape.
was
his
intention
to
import
the
prohibited
drug.
Lol-‐lo
and
Saraw
later
returned
to
their
home
in
Issue:
WON
the
crime
of
illegal
importation
of
South
Ubian,
Tawi-‐Tawi,
Sulu,
Philippine
Islands.
opium
into
the
Philippine
Islands
has
been
proven?
There
they
were
arrested
and
were
charged
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
Sulu
with
the
crime
of
Held:
Yes.
It
is
the
onus
of
the
government
to
prove
piracy.
A
demurrer
was
interposed
by
counsel
de
that
the
vessel
from
which
the
drug
discharged
officio
for
the
Moros,
based
on
the
grounds
that
the
came
into
Philippine
waters
from
a
foreign
country
offense
charged
was
not
within
the
jurisdiction
of
with
the
drug
on
board.
In
this
case,
it
is
to
be
noted
the
Court
of
First
Instance,
nor
of
any
court
of
the
that
§4
of
Act
No.
2381
begins,
“Any
person
who
Philippine
Islands,
and
that
the
facts
did
not
shall
unlawfully
import
or
bring
any
prohibited
constitute
a
public
offense,
under
the
laws
in
force
drug
into
the
Philippine
Islands…”
Import
and
bring
in
the
Philippine
Islands.
After
the
demurrer
was
should
be
construed
as
synonymous
terms.
The
overruled
by
the
trial
judge,
trial
was
had,
and
a
mere
act
of
going
into
a
port,
without
breaking
bulk,
judgment
was
rendered
finding
the
two
defendants
is
prima
facie
evidence
of
importation.
The
guilty
and
sentencing
each
of
them
to
life
importation
is
not
the
making
entry
of
goods
at
the
imprisonment
(cadena
perpetua),
to
return
together
customhouse,
but
merely
the
bringing
them
into
the
with
Kinawalang
and
Maulanis,
defendants
in
port,
and
the
importation
is
complete
before
the
another
case,
to
the
offended
parties,
the
thirty-‐nine
entry
to
the
customhouse.
Moreover,
possession
for
sacks
of
copras
which
had
been
robbed,
or
to
Rañeses
20
indemnify
them
in
the
amount
of
924
rupees,
and
to
jurisdiction
over
certain
offenses
committed
within
pay
a
one-‐half
part
of
the
costs.
said
portions
of
territory.
Issue:
Issues:
1. WON
the
local
court
has
jurisdiction
over
1. WON
the
offense
has
been
committed
the
case.
within
a
US
base
thus
giving
the
US
2. Does
Art.
153
of
the
Spanish
penal
code
jurisdiction
over
the
case.
which
punishes
Piracy
still
apply?
2. WON
the
offender
is
a
member
of
the
US
armed
forces
Held:
1. Yes.
Piracy
is
a
crime
not
against
any
Held:
particular
State
but
against
all
mankind.
It
1. No.
The
Port
of
Manila
Area
where
the
may
be
punished
in
the
competent
tribunal
offense
was
committed
is
not
w/in
a
US
or
any
country
where
the
offender
may
be
base
for
it
is
not
names
in
Annex
A
or
B
of
found
or
into
which
he
may
be
carried.
The
AXXVI
of
the
Military
Base
Agreement
jurisdiction
of
piracy
unlike
all
other
crimes
(MBA)
&
is
merely
part
of
the
temporary
had
not
territorial
limits.
quarters
located
w/in
presented
limits
of
2. Yes.
All
laws
previously
in
force
shall
the
city
of
Manila.
Moreover,
extended
remain
force
until
amended
or
repealed.
installations
&
temporary
quarters
aren’t
considered
to
have
the
same
jurisdictional
Doctrine:
Pirates
are
considered
hostis
humani
capacity
as
permanent
bases
&
are
generis.
Therefore,
they
can
be
tried
anywhere.
governed
by
AXIII
pars.
2
&
4.
The
offence
at
People
v.
Wong
Cheng,
46
Phil.
729
(1922)
bar,
therefore
is
in
the
beyond
the
Facts:
Wong
Cheng
smoked
opium
while
aboard
jurisdiction
of
military
courts.
merchant
vessel
Changsa,
anchored
in
Manila
Bay
2. No.
Under
the
MBA,
a
civilian
employee
is
2.5
miles
from
shore.
not
considered
as
a
member
of
the
US
armed
forces.
Even
under
the
articles
of
Issue:
WON
Philippines
has
jurisdiction
over
war,
the
mere
fact
that
a
civilian
employee
is
Merchant
ships
in
its
territory?
in
the
service
of
the
US
Army
does
not
make
him
a
member
of
the
armed
forces.
Held:
Yes;
smoking
within
territory
allows
substance
to
produce
pernicious
effects,
which
is
Prospective
against
public
order.
It
is
also
an
act
of
defiance
of
authority.
RPC
Miquiabas
v.
Commanding
General,
80
Phil.
262
Art.
1
(1948)
Facts:
Miquiabas
is
a
Filipino
citizen
and
civilian
Time
when
Act
takes
effect.
-‐
This
Code
shall
take
employee
of
the
US
army
in
the
Philippines
who
had
effect
on
the
first
day
of
January,
nineteen
hundred
been
charged
of
disposing
in
the
Port
of
Manila
Area
and
thirty-‐two.
of
things
belonging
to
the
US
army
in
violation
of
Art.
21
the
94th
article
of
War
of
the
US.
He
was
arrested
and
a
General
Court-‐Martial
was
appointed.
He
was
Penalties
that
may
be
imposed.
-‐
No
felony
shall
be
found
guilty.
As
a
rule,
the
Philippines
being
a
punishable
by
any
penalty
not
prescribed
by
law
sovereign
nation
has
jurisdiction
over
all
offenses
prior
to
its
commission.
committed
within
its
territory
but
it
may,
by
treaty
or
by
agreement,
consent
that
the
US
shall
exercise
Rañeses
21
RPC
Art.
22
shall
be
applied,
except
when
the
offender
is
a
habitual
delinquent
or
Retroactive
effect
of
penal
laws.
-‐
Penal
laws
shall
when
the
new
law
is
made
not
have
a
retroactive
effect
insofar
as
they
favor
the
applicable
to
pending
action
or
person
guilty
of
a
felony,
who
is
not
a
habitual
existing
causes
of
action.
criminal,
as
this
term
is
defined
in
rule
5
of
article
2. If
the
new
law
imposes
a
heavier
62
of
this
Code,
although
at
the
time
of
the
penalty,
the
law
in
force
at
the
time
publication
of
such
laws
a
final
sentence
has
been
pronounced
and
the
convict
is
serving
the
same.
of
the
commission
of
the
offense
shall
be
applied.
3. If
the
new
law
totally
repeals
the
existing
law
so
that
the
act
which
A
person
shall
be
deemed
to
be
habitual
delinquent,
if
within
a
period
of
ten
(10)
years
from
the
date
of
his
penalized
under
the
old
law
is
no
release
or
last
conviction
of
the
crimes
of
serious
or
longer
punishable,
the
crime
is
less
serious
physical
injuries,
robo,
burto,
estafa
or
obliterated.
falsification,
he
is
found
guilty
of
any
of
said
crimes
a
4. When
the
repealing
law
fails
to
penalize
third
time
or
oftener.
[Revised
Penal
Code,
Art.
62(5)
the
offense
under
the
old
law,
the
as
amended
by
R.A.
No.
7659,
sec.
23]
accused
cannot
be
convicted
under
the
new
law.
5. A
person
erroneously
accused
and
Civil
Code,
Art.
4
convicted
under
a
repealed
statute
may
be
punished
under
the
repealing
statute.
Laws
shall
have
no
retroactive
effect,
unless
the
contrary
is
provided.
(3)
6. A
new
law
which
omits
anything
contained
in
the
old
law
dealing
on
the
same
subject
operates
as
a
repeal
of
Reyes:
anything
not
so
included
in
the
1. Prospective,
in
that
a
penal
law
cannot
amendatory
act.
make
an
act
punishable
in
a
manner
in
which
it
was
not
punishable
when
Who
is
a
habitual
delinquent?
committed.
As
provided
in
Article
366
of
Reyes:
A
person
is
a
habitual
delinquent
if
within
a
the
RPC,
crimes
are
punished
under
the
period
of
10
years
from
the
date
of
his
last
release
laws
in
force
at
the
time
of
their
or
last
conviction
of
the
crimes
of
(1)
serious
or
less
commission.
serious
physical
injuries,
(2)
robo,
(3)
hurto,
(4)
2. Whenever
a
new
statute
dealing
with
estafa,
or
(5)
falsification,
he
is
found
guilty
of
any
of
crime
establishes
conditions
more
said
crimes
a
time
or
oftener.
lenient
or
favorable
to
the
accused,
it
can
be
given
a
retroactive
effect.
Unless:
Requisites:
1. Where
the
new
law
is
expressly
1. That
the
offender
has
been
convicted
of
any
made
inapplicable
to
pending
of
the
crimes
of
serious
or
less
serious
actions
or
existing
causes
of
action.
physical
injuries,
robbery,
theft,
estafa,
or
(Tavera
v.
Valdez,
1
Phil.
463,
470-‐ falsification.
471)
2. That
after
the
conviction
or
after
serving
his
2. Where
the
offender
is
a
habitual
sentence,
he
again
committed,
and,
within
criminal
under
Rule
5,
Article
62,
10
years
from
his
release
or
first
conviction,
RPC.
(Art.
22,
RPC)
he
was
again
convicted
of
any
of
the
said
3. The
Repeal
of
penal
laws
have
different
crimes
for
the
second
time.
effects.
3. That
after
his
conviction
of,
or
after
serving
1. If
the
repeal
makes
the
penalty
sentence
for,
the
second
offense,
he
again
lighter
in
the
new
law,
the
new
law
Rañeses
22
committed,
and,
within
10
years
from
his
have
been
imprisoned
for
more
than
13
years
by
last
release
or
last
conviction,
he
was
again
virtue
of
their
convictions.
convicted
of
any
of
said
offenses,
the
third
time
or
oftener.
They
now
invoke
the
doctrine
laid
down
in
People
v.
Hernandez
which
negated
such
complex
crime,
a
Who
is
a
recidivist?
ruling
which
was
not
handed
down
until
after
their
Reyes:
A
recidivist
is
one
who,
at
the
time
of
his
convictions
have
become
final.
In
People
v.
trial
for
one
crime,
shall
have
been
previously
Hernandez,
the
SC
ruled
that
the
information
convicted
by
final
judgment
of
another
crime
against
the
accused
for
complex
rebellion
with
embraced
in
the
same
title
of
the
RPC
(People
v.
murder,
arson
and
robbery
was
not
warranted
Lagarto,
G.R.
No.
65833,
May
6,
1991,
196
SCRA
under
Art.
134
of
the
RPC,
there
being
no
such
611,
619)
complex
offense.
This
ruling
was
not
handed
down
until
after
their
convictions
have
become
final.
Since
Requisites
Hernandez
served
more
than
the
maximum
penalty
1. That
the
offender
is
on
trial
for
an
offense.
that
could
have
been
served
against
him,
he
is
2. That
he
was
previously
convicted
by
final
entitled
to
freedom,
and
thus,
his
continued
judgment
of
another
crime.
detention
is
illegal.
3. That
both
the
first
and
second
offenses
are
embraced
in
the
same
title
of
the
Code;
Issue:
WON
Art.
22
of
the
RPC
which
gives
a
penal
4. That
the
offender
is
convicted
of
the
new
judgment
a
retroactive
effect
is
applicable
in
this
offense.
case
(WON
judicial
decisions
favorable
to
the
accused/convicted
for
the
same
crime
can
be
*There
is
recidivism
even
if
the
lapse
of
time
applied
retroactively)
between
two
felonies
is
more
than
10
years.
**Pardon
does
not
obliterate
the
fact
that
the
Held:
Yes.
Judicial
decisions
favorable
to
the
accused
was
a
recidivist;
but
amnesty
extinguishes
accused
must
be
applied
retroactively.
Petitioners
the
penalty
and
its
effects.
relied
on
Art.
22
of
the
RPC,
which
states
the
penal
laws
shall
have
a
retroactive
effect
insofar
as
they
Who
is
a
quasi-‐recidivist?
favour
the
accused
who
is
not
a
habitual
criminal.
Reyes:
Any
person
who
shall
commit
a
felony
after
CC
also
provides
that
judicial
decisions
applying
or
having
been
convicted
by
final
judgment,
before
interpreting
the
Constitution
forms
part
of
our
legal
beginning
to
serve
such
sentence,
or
while
serving
system.
Petitioners
even
raised
their
constitutional
the
same,
shall
be
punished
by
the
maximum
period
right
to
equal
protection,
given
that
Hernandez
et
of
the
penalty
prescribed
by
law
for
the
new
felony.
al.,
has
been
convicted
for
the
same
offense
as
they
(Art.
160)
have,
though
their
sentences
were
lighter.
Habeas
corpus
is
the
only
means
of
benefiting
the
accused
Gumabon
v.
Director
of
Prisons,
37
SCRA
420
by
the
retroactive
character
of
a
favorable
decision.
(1971)
Facts:
Gumabon,
after
pleading
guilty,
was
In
Re:
Kay
Villegas
Kami,
Inc.,
supra
sentenced
on
May
5,
1953
to
reclusion
perpetua
for
*Refer
to
page
5
for
the
digest
of
this
case.
the
complex
crime
of
rebellion
with
multiple
murder,
robbery,
arson
and
kidnapping
(along
with
People
v.
Narvaez,
121
SCRA
389,
(1983)
Agapito,
Palmares
and
Padua).
The
decision
for
the
Facts:
Mamerto
Narvaez
has
been
convicted
of
first
two
petitioners
was
rendered
on
March
8,
murder
(qualified
by
treachery)
of
David
Fleischer
1954
and
the
third
on
Dec.
5,
1955.
The
last
and
Flaviano
Rubia.
On
August
22,
1968,
Narvaez
petitioner
Bagolbagol
was
penalized
with
reclusion
shot
Fleischer
and
Rubia
during
the
time
the
two
perpetua
on
Jan.
12,
1954.
Each
of
the
petitioners
were
constructing
a
fence
that
would
prevent
Rañeses
23
Narvaez
from
getting
into
his
house
and
rice
mill.
aggression
on
the
part
of
the
victim.
The
defendant
was
taking
a
nap
when
he
heard
However,
this
aggression
was
not
done
on
sounds
of
construction
and
found
fence
being
made.
the
person
of
the
victim
but
rather
on
his
He
addressed
the
group
and
asked
them
to
stop
rights
to
property.
On
the
first
issue,
the
destroying
his
house
and
asking
if
they
could
talk
courts
did
not
err.
However,
in
things
over.
Fleischer
responded
with
"No,
gadamit,
consideration
of
the
violation
of
property
proceed,
go
ahead."
Defendant
lost
his
rights,
the
courts
referred
to
Art.
30
of
the
"equilibrium,"
and
shot
Fleisher
with
his
shotgun.
civil
code
recognizing
the
right
of
owners
to
He
also
shot
Rubia
who
was
running
towards
the
close
and
fence
their
land.
Although
is
not
in
jeep
where
the
deceased's
gun
was
placed.
Prior
to
dispute,
the
victim
was
not
in
the
position
to
the
shooting,
Fleischer
and
Co.
(the
company
of
subscribe
to
the
article
because
his
Fleischer's
family)
was
involved
in
a
legal
battle
ownership
of
the
land
being
awarded
by
the
with
the
defendant
and
other
land
settlers
of
government
was
still
pending,
therefore
Cotabato
over
certain
pieces
of
property.
At
the
putting
ownership
into
question.
It’s
time
of
the
shooting,
the
civil
case
was
still
pending
accepted
that
victim
was
the
original
for
annulment
(settlers
wanted
granting
of
property
aggressor.
to
Fleisher
and
Co.
to
be
annulled).
At
time
of
the
2. Yes.
However,
the
argument
of
the
justifying
shooting,
defendant
had
leased
his
property
from
circumstance
of
self-‐defense
is
applicable
only
if
Fleisher
(though
case
pending
and
ownership
the
3
requirements
are
fulfilled.
Art.
11(1)
RPC
uncertain)
to
avoid
trouble.
On
June
25,
defendant
enumerates
these
requisites:
received
letter
terminating
contract
because
he
1. Unlawful
aggression.
In
the
case
at
bar,
allegedly
didn't
pay
rent.
He
was
given
6
months
to
there
was
unlawful
aggression
towards
remove
his
house
from
the
land.
Shooting
was
appellant's
property
rights.
Fleisher
had
barely
2
months
after
letter.
Defendant
claims
he
given
Narvaez
6
months
and
he
should
killed
in
defense
of
his
person
and
property.
CFI
have
left
him
in
peace
before
time
was
ruled
that
Narvaez
was
guilty.
Aggravating
up,
instead
of
chiseling
Narvaez's
house
circumstances
of
evident
premeditation
offset
by
and
putting
up
fence.
A536
of
the
CC
the
mitigating
circumstance
of
voluntary
surrender.
also
provides
that
possession
may
not
For
both
murders,
CFI
sentenced
him
to
reclusion
be
acquired
through
force
or
perpetua,
to
indemnify
the
heirs,
and
to
pay
for
intimidation;
while
Art.
539
provides
moral
damages.
that
every
possessor
has
the
right
to
be
respected
in
his
possession
Issues:
2. Reasonable
necessity
of
means
1. WON
CFI
erred
in
convicting
defendant-‐ employed
to
prevent
or
repel
attack.
In
appellant
despite
the
fact
that
he
acted
in
case,
killing
was
disproportionate
to
defense
of
his
person.
attack.
2. WON
the
court
erred
in
convicting
3. Lack
of
sufficient
provocation
on
part
of
defendant-‐appellant
although
he
acted
in
person
defending
himself.
Here,
there
defense
of
his
rights.
was
no
provocation
at
all
since
he
was
3. WON
he
should
be
liable
for
subsidiary
asleep
imprisonment
since
he
is
unable
to
pay
the
Since
not
all
requisites
present,
defendant
is
civil
indemnity
due
to
the
offended
party.
credited
w/
the
special
mitigating
circumstance
of
incomplete
defense,
Held:
pursuant
to
A13(6)
RPC.
These
mitigating
1. No.
The
courts
concurred
that
the
fencing
circumstances
are:
voluntary
surrender
&
and
chiselling
of
the
walls
of
the
house
of
passion
&
obfuscation
(read
p.
405
the
defendant
was
indeed
a
form
of
explanation)
Rañeses
24
possession
of
an
unlicensed
firearm
with
a
sentence
Crime
is
homicide
(2
counts)
not
murder
of
17
to
20
yrs.
because
treachery
is
not
applicable
on
account
of
provocation
by
the
deceased.
Issues:
Also,
assault
wasn’t
deliberately
chosen
1. WON
the
amendatory
law
RA
8294
(which
with
view
to
kill
since
slayer
acted
took
effect
in
1997:
crime
occurred
in
1994)
instantaneously.
There
was
also
no
direct
is
applicable
evidence
of
planning
or
preparation
to
kill.
2. WON
RTC
erred
in
convicting
appellant
for
simple
illegal
possession
of
firearms
and
Art.
249
RPC:
Penalty
for
homicide
is
sentenced
him
to
suffer
an
indeterminate
reclusion
temporal.
However,
due
to
sentence
of
17
to
20
years.
mitigating
circumstances
and
3. WON
trial
court
erred
in
convicting
accused
incomplete
defense,
it
can
be
of
murder
lowered
3
degrees
(Art.
64)
to
4. WON
RTC
erred
in
sentencing
the
accused
arresto
mayor.
to
death
for
muder
which
wasn’t
proven
&
3. No.
He
isn’t
liable
for
subsidiary
that
the
alleged
murder
committed
by
the
imprisonment
for
non-‐payment
of
civil
appellant,
the
appropriate
penalty
for
the
indemnity.
RA
5465
made
the
provisions
of
offense
is
reclusion
perpetua
due
to
to
the
A39
applicable
to
fines
only
&
not
to
absence
of
an
aggravating
circumstance.
reparation
of
damage
caused,
indemnification
of
consequential
damages
&
Held:
costs
of
proceedings.
Although
it
was
1. No.
At
the
time
of
the
commission
of
the
enacted
only
after
its
commission,
crime
the
use
of
an
unlicensed
firearm
was
considering
that
RA
5465
is
favorable
to
the
still
not
an
aggravating
circumstance
in
accused
who
is
not
a
habitual
delinquent,
it
murder
to
homicide.
To
apply
it
to
Ringor
may
be
given
retroactive
effect
pursuant
to
would
increase
his
penalty
from
reclusion
RPC
Art.
22.
perpetua
to
death.
Hence,
RA
8294
cannot
retroact
as
it
is
unfavorable
to
the
accused,
People
v.
Ringor,
320
SCRA
342
(1999)
lest
it
becomes
an
ex
post
facto
law.
Facts:
The
accused
(Ringor)
on
the
night
of
June
23,
2. Yes.
In
cases
where
murder
or
homicide
is
1994
was
seen
entering
People’s
Restaurant.
A
committed
with
the
use
of
an
unlicensed
witness
Fely
Batanes
saw
the
accused
approach
a
firearm,
there
can
be
no
separate
conviction
table
where
the
victim
was
sitting,
pulled
his
hair,
&
for
the
crime
of
illegal
possession
of
poked
a
knife
at
the
latter’s
throat.
After,
leaving
the
firearms
under
PD
1866.
It
is
simply
restaurant,
the
accused
returned
with
a
gun,
considered
as
an
aggravating
circumstance,
entered
the
kitchen
of
the
restaurant,
stealthily
no
longer
as
a
separate
offence.
According
approached
the
victim
from
behind
&
shot
him
6
to
the
Art.
22
of
the
RPC,
retroactivity
of
the
times
successively.
The
defendant
was
later
law
must
be
applied
if
it
is
favorable
to
the
apprehended
and
caught
in
his
possession
was
an
accused.
Thus,
insofar
as
it
spares
accused-‐
unlicensed
weapon.
Upon
verification
in
Camp
appellant
a
separate
conviction
for
illegal
Crame,
it
was
found
out
that
Ringor
is
not
a
licensed
possession
of
firearms,
RA
8294
has
to
be
firearm
holder
&
that
the
gun
was
not
licensed.
given
retroactive
application.
Ringor
put
up
self-‐defense
but
he
failed
to
prove
3. No.
For
self-‐defense
to
prosper,
unlawful
Florida’s
unlawful
aggression.
He
was
found
guilty
aggression,
proportionality
of
methods
to
of
murder
qualified
by
treachery
and
was
sentenced
fend
said
aggression,
and
lack
of
sufficient
to
death.
He
was
found
guilty
of
a
separate
charge
of
provocation
from
defender
must
be
proven.
In
this
case,
defendant
failed
to
prove
Rañeses
25
unlawful
aggression.
The
statement
that
the
amended
to
mere
illegal
possession
of
victim
approached
him
with
a
bolo
was
firearms
without
furtherance
of
subversion
inconsistent
to
the
witness’
statement
of
the
victim
being
in
a
prone
position
in
the
table.
People
v.
Lacson,
382
SCRA
365
(2002)
This
does
not
constitute
the
requisite
Facts:
Soon
after
the
announcement
on
May
18,
quantum
of
proof
for
unlawful
aggression.
1995
that
the
Kuratong
Baleleng
gang
had
been
With
the
first
requirement
missing,
the
last
slain
in
a
shootout
w/
the
police,
2
witnesses
two
requisites
have
no
basis.
surfaced
providing
the
testimony
that
the
said
slaying
was
a
rub-‐out.
On
June
1,
1995,
Chief
4. Yes.
In
the
absence
of
mitigating
or
Superintendent
Job
A.
Mayo,
PNP
Director
for
aggravating
circumstances
to
a
crime
of
Investigation,
filed
murder
charges
with
the
Office
murder
as
described
by
A248
RPC,
a
lesser
of
the
Ombudsman
against
97
officers
&
personnel
penalty
of
reclusion
perpetua
has
to
be
of
ABRITFG.
The
next-‐of-‐kin
of
the
slain
KBG
imposed
in
according
to
Art.
63(2)
of
the
members
also
filed
murder
charges
against
the
RPC.
same
officers
and
personnel.
People
v.
Pimentel,
288
SCRA
542
(1998)
On
Nov.
2,
1995,
after
2
resolutions,
the
Facts:
1983.
Tujan
charged
with
subversions
under
Ombudsman
filed
before
the
SB
11
information[s]
RA
1700
with
warrant
of
arrest
issued.
On
June
5,
of
murder
against
the
defendant
&
25
policemen
as
1990,
Tujan
was
arrested
and
caught
with
.38
principals.
Upon
motion
of
the
respondent,
the
caliber
revolver.
On
June
14,
1990,
he
was
charged
criminal
cases
were
remanded
to
the
Ombudsman
with
illegal
possession
of
firearms
and
ammunition
&
in
a
re-‐investigation,
the
information[s]
were
in
furtherance
of
subversion
(PD
1866)
Tujan
filed
amended
downgrading
the
principal
into
an
motion
to
quash
invoking
protection
versus
double
accessory.
With
the
downgrading
of
charges,
the
jeopardy
(Art.
III,
Constitution;
Misolas
v.
Panga;
&
case
was
later
transferred
from
the
SB
to
the
RTC
Enrile
v.
Salazar:
alleged
possession
absorbed
in
not
due
to
jurisdictional
questions
over
the
suspects
subversion.
It
was
granted
by
the
TC
&
the
CA.
but
due
to
the
failure
to
indicate
that
the
offenses
charged
therein
were
committed
in
relation
to,
or
in
Issue:
WON
charge
under
PD
1866
be
quashed
on
discharge
of,
the
official
functions
of
the
ground
of
double
jeopardy
in
view
of
the
previous
respondent,
as
required
by
RA
8249.
Before
the
charge
under
RA
1700.
arraignment,
the
witnesses
of
the
prosecution
recanted
their
statements
while
the
7
private
Held:
No.
complainants
submitted
their
affidavits
of
1. Art.
III
of
the
Constitution
&
RoC
117
state
desistance.
All
26
suspects
filed
individual
motions
that
for
double
jeopardy
to
occur,
acquittal,
to
(1)
make
a
judicial
determination
of
the
existence
conviction
or
dismissal
in
previous
cases
of
probable
cause
for
the
issuance
of
warrants
of
must
have
occurred.
In
this
case,
first
case
arrest;
(2)
hold
in
abeyance
the
issuance
of
the
was
not
even
arraigned
yet.
warrants,
&
(3)
dismiss
the
cases
should
the
TC
find
2. They
are
different
offenses.
RA
1700
lack
of
probable
cause.
The
cases
were
dismissed.
punishes
subversion
while
PD
1866
punishes
illegal
possession
of
firearms.
It
was
on
March
27,
2001
when
PNP
director
Mendoza
indorsed
to
the
DOJ
new
affidavits
of
new
However,
since
RA
7636
totally
repealed
witnesses
w/c
it
began
to
investigate
&
to
file
w/
subversion
or
RA
1700,
&
since
this
is
the
RTC.
The
respondent,
invoking
among
others,
favorable
to
the
accused,
we
can
no
longer
their
right
against
double
jeopardy,
then
filed
w/
charge
accused
with
RA
1700
even
if
they
the
CA
a
petition
stating
that
§8,
Rule
117
of
the
didn’t
raise
this
issue.
PD
1866
should
be
Rañeses
26
2000
Rules
on
Crim.
Pro.
bans
the
revival
of
the
People
v.
Lacson,
400
SCRA
267
(2003)
murder
cases
against
him;
a
petition
the
CA
denied.
Facts:
Before
the
court
is
the
petitioner’s
MFR
of
the
resolution
dated
May
23,
2002,
for
the
On
June
6,
2001,
11
Information[s]
for
murder
determination
of
several
factual
issues
relative
to
involving
the
killing
of
the
same
members
of
the
the
application
of
§8
RCP
117
on
the
dismissal
of
Kuratong
Baleleng
gang
were
filed
before
the
RTC
the
cases
Q-‐99-‐81679
&
Q-‐99-‐81689
against
the
QC.
The
new
Information[s]
charged
as
principals
respondent.
The
respondent
was
charged
with
the
34
people,
including
respondent
Lacson
&
his
25
shooting
&
killing
of
11
male
persons.
The
court
other
co-‐accused
in
Crim.
Cases
Nos.
Q-‐99-‐81679
to
confirmed
the
express
consent
of
the
respondent
in
Q-‐99-‐81689.
The
defendant
filed
for
determination
the
provisional
dismissal
of
the
aforementioned
of
probable
cause
&
an
outright
dismissal
in
the
cases
when
he
filed
for
judicial
determination.
The
RTC.
The
CA
considered
the
original
cases
to
be
court
also
ruled
the
need
to
determine
whether
the
provisionally
dismissed
&
the
new
cases
as
mere
other
facts
for
its
application
are
attendant.
revivals.
Under
§8
2000
RCP
117,
the
cases
were
Issues:
dismissed.
1. WON
the
requisites
for
the
applicability
of
§8,
2000
RCP
117
were
complied
w/
in
the
Issue:
WON
§8,
Rule
117
bars
the
filing
of
the
11
Kuratong
Baleleng
cases
information[s]
against
the
respondent
Lacson
• Was
express
consent
given
by
the
involving
the
killing
of
some
members
of
the
respondent?
Kuratong
Baleleng
gang.
• Was
notice
for
the
motion,
the
hearing
and
the
subsequent
dismissal
given
to
Held:
Remanded
to
the
RTC
to
determine
if
they
the
heirs
of
the
victims?
complied
with
rule
and
case
should
be
dismissed.
2. WON
time-‐bar
in
§8
RCP
117
should
be
There
is
no
question
that
the
new
rule
can
be
given
applied
prospectively
or
retroactively.
retroactive
effect
given
RPC
Art.
22.
There
can
be
no
ruling,
however,
due
to
the
lack
of
sufficient
Held:
factual
bases
to
support
such
a
ruling.
There
is
need
1. No.
Sec.
8,
Rule
117
is
not
applicable
to
the
of
proof
to
show
the
ff.
facts:
case
since
the
conditions
for
its
1. provisional
dismissal
of
the
case
had
the
applicability,
namely:
1)
prosecution
with
express
consent
of
the
accused
the
express
consent
of
the
accused
or
both
2. whether
it
was
ordered
by
the
court
after
of
them
move
for
provisional
dismissal,
2)
giving
notice
to
the
offended
party
offended
party
notified,
3)
court
grants
3. whether
the
2
year
period
to
revive
the
case
motion
and
dismisses
cases
provisionally,
4)
has
already
elapsed
public
prosecutor
served
with
copy
of
4. whether
there
is
justification
for
filing
of
the
orders
of
provisional
dismissal,
which
is
the
cases
beyond
the
2
yr
period.
defendant’s
burden
to
prove,
w/c
in
this
The
respondent
expressed
consent,
but
the
records
case
hasn’t
been
done.
don’t
reveal
whether
the
notices
to
the
offended
• The
defendant
never
filed
and
denied
parties
were
given
before
the
cases
were
unequivocally
in
his
statements,
through
provisionally
dismissed.
Only
the
right
to
double
counsel
at
the
Court
of
Appeals,
that
he
Jeopardy
by
the
defendant
was
tackled
by
the
filed
for
dismissal
nor
did
he
agree
to
a
litigants.
The
records
are
also
inconclusive
w/
provisional
dismissal
thereof.
regards
to
the
2-‐year
bar,
if
w/in
or
without.
• No
notice
of
motion
for
provisional
Because
of
this,
both
prosecution
&
defendant
must
dismissal,
hearing
and
subsequent
be
given
ample
time
to
adduce
evidence
on
the
dismissal
was
given
to
the
heirs
of
the
presence
or
absence
of
the
adduced
evidence.
victims.
Rañeses
27
2. No.
Time-‐bar
should
not
be
applied
on
the
basis
of
its
being
favorable
to
the
retroactively.
Though
procedural
rules
may
accused.
be
applied
retroactively,
it
should
not
be
if
to
do
so
would
work
injustice
or
would
Held:
involve
intricate
problems
of
due
process.
1. The
rule
should
be
applied
prospectively.
Statutes
should
be
construed
in
light
of
the
The
court
upheld
the
petitioners’
contention
purposes
to
be
achieved
&
the
evils
to
be
that
while
§8
secures
the
rights
of
the
remedied.
This
is
because
to
do
so
would
be
accused,
it
doesn’t
&
shouldn’t
preclude
the
prejudicial
to
the
State
since,
given
that
the
equally
important
right
of
the
State
to
public
Judge
dismissed
the
case
on
March
29,1999,
justice.
If
a
procedural
rule
impairs
a
vested
&
the
New
rule
took
effect
on
Dec
1,2000,
it
right,
or
would
work
injustice,
the
said
rule
would
only
in
effect
give
them
1
yr
&
3
may
not
be
given
a
retroactive
application
months
to
work
instead
of
2
yrs.
At
that
2. No.
The
Court
isn’t
mandated
to
apply
rules
time,
they
had
no
knowledge
of
the
said
rule
retroactively
just
because
it’s
favorable
to
and
therefore
they
should
not
be
penalized
the
accused.
The
time-‐bar
under
the
new
for
that.
“Indeed
for
justice
to
prevail,
the
rule
is
intended
to
benefit
both
the
State
&
scales
must
balance;
justice
is
not
to
be
the
accused.
When
the
rule
was
approved
by
dispensed
for
the
accused
alone.”
the
court,
it
intended
that
the
rule
be
applied
prospectively
and
not
retroactively,
The
2-‐yr
period
fixed
in
the
new
rule
is
for
for
to
do
so
would
be
tantamount
to
the
the
benefit
of
both
the
State
&
the
accused.
denial
of
the
State’s
right
to
due
process.
A
It
shouldn’t
be
emasculated
&
reduced
by
an
retroactive
application
would
result
in
inordinate
retroactive
application
of
the
absurd,
unjust
&
oppressive
consequences
time-‐bar
therein
provided
merely
to
benefit
to
the
State
&
to
the
victims
of
crimes
&
the
accused.
To
do
so
would
cause
an
their
heirs.
injustice
of
hardship
to
the
state
&
adversely
affect
the
administration
of
Construction/Interpretation
of
Penal
Laws
justice.
Reyes:
Penal
laws
are
strictly
construed
against
People
v.
Lacson,
413
SCRA
20
(2003)
the
Government
and
liberally
in
favor
of
the
Facts:
Petitioner
asserts
that
retroactive
accused.
(U.S.
v.
Abad
Santos,
36
Phil.
243;
People
application
of
penal
laws
should
also
cover
v.
Yu
Hai,
99
Phil.
728)
The
rule
that
penal
statutes
procedures,
and
that
these
should
be
applied
only
should
be
strictly
construed
against
the
State
may
to
the
sole
benefit
of
the
accused.
Petitioner
asserts
be
invoked
only
where
the
law
is
ambiguous
and
that
Sec
8
was
meant
to
reach
back
in
time
to
there
is
doubt
as
to
its
interpretation.
Where
the
provide
relief
to
the
accused
in
line
with
the
law
is
clear
and
unambiguous,
there
is
no
room
for
constitutional
guarantee
to
the
right
to
speedy
trial.
the
application
of
the
rule.
(People
v.
Gatchalian,
104
Phil.
664)
Issues:
1. WON
the
5
Associate
Justices
can
inhibit
themselves
from
deciding
in
the
MFR
given
they
were
only
appointed
in
the
SC
after
his
Feb.
19,
2002
oral
arguments.
2. WON
the
application
of
the
time-‐bar
under
§8
RCP
117
be
given
a
retroactive
application
w/o
reservations,
only
&
solely
Rañeses
28
Const.
(1987),
Art.
III,
Sec.
14(2)
In
all
criminal
prosecutions,
the
accused
shall
be
presumed
innocent
until
the
contrary
is
proved,
and
shall
enjoy
the
right
to
be
heard
by
himself
and
counsel,
to
be
informed
of
the
nature
and
cause
of
the
accusation
against
him,
to
have
a
speedy,
impartial,
and
public
trial,
to
meet
the
witnesses
face
to
face,
and
to
have
compulsory
process
to
secure
the
attendance
of
witnesses
and
the
production
of
evidence
in
his
behalf.
However,
after
arraignment,
trial
may
proceed
notwithstanding
the
absence
of
the
accused:
Provided,
that
he
has
been
duly
notified
and
his
failure
to
appear
is
unjustifiable.
Spanish
text
of
the
RPC
prevails
over
its
English
translation.
Retroactive
application
if
favorable
to
the
accused.
(RPC,
Art.
22)
*Refer
to
page
21
for
the
full
text
for
Art.
22
Prescribed,
but
undeserved,
penalties
RPC,
Art.
5,
2nd
par.
In
the
same
way
the
court
shall
submit
to
the
Chief
Executive,
through
the
Department
of
Justice,
such
statement
as
may
be
deemed
proper,
without
suspending
the
execution
of
the
sentence,
when
a
strict
enforcement
of
the
provisions
of
this
Code
would
result
in
the
imposition
of
a
clearly
excessive
penalty,
taking
into
consideration
the
degree
of
malice
and
the
injury
caused
by
the
offense.
Rañeses
29
Felonies
and
Criminal
Liability
5. “Omission”
should
be
construed
as
inaction,
the
failure
to
perform
a
positive
duty
which
one
is
bound
to
do.
There
A. Felonies
must
be
a
law
requiring
the
doing
or
performance
of
an
act.
If
there
is
no
law
that
RPC,
Art.
3
requires
a
person
to
perform
a
certain
act,
failure
to
do
such
act
would
not
result
in
a
Definition.
-‐
Acts
and
omissions
punishable
by
law
felony
and
would
therefore
not
be
are
felonies
(delitos).
punishable
by
the
RPC.
Felonies
are
committed
not
only
by
means
of
deceit
(d+olo)
but
also
by
means
of
fault
(culpa).
Act
People
v.
Gonzales,
183
SCRA
309
(1990)
There
is
deceit
when
the
act
is
performed
with
Facts:
Appeal
of
Custodio
Gonzales,
Sr.
that
the
CA
deliberate
intent;
and
there
is
fault
when
the
wrongful
act
results
from
imprudence,
negligence,
erred
in
convicting
him
of
murder
qualified
with
lack
of
foresight,
or
lack
of
skill.
treachery
and
evident
premeditation
from
a
previous
case
on
the
sole
basis
of
Huntoria’s
(eye
witness)
account.
Reyes:
1. Felonies
are
acts
and
omissions
Previous
case:
That
appellant
with
his
3
robust
punishable
by
the
RPC.
sons
along
with
brother
and
sister
Fausta
and
2. Felonies
have
certain
elements.
Rogelio
conspired
to
kill
Augusto
and
Fausta’s
1. That
there
must
be
an
act
or
landlord,
Peñacerrada.
The
victim
sustained
16
omission.
stab,
puncture,
and
lacerated
wounds,
5
of
which
2. That
the
act
or
omission
must
be
were
fatal.
The
lone
eyewitness
was
Huntoria
who
punishable
by
the
Revised
Penal
claimed
that
he
saw
all
6
accused
ganging
up
on
the
Code.
victim,
but
he
failed
to
state
who
actually
did
the
3. That
the
act
is
performed
or
the
stabbing
or
hacking.
omission
incurred
by
means
of
dolo
or
culpa.
(People
v.
Gonzales,
G.R.
All
the
accused
petitioned
for
parole
except
for
No.
80762,
March
19,
1990,
183
appellant
SCRA
309,
324)
3. “Act”
must
be
understood
as
any
bodily
Issues:
WON
the
appellant
had
committed
the
movement
tending
to
produce
some
felony
of
murder
with
treachery
and
evident
effect
in
the
external
world,
it
being
premeditation.
unnecessary
that
the
same
be
actually
produced,
as
the
possibility
of
its
Held:
No.
The
Court
held
that
the
prosecution
was
production
is
sufficient.
(People
v.
unable
to
prove
the
appellant’s
guilt
beyond
Gonzales,
supra)
But
the
act
must
be
one
reasonable
doubt
because:
(a)
Huntoria
was
a
poor
which
is
defined
by
the
RPC
as
constituting
eyewitness
(took
8
months
to
come
forward
and
a
felony;
or,
at
least,
an
overt
act
of
that
wanted
to
get
in
the
good
graces
of
his
landlord’s
felony,
that
is,
an
external
act
which
has
family)
and
was
unable
to
supply
any
information
direct
connection
with
the
felony
intended
as
to
what
the
appellant
actually
did
(the
act)
in
his
to
be
committed.
(Art.
6)
alleged
participation
in
the
murder;
(b)
it
was
4. The
act
must
be
external,
because
illogical
that
the
appellant’s
3
robust
sons
together
internal
acts
are
beyond
the
spere
of
with
Augusto
and
Fausta
would
bring
their
aging
penal
law.
65-‐year
old
father
to
the
victim’s
house
just
to
participate
in
the
killing
considering
the
appellant
Rañeses
30
lived
a
good
kilometer
away
from
the
scene
of
the
period
to
prision
mayor
in
its
minimum
period,
or
a
crime;
(c)
the
prior
investigations
were
sloppy
and
fine
ranging
from
200
to
10,000
pesos,
or
both,
shall
provided
no
decent
evidence
to
support
the
be
imposed
upon
any
public
officer
who:
appellant’s
participation
in
the
murder.
2.
Being
entrusted
with
the
collection
of
taxes,
licenses,
fees
and
other
imposts,
shall
be
guilty
or
Doctrine:
Felony
must
involve
an
act
(any
bodily
any
of
the
following
acts
or
omissions:
movement
tending
to
produce
some
effect
in
the
external
world)
or
omission.
The
act
of
hacking
or
(b)
Failing
voluntarily
to
issue
a
receipt,
as
provided
stabbing
the
victim
was
never
proven
to
have
been
by
law,
for
any
sum
of
money
collected
by
him
done
by
the
appellant.
Therefore,
the
accused
had
officially.
not
committed
a
felony.
Art.
223
RPC,
Art.
116
Conniving
with
or
consenting
to
evasion.
—
Any
public
officer
who
shall
consent
to
the
escape
of
a
Misprision
of
treason.
-‐
Every
person
owing
prisoner
in
his
custody
or
charge,
shall
be
punished:
allegiance
to
(the
United
States)
the
Government
of
the
Philippine
Islands,
without
being
a
foreigner,
1.
By
prision
correccional
in
its
medium
and
and
having
knowledge
of
any
conspiracy
against
maximum
periods
and
temporary
special
them,
who
conceals
or
does
not
disclose
and
make
disqualification
in
its
maximum
period
to
perpetual
known
the
same,
as
soon
as
possible
to
the
special
disqualification,
if
the
fugitive
shall
have
governor
or
fiscal
of
the
province,
or
the
mayor
or
been
sentenced
by
final
judgment
to
any
penalty.
fiscal
of
the
city
in
which
he
resides,
as
the
case
may
2.
By
prision
correccional
in
its
minimum
period
be,
shall
be
punished
as
an
accessory
to
the
crime
of
and
temporary
special
disqualification,
in
case
the
treason.
fugitive
shall
not
have
been
finally
convicted
but
Art.
137
only
held
as
a
detention
prisoner
for
any
crime
or
violation
of
law
or
municipal
ordinance.
Disloyalty
of
public
officers
or
employees.
-‐
The
penalty
of
prision
correccional
in
its
minimum
Art.
234
period
shall
be
imposed
upon
public
officers
or
Refusal
to
discharge
elective
office.
—
The
penalty
of
employees
who
have
failed
to
resist
a
rebellion
by
arresto
mayor
or
a
fine
not
exceeding
1,000
pesos,
all
the
means
in
their
power,
or
shall
continue
to
or
both,
shall
be
imposed
upon
any
person
who,
discharge
the
duties
of
their
offices
under
the
having
been
elected
by
popular
election
to
a
public
control
of
the
rebels
or
shall
accept
appointment
to
office,
shall
refuse
without
legal
motive
to
be
sworn
office
under
them.
(Restored
by
E.O.
No.
187)
in
or
to
discharge
the
duties
of
said
office.
Art.
208
Art.
275
(1)
Prosecution
of
offenses;
negligence
and
tolerance.
—
Abandonment
of
person
in
danger
and
The
penalty
of
prision
correccional
in
its
minimum
abandonment
of
one's
own
victim.
—
The
penalty
of
period
and
suspension
shall
be
imposed
upon
any
arresto
mayor
shall
be
imposed
upon:
public
officer,
or
officer
of
the
law,
who,
in
dereliction
of
the
duties
of
his
office,
shall
1.
Anyone
who
shall
fail
to
render
assistance
to
any
maliciously
refrain
from
instituting
prosecution
for
person
whom
he
shall
find
in
an
uninhabited
place
the
punishment
of
violators
of
the
law,
or
shall
wounded
or
in
danger
of
dying,
when
he
can
render
tolerate
the
commission
of
offenses.
such
assistance
without
detriment
to
himself,
unless
such
omission
shall
constitute
a
more
Art.
213
(2)
(b)
serious
offense.
Frauds
against
the
public
treasury
and
offenses.
—
The
penalty
of
prision
correccional
in
its
medium
Rañeses
31
Presidential
Decree
no.
953
maintain
not
less
than
thirty
percent
(30%)
of
the
total
area
of
the
subdivision,
exclusive
of
roads,
service
streets
Requiring
the
planting
of
trees
in
certain
places
and
and
alleys,
as
open
space
for
parks
and
recreational
penalizing
unauthorized
cutting,
destruction,
areas.
damaging
and
injuring
of
certain
trees,
plants
and
vegetation
No
plan
for
a
subdivision
shall
be
approved
by
the
Land
Registration
Commission
or
any
office
or
agency
of
the
WHEREAS,
the
planting
of
trees
on
lands
adjoining
the
government
unless
at
least
thirty
percent
(30%)
of
the
edge
of
rivers
and
creeks
in
both
a
measure
of
total
area
of
the
subdivision,
exclusive
of
roads,
service
beautification
and
reforestation;
and
streets
and
alleys,
is
reserved
as
open
space
for
parks
and
recreational
areas
and
the
owner
thereof
undertakes
WHEREAS,
the
planting
of
trees
along
roads
and
areas
to
develop
such
open
space,
within
three
(3)
years
from
intended
for
the
common
use
of
owners
of
lots
in
the
approval
of
the
subdivision
plan,
in
accordance
with
subdivisions
will
provide
shade
and
healthful
the
development
plan
approved
by
the
Bureau
of
Forest
environment
therein;
Development
and
to
maintain
such
parks
and
recreational
areas.
NOW,
THEREFORE,
I,
FERDINAND
E.
MARCOS,
President
of
the
Philippines,
by
virtue
of
the
powers
vested
in
me
Section
3.
Any
person
who
cuts,
destroys,
damages
or
by
the
Constitution,
do
hereby
order
and
decree:
injures,
naturally
growing
or
planted
trees
of
any
kind,
flowering
or
ornamental
plants
and
shrubs,
or
plants
of
Section
1.
The
following
shall
plant
trees:
scenic,
aesthetic
and
ecological
values,
along
public
roads,
in
plazas,
parks
other
than
national
parks,
school
1.
Every
person
who
owns
land
adjoining
a
river
or
premises
or
in
any
other
public
ground
or
place,
or
on
creek,
shall
plant
trees
extending
at
least
five
meters
on
banks
of
rivers
or
creeks,
or
along
roads
in
land
his
land
adjoining
the
edge
of
the
bank
of
the
river
or
subdivisions
or
areas
therein
for
the
common
use
of
the
creek,
except
when
such
land,
due
to
its
permanent
owners
of
lots
therein,
or
any
species
of
vegetation
or
improvement,
cannot
be
planted
with
trees;
forest
cover
found
therein
shall,
be
punished
with
imprisonment
for
not
less
than
six
months
and
not
more
2.
Every
owner
of
an
existing
subdivision
shall
plant
than
two
years,
or
a
fine
of
not
less
than
five
hundred
trees
in
the
open
spaces
required
to
be
reserved
for
the
pesos
and
not
more
than
five
thousand
pesos,
or
with
common
use
and
enjoyment
of
the
owners
of
the
lots
both
such
imprisonment
and
fine
at
the
discretion
of
the
therein
as
well
as
along
all
roads
and
service
streets.
The
court,
except
when
the
cutting,
destroying,
damaging
or
subdivision
owner
shall
consult
the
Bureau
of
Forest
injuring
is
necessary
for
public
safety
or
the
pruning
Development
as
to
the
appropriate
species
of
trees
to
be
thereof
is
necessary
to
enhance
beauty,
and
only
upon
planted
and
the
manner
of
planting
them;
and
the
approval
of
the
duly
authorized
representative
of
the
head
of
agency
or
political
subdivision
having
3.
Every
holder
of
a
license
agreement,
lease,
license
or
jurisdiction
therein,
or
of
the
Director
of
Forest
permit
from
the
Government,
involving
occupation
and
Development
in
the
case
of
trees
on
banks
of
rivers
and
utilization
of
forest
or
grazing
land
with
a
river
or
creek
creeks,
or
of
the
owner
of
the
land
subdivision
in
the
case
therein,
shall
plant
trees
extending
at
least
twenty
(20)
of
trees
along
roads
and
in
other
areas
therein
for
the
meters
from
each
edge
of
the
bank
of
the
river
or
creek.
common
use
of
owners
of
lots
therein.
If
the
offender
is
a
corporation,
partnership
or
association,
the
penalty
shall
The
persons
hereinabove
required
to
plant
trees
shall
be
imposed
upon
the
officer
or
officers
thereof
take
good
care
of
them,
and,
from
time
to
time,
remove
responsible
for
the
offense,
and
if
such
officer
or
officers
any
tree
planted
by
them
in
their
respective
areas
which
are
aliens,
in
addition
to
the
penalty
herein
prescribed,
has
grown
very
old,
is
diseased,
or
is
defective,
and
he
or
they
shall
be
deported
without
further
proceedings
replant
with
trees
their
respective
areas
whenever
before
the
Commission
on
Immigration
and
Deportation.
necessary.
Nothing
in
this
Decree
shall
prevent
the
cancellation
of
a
license
agreement,
lease,
license
or
permit
from
the
Section
2.
Every
owner
of
land
subdivided
into
Government,
if
such
cancellation
is
prescribed
therein
or
residential/commercial/industrial
lots
after
the
in
Government
regulations
for
such
offense.
effectivity
of
this
Decree
shall
reserve,
develop
and
Rañeses
32
Section
4.
Any
person
who
shall
violate
any
provision
of
time
to
make
an
urgent
call
upon
our
citizenry
to
plant
Section
one
hereof,
or
any
regulation
promulgated
trees:
thereunder,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment
for
not
less
than
six
months
but
not
more
than
two
years,
or
NOW,
THEREFORE,
I,
FERDINAND
E.
MARCOS,
President
with
a
fine
of
not
less
than
five
hundred
pesos
but
not
of
the
Philippines,
by
virtue
of
the
powers
vested
in
me
more
than
five
thousand
pesos,
or
with
both
such
by
the
Constitution,
do
hereby
order
and
decree
the
imprisonment
than
fine
at
the
discretion
of
the
court.
If
following:
the
offender
is
a
public
officer
or
employee,
he
shall,
in
addition,
be
dismissed
from
the
public
service
and
Section
1.
It
is
the
policy
of
the
State
to
call
upon
every
disqualified
perpetually
to
hold
public
office.
citizen
of
the
Philippines
to
help,
as
a
duty
and
obligation,
to
conserve
and
develop
the
resources
of
the
country.
Section
5.
Any
person
who
shall
violate
the
provision
of
Section
2
hereof,
or
any
regulation
promulgated
Section
2.
In
furtherance
of
said
policy,
every
citizen
of
thereunder,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment
for
not
the
Philippines
at
least
ten
(10)
years
of
age,
actually
less
than
two
(2)
years
but
not
more
than
five
(5)
years,
residing
therein,
unless
physically
disabled
to
do
so,
shall
or
with
a
fine
equivalent
to
the
value,
at
current
plant
one
tree
every
month
for
five
(5)
consecutive
years.
valuation,
of
the
area
representing
thirty
percent
(30%)
of
the
total
area
of
the
subdivision,
or
both
such
fine
and
Section
3.
The
planting
of
such
trees
shall
be
done
in
any
imprisonment
at
the
discretion
of
the
Court.
of
the
following
places:
Section
6.
The
Director
of
Forest
Development
shall
issue
(a)
In
lands
or
lots
owned
by
his
family;
such
rules
and
regulations
as
may
be
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
this
Decree.
(b)
In
lands
or
lots
leased
by
his
family
with
the
consent
of
the
owner
thereof;
Section
7.
All
laws,
rules
and
regulations,
or
parts
thereof,
inconsistent
herewith
are
hereby
repealed.
(c)
In
lands
which
are
parts
of
public
grounds
or
places
such
as
plazas,
schools,
markets,
roadside
and
parks,
and
Section
8.
This
Decree
shall
take
effect
upon
its
promulgation.
(d)
In
lands
of
the
public
domain
designated
by
the
Presidential
Council
for
Forest
Ecosystem
Management,
Done
in
the
City
of
Manila,
this
6th
day
of
July
in
the
year
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
Council,
such
as
appropriate
of
Our
Lord,
nineteen
hundred
and
seventy-‐six.
forest
lands,
grazing
or
pasture
lands,
mineral
lands,
resettlement
lands,
civil
and
military
reservations.
Presidential
Decree
no.
1153
Section
4.
The
trees
to
be
planted
shall
be
fruit-‐bearing,
Requiring
the
planting
of
one
tree
every
month
for
shade,
ornamental
or
forest
trees,
and
the
same
shall
be
five
consecutive
years
by
every
citizen
of
the
taken
care
of
for
at
least
two
years
after
each
planting
Philippines
and
replaced
if
the
same
die,
are
diseased
or
are
defective.
WHEREAS,
more
abundant
natural
resources,
particularly
forest
resources,
will
prevent
floods,
Section
5.
The
Council,
in
consultation
with
the
droughts,
erosion
and
sedimentation,
and
will
increase
appropriate
government
agencies,
shall
issue
such
rules
our
water
supply
needed
to
generate
more
power,
and
regulations
which
may
be
necessary
to
carry
out
the
expand
farm
productivity,
and
meet
the
ever
increasing
purposes
of
this
Decree
and
Letter
of
Instruction
No.
423
demand
for
domestic
consumption
of
our
exploding
whenever
applicable.
population;
and
Section
6.
Any
person
who
violates
any
provision
of
this
WHEREAS,
to
achieve
a
holistic
ecosystem
approach
to
Decree
or
any
rule
or
regulation
promulgated
thereunder
forest
resource
management,
to
prevent
irreversible
shall
be
punished
with
a
fine
of
not
more
than
one
consequences
of
human
activities
on
the
environment,
thousand
pesos
or,
in
appropriate
cases,
with
and
to
promote
a
healthier
ecosystem
for
our
people,
it
is
disqualification
to
acquire
or
enjoy
any
privilege
granted
exclusively
to
citizens
of
the
Philippines,
such
as
the
Rañeses
33
acquisition
either
through
sale,
free
patent,
homestead,
not
take
a
direct
part
in
the
commission
of
the
act,
or
lease
of
public
lands,
enjoyment
of
a
franchise
to
own
who
does
not
induce
other
to
commit
it,
nor
or
operate
a
public
utility
or
the
grant
of
lease,
license
or
cooperates
in
the
commission
of
the
act
by
another
a
privilege
involving
natural
resources;
and
for
a
period
act
without
which
it
would
not
have
been
of
five
years
be
disqualified
to
hold
public
office,
to
accomplished,
yet
cooperates
in
the
execution
of
the
graduate
from
any
educational
institution
at
all
levels,
to
act
by
previous
or
simultaneous
actions.
take
any
bar,
board
or
civil
service
examination,
and
to
practice
any
profession
licensed
and
regulated
by
the
Supreme
Court
or
the
Professional
Regulation
There
is
no
evidence
of
conspiracy
or
cooperation.
Commission.
Mere
passive
presence
at
the
scene
of
another’s
crime
does
not
constitute
the
cooperation
required
in
Section
7.
This
Decree
shall
take
effect
upon
its
Article
14
of
the
Penal
code.
promulgation.
Punishable
by
the
Revised
Penal
Code
Done
in
the
City
of
Manila,
this
6th
day
of
June
in
the
year
of
Our
Lord,
nineteen
hundred
and
seventy-‐seven.
Nullum
crimen,
nulla
poena
sine
lege
Omission
*Refer
to
page
1
for
the
definition,
as
elucidated
by
People
v.
Sylvestre
and
Atienza,
56
Phil.
353
Justice
Fernando
(1931)
Facts:
Martin
Atienza
was
convicted
as
principal
RPC,
Art.
3
by
direct
participation
and
Romana
Silvestre
as
*Refer
to
page
29
for
the
full
text
of
the
provision
accomplice
of
the
crime
of
arson
by
the
CFI.
Art.
5
On
the
night
of
November
25,
1950,
while
the
Duty
of
the
court
in
connection
with
acts
which
defendants
and
Nicolas
De
la
Cruz
and
his
wife
were
should
be
repressed
but
which
are
not
covered
by
the
gathered
after
dinner,
Martin
Atienza
ordered
them
law,
and
in
cases
of
excessive
penalties.
-‐
Whenever
a
to
take
their
furniture
out
of
the
house
as
he
was
court
has
knowledge
of
any
act
which
it
may
deem
going
to
set
it
on
fire
to
get
revenge
on
the
people
of
proper
to
repress
and
which
is
not
punishable
by
Masocol,
who
instigated
the
charge
of
adultery
law,
it
shall
render
the
proper
decision,
and
shall
against
him
and
Silvestre
and
drove
them
out
of
report
to
the
Chief
Executive,
through
the
town.
As
Atienza
had
a
gun
in
hand,
nobody
said
Department
of
Justice,
the
reasons
which
induce
the
anything.
The
de
la
Cruz
couple
left
to
alert
the
court
to
believe
that
said
act
should
be
made
the
barrio
lieutenant,
but
before
they
got
there
they
subject
of
penal
legislation.
heard
the
cries
of
“Fire!
Fire!”
and
looked
back
to
Art.
21
see
their
home
on
fire.
The
fire
destroyed
about
48
houses.
Romana
was
accused
for
listening
to
her
co-‐ Penalties
that
may
be
imposed.
-‐
No
felony
shall
be
defendants
threat
without
raising
a
protest,
and
not
punishable
by
any
penalty
not
prescribed
by
law
giving
the
alarm
when
the
latter
set
fire
to
the
prior
to
its
commission.
house.
How
committed
Issue:
WON
Silvestre’s
failure
is
an
omission
that
belongs
properly
to
the
meaning
in
Art.3
and
hence,
punishable.
RPC,
Art.
3
*Refer
to
page
29
for
the
full
text
of
the
provision
Held:
No.
Mere
passive
presence
at
the
scene
of
another’s
crime,
mere
silence
and
failure
to
give
the
Act.
365
alarm,
without
evidence
of
agreement
or
conspiracy,
Imprudence
and
negligence.
—
Any
person
who,
is
not
punishable.
An
accomplice
is
one
who
does
Rañeses
34
(Cont.)
by
reckless
imprudence,
shall
commit
any
of
Art.
3,
the
act
is
performed
with
act
which,
had
it
been
intentional,
would
constitute
deliberate
intent
(with
malice).
The
a
grave
felony,
shall
suffer
the
penalty
of
arresto
offender,
in
performing
the
act
or
in
mayor
in
its
maximum
period
to
prision
incurring
the
omission,
has
the
intention
to
correccional
in
its
medium
period;
if
it
would
have
cause
an
injury
to
another.
In
culpable
constituted
a
less
grave
felony,
the
penalty
of
felonies,
the
act
or
omission
of
the
offender
arresto
mayor
in
its
minimum
and
medium
periods
is
not
malicious.
The
injury
caused
by
the
shall
be
imposed;
if
it
would
have
constituted
a
light
offender
to
another
person
is
felony,
the
penalty
of
arresto
menor
in
its
maximum
“unintentional,
it
being
simply
the
incident
period
shall
be
imposed.
of
another
act
performed
without
malice.”
Any
person
who,
by
simple
imprudence
or
(People
v.
Sara,
55
Phil.
939)
negligence,
shall
commit
an
act
which
would
3. In
felonies
committed
by
means
of
dolo
otherwise
constitute
a
grave
felony,
shall
suffer
the
or
with
malice
and
in
felonies
committed
penalty
of
arresto
mayor
in
its
medium
and
by
means
of
fault
or
culpa,
the
acts
or
maximum
periods;
if
it
would
have
constituted
a
omissions
must
be
voluntary.
less
serious
felony,
the
penalty
of
arresto
mayor
in
4. A
person
causing
damage
or
injury
to
its
minimum
period
shall
be
imposed.
another,
without
malice
or
fault,
is
not
When
the
execution
of
the
act
covered
by
this
criminally
liable
under
the
RPC.
article
shall
have
only
resulted
in
damage
to
the
property
of
another,
the
offender
shall
be
punished
Dolo
by
a
fine
ranging
from
an
amount
equal
to
the
value
of
said
damages
to
three
times
such
value,
but
Reyes:
which
shall
in
no
case
be
less
than
twenty-‐five
1. The
word
“deceit”
in
the
second
pesos.
paragraph
of
Art.
3
is
not
the
proper
A
fine
not
exceeding
two
hundred
pesos
and
translation
of
the
word
“dolo.”
Dolus
is
censure
shall
be
imposed
upon
any
person
who,
by
equivalent
to
malice,
which
is
the
intent
to
simple
imprudence
or
negligence,
shall
cause
some
do
an
injury
to
another.
(I
Wharton’s
wrong
which,
if
done
maliciously,
would
have
Criminal
Law
180)
constituted
a
light
felony.
In
the
imposition
of
these
penalties,
the
court
shall
When
the
offender,
in
performing
an
act
or
exercise
their
sound
discretion,
without
regard
to
in
incurring
an
omission,
has
the
intention
the
rules
prescribed
in
Article
sixty-‐four.
to
do
an
injury
to
person,
property
or
right
of
another,
such
offender
acts
with
malice.
If
the
act
or
omission
is
punished
by
the
RPC,
Reyes:
The
provisions
contained
in
this
article
shall
not
be
he
is
liable
for
intentional
felony.
applicable:
1. Art.
3
classifies
felonies,
according
to
to
2. There
are
certain
requisites
for
dolo
or
the
means
by
which
they
are
committed,
malice.
In
order
that
an
act
or
omission
into
(1)
intentional
felonies,
and
(2)
may
be
considered
as
having
been
culpable
felonies.
Thus,
the
second
performed
or
incurred
with
deliberate
1.
When
the
penalty
provided
for
the
offense
is
equal
to
paragraph
of
the
or
lower
than
aforementioned
those
article
provided
in
the
first
intent,
the
following
requisites
must
concur:
two
paragraphs
states
that
of
felonies
are
committed
this
article,
not
in
which
case
only
the
1. He
must
have
FREEDOM
while
doing
by
means
of
deceit
(dolo)
but
also
by
mean
court
shall
impose
the
penalty
next
lower
in
degree
an
act
or
omitting
to
do
an
act;
than
that
of
fault
which
(culpa).
should
be
imposed
in
the
period
2. He
must
have
INTELLIGENCE
while
which
they
may
2. There
deem
is,
proper
to
obviously,
a
adistinct
pply.
difference
doing
the
act
or
omitting
to
do
the
between
intentional
and
culpable
act;
felonies.
In
the
former,
the
act
or
omission
3. He
must
have
INTENT
while
doing
of
the
offender
is
malicious.
In
the
language
2.
When,
by
imprudence
or
negligence
and
with
the
act
or
omitting
to
do
the
act.
violation
of
the
Automobile
Law,
to
death
of
a
person
shall
be
caused,
in
which
case
the
defendant
Rañeses
35
3. When
a
person
acts
without
freedom,
he
apply
article
549,
but
article
554
of
the
is
no
longer
a
human
being
but
a
tool.
Penal
Code.
Therefore,
a
person
who
acts
under
the
compulsion
of
an
irresistible
force
is
exempt
Held:
from
criminal
liability.
(Art.
12,
par.
5)
So
1. No.
Criminal
intent
as
well
as
the
will
to
also,
a
person
who
acts
under
the
impulse
of
commit
a
crime
are
always
presumed
to
an
uncontrollable
fear
of
an
equal
or
greater
exist
on
the
part
of
the
person
who
executes
injury
is
exempt
from
criminal
liability.
(Art.
an
act
which
the
law
punishes,
unless
the
12,
par.
6)
contrary
shall
appear.
(Art.
1,
Penal
Code.)
4. Without
intelligence,
necessary
to
2. No.
The
argument
which
the
defense
determine
the
morality
of
human
acts,
no
advances,
based
on
article
554,
which
in
crime
can
exist.
Thus,
the
imbecile
or
connection
with
553
punishes
the
setting
insane,
and
the
infant
under
nine
years
of
fire
to
a
building
intended
for
habitation,
in
age,
as
well
as
the
minor
over
nine
but
less
an
uninhabited
place,
does
not
apply,
than
fifteen
years
ol
and
act
without
because
the
article
question
refers
to
an
discernment,
have
no
criminal
liability,
edifice
intended
for
human
habitation
in
an
because
they
act
without
intelligence.
(Art.
uninhabited
place
at
a
time
when
the
same
12,
pars.
1,
2
and
3)
is
unoccupied.
It
is
article
549,
which
5. Intent
to
commit
the
act
with
malice,
punishes
with
the
very
severe
penalties
of
being
purely
a
meantal
process,
is
cadena
temporal
to
cadena
perpetua
"those
presumed
and
the
presumption
arises
who
shall
set
fire
to
any
edifice,
farmhouse,
from
the
proof
of
the
commission
of
an
hut,
shed,
or
vessel
in
port,
with
knowledge
unlawful
act.
that
one
or
more
persons
were
within
the
6. All
three
requisites
of
voluntariness
in
same,"
that
must
be
applied.
intentional
felony
must
be
present,
because
“a
voluntary
act
is
free,
Doctrine:
As
intent
is
largely
a
mental
process,
intelligent,
and
intelligent
act.”
(U.S.
v.
Ah
there
is
always
a
presumption
of
intent
aising
from
Chong,
15
Phil.
488,
495)
overt
acts.
Presumption
of
Intent
U.S.
v.
Catolico,
18
Phil.
504
(1911)
U.S.
v.
Apostol,
14
Phil.
92
(1909)
Facts:
On
2
October
1900
justice
of
the
peace
Rafael
Facts:
Five
individuals,
among
them
being
the
B.
Catolico
had
16
cases
against
16
distinct
accused
herein,
went
to
the
house
where
Pedro
individuals
each
one
for
violating
a
contract
with
Tabilisima,
Celestino
Vergara,
and
Tranquilino
one
Juan
Canillas.
All
cases
were
decided
in
favor
of
Manipul
were
living,
and
there
inquired
after
some
Canillas;
and
all
16
cases
appealed,
depositing
P16
carabaos
that
had
disappeared,
and
because
these
as
required
by
law
and
filing
a
bond
of
P50.
On
12
above-‐mentioned
inmates
answered
that
they
knew
October
1900
Canillas
proved
to
Catolico
that
each
nothing
about
the
matter,
ordered
them
to
leave
the
of
the
bonds
were
insolvent.
As
a
result,
Catolico
house,
but
as
the
three
men
named
above
refused
to
ordered
the
cancellation
of
the
bonds
filed
and
do
so
the
accused
Catalino
Apostol,
set
fire
to
the
ordered
the
16
to
file
another
bond.
Canillas
then
hut
and
the
same
was
burnt
down.
asked
for
the
court
to
declare
final
judgment
for
each
of
the
16
cases
and
at
the
same
time
asking
Issue:
that
the
sums
deposited
by
the
defendants
be
1. WON
proof
of
criminal
intent
is
needed.
delivered
to
him.
Catolico
agreed.
Attorney
for
the
2. WON
due
to
the
burnt
hut
being
situated
in
defendants
in
the
16
cases
then
filed
a
complaint
an
uninhabited
place,
it
is
not
proper
to
against
Catolico
for
malversation
of
public
funds.
Catolico
was
convicted
and
now
appeals.
Rañeses
36
awarded
to
her
under
the
provisions
of
the
Civil
Issue:
WON
Catolico
committed
a
crime
when
he
Code.
believed
he
was
performing
an
innocent
act
On
a
plea
of
not
guilty
when
arraigned,
appellants
Held:
No,
he
did
not
commit
a
crime.
went
to
trial
which
ultimately
resulted
in
a
1. Essential
elements
for
malversation
of
judgment
promulgated
on
September
26,
1990
public
funds
were
not
present
finding
them
guilty
of
robbery
with
extortion
o accused
did
not
convert
the
money
committed
on
a
highway,
punishable
under
to
his
own
use
or
to
the
use
of
any
Presidential
Decree
No.
532.
other
person
o he
did
not
permit
anybody
else
to
On
their
appeal,
appellants
contended
that
the
court
convert
it
a
quo
erred
(1)
in
convicting
them
under
Presidential
Decree
No.
532
since
they
were
not
To
constitute
a
crime,
the
act
must,
except
in
certain
expressly
charged
with
a
crime
therein;
(2)
in
crimes
made
such
by
statute,
be
accomplished
by
a
applying
Sections
4
and
5,
Rule
120
of
the
Rules
of
criminal
intent
or
by
such
negligence
or
indifference
Court
since
the
charge
under
said
presidential
to
duty
or
to
consequences
as
in
law
is
equivalent
to
decree
is
not
the
offense
proved
and
cannot
rightly
criminal
intent
be
used
as
the
offense
proved
which
is
necessarily
included
in
the
offense
charged.
The
maxim
is
actus
non
facit
reum
nisi
mens
rea
“a
crime
is
not
committed
if
the
mind
of
the
person
Issue:
WON
the
accused
were
guilty
of
kidnapping.
performing
the
act
complained
it
to
be
innocent”
Held;
No.
it
is
worth
recalling
an
accepted
tenet
in
Doctrine:
The
presumption
of
criminal
intent
does
criminal
law
that
in
the
determination
of
the
crime
not
arise
from
the
proof
of
the
commission
of
an
act
for
which
the
accused
should
be
held
liable
in
those
which
is
not
unlawful.
instances
where
his
acts
partake
of
the
nature
of
variant
offenses,
and
the
same
holds
true
with
General
and
Specific
Intent
regard
to
the
modifying
or
qualifying
circumstances
People
v.
Puno,
219
SCRA
85
(1993)
thereof,
his
motive
and
specific
intent
in
perpetrating
Facts:
The
primal
issue
for
resolution
in
this
case
is
the
acts
complained
of
are
invaluable
aids
in
arriving
whether
accused-‐appellants
committed
the
felony
at
a
correct
appreciation
and
accurate
conclusion
of
kidnapping
for
ransom
under
Article
267
of
the
thereon.
Revised
Penal
Code,
as
charged
in
the
information;
or
a
violation
of
Presidential
Decree
No.
532
(Anti-‐ With
respect
to
the
specific
intent
of
appellants
vis-‐a-‐
Piracy
and
Anti-‐Highway
Robbery
Law
of
1974),
as
vis
the
charge
that
they
had
kidnapped
the
victim,
we
contended
by
the
Solicitor
General
and
found
by
the
can
rely
on
the
proverbial
rule
of
ancient
trial
court;
or
the
offense
of
simple
robbery
respectability
that
for
this
crime
to
exist,
there
must
punished
by
Paragraph
5,
Article
294
of
the
Revised
be
indubitable
proof
that
the
actual
intent
of
the
Penal
Code,
as
claimed
by
the
defense.
malefactors
was
to
deprive
the
offended
party
of
her
liberty,
and
not
where
such
restraint
of
her
freedom
On
January
13,
1988
in
Quezon
City,
the
said
of
action
was
merely
an
incident
in
the
commission
of
accused
Isabelo
Puno
and
Enrique
Amurao,
being
another
offense
primarily
intended
by
the
offenders.
then
private
individuals,
feloniously
kidnapped
Hence,
as
early
as
United
States
vs.
Ancheta,
and
Maria
del
Socorro
Sarmiento
for
the
purpose
of
consistently
reiterated
thereafter,
it
has
been
held
extorting
ransom,
to
the
damage
and
prejudice
of
that
the
detention
and/or
forcible
taking
away
of
the
said
offended
party
in
such
amount
as
may
be
the
victims
by
the
accused,
even
for
an
appreciable
period
of
time
but
for
the
primary
and
ultimate
Rañeses
37
purpose
of
killing
them,
holds
the
offenders
liable
(example,
murder
and
kidnapping—kill
and
for
taking
their
lives
or
such
other
offenses
they
deprive
victim
of
liberty)
motive:
reason
committed
in
relation
thereto,
but
the
incidental
which
prompts
accused
to
engage
in
deprivation
of
the
victims'
liberty
does
not
particular
criminal
activity
(ex.
Kidnap
for
constitute
kidnapping
or
serious
illegal
detention.
ransom)
essential
for
kidnapping.
Information:
described
murder
and
*Highway
robbery
does
not
apply
here
either.
kidnapping
not
specified.
Accused
are
only
guilty
of
simple
robbery.
2. Yes.
Prosecution
proved
intent
to
kill
with
their
knives
and
handguns,
5
gun
shot
Doctrine:
In
some
felonies,
proof
of
particular
wounds
and
4
stab
wounds
(defensive).
specific
intent
is
required.
(i.e.
kidnapping,
Furthermore,
the
pieces
of
circumstancial
homicide).
evidence
were
convincing:
Rita
and
Randy
testified
events.
Rita
claimed
she
heard
3
People
v.
Delim,
396
SCRA
386
(2003)
gunshots
and
accordingly,
decomposing
Facts:
Marlon,
Leon
&
Ronald
Delim
were
convicted
body
was
found
with
gunshot
wounds
and
for
murder
of
Modesto
Delim,
resident
of
Bila,
Sison,
stabs.
Pangasinan.
Modesto
is
the
adopted
child
of
3. Yes.
Conspiracy
is
when
two
or
more
Marlon’s
Dad.
Marlon,
Manuel
&
Robert
are
persons
agree
and
decide
to
commit
a
brothers
&
Leon
&
Ronald
are
their
nephews.
felony.
This
is
proven
by
acts
of
criminal.
Around
6:30
pm,
January
23,
1999,
Modesto
and
Before
during
and
after
crime
committed
family
were
preparing
to
eat
dinner
when
Marlon,
and
that
accused
had
same
purpose
and
Robert
and
Ronald
arrived.
Marlon
poked
gun,
united
in
execution;
act
of
one
act
of
all.
other
two
grabbed,
hog
tied
and
gagged
Modesto.
Wharton
criminal
law—actual
presence
not
They
herded
him
out
of
the
hose
and
went
to
the
necessary
if
there’s
direct
connection
bet
direction
of
Paldit.
Leon
and
Manual
guarded
Rita
&
actor
and
crime
Randy
until
7
am
and
told
them
to
stay
put.
They
4. Yes.
Inconsistencies
mean
and
even
searched
for
him
for
3
days
and
reported
to
police
strengthen.
It
was
not
rehearsed
three
days
after
the
incident.
Randy
with
relatives
5. No.
Positive
identification
over
alibi.
Unable
found
Modesto
in
the
housing
project
in
Paldit
to
prove
that
they
were
in
another
place
and
under
bushes.
He
was
dead
due
to
gun
shot
wound
impossible
to
go
to
crime
scene
on
head.
6. No.
Treachery
and
taking
advantage
of
superior
strength
was
not
proven
as
there
Issues:
was
no
witness
or
evidence.
The
unlicensed
1. WON
case
is
murder
or
kidnapping?
firearm
and
dwelling
was
further
not
2. WON
prosecution
had
sufficient
evidence?
included
in
information.
3. WON
there
was
conspiracy?
4. WON
witness
testimonies
were
valid?
Important
snippets
from
the
case:
5. WON
alibi
warranted?
• Specific
intent
is
not
synonymous
with
6. WON
there
was
treachery
and
other
motive.
Motive
generally
is
referred
to
as
aggravting
circumstances?
the
reason
which
prompts
the
accused
to
engage
in
a
particular
criminal
activity.
Held:
Motive
is
not
an
essential
element
of
a
crime
1. Murder:
when
primary
purpose
is
to
kill,
and
hence
the
prosecution
need
not
prove
the
deprivation
is
incidental
and
doesn’t
same.
As
a
general
rule,
proof
of
motive
for
constitute
kidnapping
(US
v.
Ancheta).
the
commission
of
the
offense
charged
does
Specific
intent:
active
desire
to
do
certain
not
show
guilt
and
absence
of
proof
of
such
criminal
acts
or
particular
purpose
motive
does
not
establish
the
innocence
of
Rañeses
38
accused
for
the
crime
charged
such
as
may
have
impelled
its
commission
is
murder.
very
relevant.
• Specific
intent
is
used
to
describe
a
state
2. Generally,
proof
of
motive
is
not
of
mind
which
exists
where
necessary
to
pin
a
crime
on
the
circumstances
indicate
that
an
offender
accused
if
the
commission
of
the
actively
desired
certain
criminal
crime
has
been
proven
and
the
consequences
or
objectively
desired
a
evidence
of
identification
is
specific
result
to
follow
his
act
or
failure
convincing.
to
act.
3. Motive
is
essential
only
when
there
is
doubt
as
to
the
identity
of
the
Intent
and
Motive
assailant.
It
is
immaterial
when
the
Reyes:
accused
has
been
positively
1. Intent
is
different
from
motive.
Motive
is
identified.
the
moving
power
which
impels
one
to
action
4. Where
the
defendant
admits
the
for
a
definite
result.
Intent
is
the
purpose
to
killing,
it
is
no
longer
necessary
use
a
particular
means
to
effect
such
result.
5. Motive
is
important
in
ascertaining
Motive
is
not
an
essential
element
of
a
the
truth
between
two
antagonistic
crime,
and,
hence,
need
not
be
proved
for
theories
or
versions
of
the
killing.
purposes
of
conviction.
(People
v.
Aposaga,
6. Where
the
identification
of
the
No.
L-‐32477,
Oct.
30,
1981,
108
SCRA
574,
accused
proceeds
from
an
unreliable
595)
source
and
the
testimony
is
inconclusive
and
not
free
from
An
extreme
moral
perversion
may
lead
a
doubt,
evidence
of
motive
is
man
to
commit
a
crime
without
a
real
necessary.
motive
but
just
for
the
sake
of
committing
it.
7. Where
there
are
no
eyewitnesses
to
Or,
the
apparent
lack
of
a
motive
for
the
crime,
and
where
suspicion
is
committing
a
criminal
act
does
not
likely
to
fall
upon
a
number
of
necessarily
mean
that
there
is
none,
but
that
persons,
motive
is
relevant
and
simply
it
is
not
known
to
us,
for
we
cannot
significant.
probe
the
depths
of
one’s
conscience
where
8. If
the
evidence
is
merely
it
may
be
found,
hidden
away
and
circumstantial,
proof
of
motive
is
inaccessible
to
our
observation.
(People
v.
essential.
Taneo,
58
Phil.
255,
256)
9. Proof
of
motive
is
not
indispensable
where
the
guilt
is
otherwise
One
may
be
convicted
of
a
crime
whether
established
by
sufficient
evidence.
his
motive
appears
to
be
good
or
bad
or
10. While
the
question
of
motive
is
even
though
no
motive
is
proven.
A
good
important
to
the
person
who
motive
does
not
prevent
an
act
from
being
a
committed
the
criminal
act,
yet
crime
(i.e.
Mercy
killing).
when
there
is
no
longer
any
doubt
that
the
defendant
was
the
culprit,
it
2. Motive
need
not
always
be
established,
becomes
unimportant
to
know
the
although
there
are
cases
where
the
exact
reason
or
purpose
for
the
determination
of
motive
aids
in
the
commission
of
the
crime.
evaluation
of
a
felony.
3. Generally,
the
motive
is
established
by
1. Where
the
identity
of
a
person
the
testimony
of
witnesses
on
the
acts
or
accused
of
having
committed
a
statements
of
the
accused
before
or
crime
is
in
dispute,
the
motive
that
immediately
after
the
commission
of
the
Rañeses
39
offense.
Such
words
or
deeds
may
indicate
the
motive.
(Barrioquinto
v.
Fernandez,
82
Issue:
WON
the
accused
is
guilty
of
murder.
Phil.
642,
649)
4. Disclosure
of
the
motive
aids
in
the
the
Held:
Yes,
the
accused
is
guilty
of
murder.
Judgment
completion
of
the
proof
of
the
appealed
from
is
AFFIRMED
in
all
respects
and
civil
commission
of
the
crime.
indemnity
increased
to
P30K.
It
was
proven
that
he
5. Proof
of
motive
alone
is
not
sufficient
to
had
motive
in
killing
Cagampang:
he
had
knowledge
support
a
conviction.
Existence
of
a
that
Cagampang
possessed
a
firearm;
this
was
motive,
though
perhaps
an
important
motive
enough
to
kill
him,
as
part
of
NPA’s
“agaw
consideration,
is
not
sufficient
proof
of
guilt.
armas”
campaign
or
killings
perpetrated
by
NPA
for
Mere
proof
of
motive,
no
matter
how
strong,
the
purpose
of
acquiring
more
firearms.
Moreover,
is
not
sufficient
to
support
a
conviction
if
proof
of
motive
is
not
essential
when
the
culprit
has
there
is
no
reliable
evidence
from
which
it
been
positively
identified.
Also,
his
flight
implies
guilt.
may
be
reasonably
deduced
that
the
accused
is
the
malefactor.
The
prosecution
witness,
Victorina
Cagampang,
6. Lack
of
motive
may
aid
in
showing
the
may
have
minor
inconsistencies
in
her
testimony
innocence
of
the
accused.
but
this
does
not
diminish
her
credibility
–
that
is
part
of
being
human.
What
is
important
is
that
she
People
v.
Temblor,
161
SCRA
623
(1988)
had
positively
identified
the
accused
as
the
Facts:
On
30
December
1980,
7:30
PM,
Vicente
assailant
and
that
her
testimony
is
corroborated
by
Temblor
alias
“Ronald”
(accused-‐appellant)
went
to
other
witnesses.
Julius
Cagampang’s
house
in
Agusan
del
Norte,
to
buy
cigarettes.
Cagampang,
while
opening
a
pack
of
Furthermore,
the
accused’s
alibi
was
unacceptable
cigarettes,
was
shot!
The
accused
(and
another
because
it
was
self-‐serving
and
uncorroborated.
It
person,
Anecito
Ellevera)
demanded
Victorina
cannot
overrule
positive
identification,
it
was
Cagampang
(Julius’
wife)
that
she
brings
out
her
merely
15-‐20
minutes
away
from
crime
scene
and
husband’s
firearms.
The
accused
fired
two
more
Perol
was
at
work.
shots
at
the
fallen
victim.
Victorina
gave
a
suitcase
to
Temblor,
who
then
took
the
.38
caliber
which
People
v.
Hassan,
157
SCRA
261
(1988)
was
inside,
and
fled.
Facts:
Usman
Hassan,
15
yrs.
Old
of
Samal
Tribe
in
Zambo
City
was
convicted
of
murder
of
Pichel.
In
August
1981,
Temblor,
an
NPA,
surrendered
(it
Pichel
was
stabbed
to
death
at
fruit
paradise
while
was
actually
a
mass
surrender
of
NPA’s)
after
sitting
at
his
red
Honda
motorcycle,
waiting
for
hiding
in
the
mountains.
In
26
November
1981,
he
friend
Jose
Samson
who
was
buying
fruits.
was
arrested
by
Buenavista
police
at
the
public
market
and
then
detained
at
municipal
jail.
Issue:
WON
conviction
is
valid
Regarding
the
murder
of
Cagampang,
Temblor’s
Held:
No.
Conviction
reversed.
Acquitted.
The
alibi
was
that
day
until
the
next,
he
was
with
his
Medico
Legal
found
two
stab
wounds
from
front
but
father
for
drinking
and
pulutan.
On
8
June
1982,
the
the
Samson
claimed
that
Pichel
was
stabbed
once
accused
was
convicted
and
sentenced
to
suffer
from
behind.
Procedure
followed
was
also
reclusion
perpertua,
and
to
indemnify
the
heirs
of
improper.
The
accused
was
presented
to
the
the
victim
P12,000.
He
appealed.
witness
alone
and
in
confrontation,
not
police
line
up.
He
was
also
denied
right
to
counsel,
particularly
***
In
this
appeal,
the
appellant
alleges
that
the
when
identification
took
place—this
qualifies
for
court
a
quo
erred:
(1)
in
finding
that
he
was
uncounselled
confession.
The
witness
was
also
positively
identified
by
the
prosecution
witness
as
questioned
2
days
after
incident
and
sworn
4
days
the
killer,
and
(2)
in
rejecting
his
defense
of
alibi.
after.
The
fruit
vendor
as
well
as
the
companion
of
Rañeses
40
the
accused
was
not
investigated.
In
fact,
they
did
the
accused
believed
them
to
be.
In
other
not
pursue
other
suspect.
Also,
the
knife
was
not
words,
the
act
done
would
not
constitute
a
tested.
Further
notable
are
the
facts
that
the
age
of
felony
had
the
facts
been
as
the
accused
the
accused
was
observed
without
medical
basis,
believed
them
to
be.
Furthermore,
the
act
that
the
accused
did
not
run
away
and
that
he
had
done
by
the
accused
would
have
constituted
no
motive,
which,
in
People
vs.
Verzo
was
(1)
a
justifying
circumstance
under
Art.
11,
considered
important
when
there
is
doubt
in
the
(2)
an
absolutory
cause,
such
as
that
identity
of
culprit
and
reiterated
in
People
vs.
contemplated
in
Art.
247,
par.
2,
or
(3)
an
Pervelo
which
stated
that
identification
is
tenuous.
involuntary
act.
Furthermore,
no
motive
was
established.
5. There
exists
no
crime
of
resistance
when
there
is
a
mistake
of
fact.
People
v.
Delim,
supra
6. When
the
accused
is
negligent,
mistake
*Refer
to
pp.
36
–
37
for
the
digest
of
this
case.
See
of
fact
is
not
a
defense..
‘important
snippets
from
the
case’
for
notes
pertaining
to
intent
and
motive.
U.S.
v.
Ah
Chong,
15
Phil.
488
(1910)
Facts:
Ah
Chong
was
a
cook
in
Ft.
McKinley.
He
was
Mistake
of
Fact
afraid
of
bad
elements.
One
evening,
before
going
to
Reyes:
bed,
he
locked
himself
in
his
room
by
placing
a
chair
1. While
ignorance
of
the
law
excuses
no
against
the
door.
After
having
gone
to
bed,
he
was
one
from
compliance
therewith
awakened
by
someone
trying
to
open
the
door.
He
(ignorantia
legis
non
excusat),
ignorance
called
out
twice,
“Who
is
there,”
but
received
no
or
mistake
of
fact
relieves
the
accused
answer.
Fearing
that
the
intruder
was
a
robber,
he
from
criminal
liability
(ignorantia
facti
leaped
from
his
bed
&
called
out
again,
“If
you
enter
excusat).
Mistake
of
fact
is
a
the
room
I
will
kill
you.”
But
at
that
precise
moment,
misapprehension
of
fact
on
the
part
of
the
he
was
struck
by
the
chair
that
had
been
placed
person
who
caused
injury
to
another.
He
is
against
the
door,
&
believing
that
he
was
being
not,
however,
criminally
liable,
because
he
attacked
he
seized
a
kitchen
knife
&
struck
&
fatally
did
not
act
with
criminal
intent.
An
honest
wounded
the
intruder
who
turned
out
to
be
his
mistake
of
fact
destroys
the
presumption
of
roommate.
criminal
intent
which
arises
upon
the
commission
of
a
felonious
act.
(People
v.
Issue:
WON
Ah
Chong
must
be
acquitted
because
of
Coching,
et.
Al.,
C.A.,
52
O.G.
293,
citing
mistake
of
fact.
People
v.
Oanis,
74
Phil.
257)
2. Mistake
of
fact
has
certain
requisites
to
Held.
Yes.
Had
the
facts
been
as
Ah
Chong
believed
be
a
valid
defense.
them
to
be,
he
would
have
been
justified
in
killing
1. That
the
act
done
would
have
been
the
intruder
under
A11,
par.
1,
of
the
RPC,
which
lawful
had
the
facts
been
as
the
requires,
to
justify
the
act,
that
there
be:
accused
believed
them
to
be.
1. unlawful
aggression
on
the
part
of
the
2. That
the
intention
of
the
accused
in
person
killed,
performing
the
act
should
be
lawful.
2. reasonable
necessity
of
the
means
3. That
the
mistake
must
be
without
employed
to
prevent
or
repel
it,
&
fault
or
carelessness
on
the
part
of
3. lack
of
sufficient
provocation
on
the
part
of
the
accused
the
person
defending
himself
3. Lack
of
intent
to
commit
a
crime
may
be
If
the
intruder
was
really
a
robber,
forcing
his
way
inferred
from
the
facts
of
the
case.
into
the
room
of
Ah
Chong,
there
would
have
been
4. In
mistake
of
fact,
the
act
done
would
unlawful
aggression
on
the
part
of
the
intruder.
have
been
lawful,
had
the
facts
been
as
There
would
have
been
a
necessity
on
the
part
of
Ah
Rañeses
41
Chong
to
defend
himself
and/or
his
home.
The
knife
failing
to
do
an
act
must
also
be
voluntary,
would
have
been
a
reasonable
means
to
prevent
or
there
must
be
freedom
and
intelligence
on
repel
such
aggression.
And
Ah
Chong
gave
no
the
part
of
the
offender,
but
the
requisite
of
provocation
at
all.
Under
Art.
11
of
the
RPC,
there
is
criminal
intent,
which
is
required
in
felonies
nothing
unlawful
in
the
intention
as
well
as
in
the
by
dolo,
is
replaced
by
the
requisite
of
act
of
the
person
making
the
defense.
imprudence,
negligence,
lack
of
foresight,
or
lack
of
skill.
Doctrine:
Mistake
of
fact
is
a
valid
defense
as
long
as
the
requisites
are
met.
(Refer
to
item
no.
2
of
Such
negligence
or
indifference
to
duty
or
to
Reyes’s
annotations
under
mistake
of
fact.)
consequence
is,
in
law,
equivalent
to
criminal
intent.
(U.S.
v.
Catolico,
18
Phil.
People
v.
Oanis,
74
Phil.
257
(1943)
507)
Facts:
Chief
of
Police
Oanis
and
his
co-‐accused
Corporal
Galanta
were
under
instructions
to
arrest
But
in
felonies
committed
by
means
of
one
Balagtas,
a
notorious
criminal
and
escaped
culpa,
the
mind
of
the
accused
is
not
convict,
and
if
overpowered,
to
get
hi
dead
or
alive.
criminal.
However,
his
act
is
wrongful,
Proceeding
to
the
suspected
house,
they
went
into
a
because
the
injury
or
damage
caused
to
the
room
and
on
seeing
a
man
sleeping
with
his
back
injured
party
results
from
the
imprudence,
toward
the
door,
simultaneously
fired
at
him
with
negligence,
lack
of
foresight
or
lack
of
skill
their
revolvers,
without
first
making
any
reasonable
of
the
accused.
inquiry
as
to
his
identity.
The
victim
turned
out
to
2. Felonies
committed
by
means
of
culpa
be
an
innocent
man,
Tecson,
and
not
the
wanted
has
certain
requisites
as
well.
criminal.
1. He
must
have
FREEDOM
while
doing
an
act
or
omitting
to
do
an
act;
Issue:
WON
the
accused
can
use
mistake
of
fact
as
a
2. He
must
have
INTELLIGENCE
while
valid
defense.
doing
the
act
or
omitting
to
do
the
act;
Held:
No.
Both
accused
are
guilty
of
murder.
Even
3. He
is
IMPRUDENT,
NEGLIGENT
or
if
it
were
true
that
the
victim
was
the
notorious
LACKS
FORESIGHT
or
SKILL
while
criminal,
the
accused
would
not
be
justified
in
doing
the
act
or
omitting
to
do
the
killing
him
while
the
latter
was
sleeping.
In
act.
apprehending
even
the
most
notorious
criminal,
the
3. In
culpable
felonies,
the
injury
caused
to
law
does
not
permit
the
captor
to
kill
him.
It
is
only
another
should
be
unintentional,
it
being
when
the
fugitive
from
justice
is
determined
to
fight
simply
the
incident
of
another
act
the
officers
of
law
who
are
trying
to
capture
him
performed
without
malice.
that
killing
him
would
be
justified.
4. Mistake
in
the
identity
of
the
intended
victim
is
not
reckless
imprudence.
A
Doctrine:
Careless
on
the
part
of
the
accused
does
deliberate
intent
to
do
an
unlawful
act
is
not
allow
for
the
usage
of
mistake
of
fact
as
a
valid
essentially
inconsistent
with
the
idea
of
defense.
reckless
imprudence.
Where
such
an
unlawful
act
is
willfully
done,
a
mistake
in
Culpa
the
identity
of
the
intended
victim
cannot
be
Reyes:
considered
as
reckless
imprudence.
1. Criminal
intent
is
replaced
by
negligence
and
imprudence
in
felonies
committed
Elements
by
means
of
culpa.
In
felonies
committed
People
v.
Carmen,
355
SCRA
267
(2001)
by
means
of
culpa,
since
the
doing
of
or
Rañeses
42
Facts:
The
trial
court
rendered
a
decision
and
the
precaution
on
the
part
of
the
person
performing
such
accused-‐appellants
were
all
found
guilty
beyond
act.
Compared
to
intentional
felonies,
such
as
reasonable
doubt
of
the
crime
of
Murder
after
homicide
or
murder,
what
takes
the
place
of
the
having
performed
a
cultic
healing
pray-‐over
which
element
of
malice
or
intention
to
commit
a
wrong
resulted
to
the
death
of
Randy
Luntayao.
They
were
or
evil
is
the
failure
of
the
offender
to
take
sentenced
to
suffer
the
penalty
of
RECLUSION
precautions
due
to
lack
of
skill
taking
into
account
PERPETUA.
his
employment,
or
occupation,
degree
of
intelligence,
physical
condition,
&
other
Issue:
WON
accused-‐appellants
can
be
held
liable
circumstances
regarding
persons,
time,
&
place.
for
reckless
imprudence
resulting
in
homicide,
considering
that
the
information
charges
them
with
The
elements
of
reckless
imprudence
are
apparent
in
murder.
the
acts
done
by
accused-‐appellants
which,
because
of
their
lack
of
medical
skill
in
treating
the
victim
of
Held:
Yes.
Conviction
modified
to
reckless
his
alleged
ailment,
resulted
in
the
latter's
death.
The
imprudence
resulting
in
homicide.
Killing
a
person
accused
had
no
intention
to
cause
an
evil
but
rather
w/
treachery
is
murder
even
if
there
is
no
intent
to
to
remedy
the
victim's
ailment.
kill.
When
death
occurs,
it’s
presumed
to
be
the
natural
consequence
of
physical
injuries
inflicted.
In
TC's
reliance
on
the
rule
that
criminal
intent
is
murder
qualified
by
treachery,
it’s
required
only
presumed
from
the
commission
of
an
unlawful
act
that
there
is
treachery
in
the
attack,
&
this
is
true
is
untenable
because
such
presumption
only
holds
even
if
the
offender
has
no
intent
to
kill
the
person
in
the
absence
of
proof
to
the
contrary.
assaulted
Consequently,
treachery
cannot
be
appreciated
for
One
who
commits
an
intentional
felony
is
in
the
absence
of
intent
to
kill,
there’s
no
treachery
responsible
for
all
the
consequences
which
may
or
the
deliberate
employment
of
means,
methods,
&
naturally
and
logically
result
therefrom,
whether
manner
of
execution
to
ensure
the
safety
of
the
foreseen
or
intended
or
not.
accused
from
the
defensive
or
retaliatory
attacks
coming
from
the
victim.
Intent
is
presumed
from
the
commission
of
an
unlawful
act.
The
presumption
of
criminal
intent
Important
snippet
from
the
case:
Compared
to
may
arise
from
the
proof
of
the
criminal
act.
Hence,
intentional
felonies,
such
as
homicide
or
murder,
they
are
liable
for
all
the
direct
and
natural
what
takes
the
place
of
the
element
of
malice
or
consequences
of
their
unlawful
act,
even
if
the
intention
to
commit
a
wrong
or
evil
is
the
failure
of
ultimate
result
had
not
been
intended.
the
offender
to
take
precautions
due
to
lack
of
skill
taking
into
account
his
employment,
or
occupation,
The
strange
procedure
resulted
in
the
death
of
the
degree
of
intelligence,
physical
condition,
and
other
boy.
Thus,
accused-‐appellants
had
no
criminal
circumstances
regarding
persons,
time,
and
place.
intent
to
kill
the
boy.
Their
liability
arises
from
their
reckless
imprudence
because
they
ought
that
to
Distinguished
from
dolo
know
their
actions
would
not
bring
about
the
cure.
People
v.
Pugay,
167
SCRA
439
(1988)
They
are,
therefore,
guilty
of
reckless
imprudence
Facts:
The
accused
are
pronounced
by
the
RTC
of
resulting
in
homicide
and
not
of
murder.
Cavite
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
for
the
crime
of
murder
of
Bayani
Miranda
and
sentencing
them
Art.
365,
of
the
RPC,
as
amended,
states
that
reckless
to
a
prison
term
ranging
from
12
years
(prison
imprudence
consists
in
voluntarily,
but
w/o
malice,
mayor)
as
minimum
to
20
years
(prison
temporal)
doing
or
failing
to
do
an
act
from
which
material
as
maximum
and
for
Samson
to
be
sentenced
to
damage
results
by
reason
of
inexcusable
lack
of
reclusion
perpetua.
Rañeses
43
them
is
liable
only
for
the
act
that
was
Miranda
and
the
accused
Pugay
are
friends.
committed
by
him.
Miranda
used
to
run
errands
for
Pugay
and
they
2. Having
failed
to
exercise
diligence
necessary
used
to
sleep
together.
On
the
evening
of
May
19,
to
avoid
every
undesirable
consequence
1982
a
town
fiesta
was
held
in
the
public
plaza
of
arising
from
any
act
committed
by
his
Rosario
Cavite.
Sometime
after
midnight
accused
companions
who
at
the
same
time
were
Pugay
and
Samson
with
several
companions
arrived
making
fun
of
the
deceased,
Pugay
is
guilty
(they
were
drunk),
and
they
started
making
fun
of
of
reckless
imprudence
resulting
to
homicide
Bayani
Miranda.
Pugay
after
making
fun
of
the
Bayani,
took
a
can
of
gasoline
and
poured
its
On
the
other
hand,
since
the
evidence
is
contents
on
the
latter,
Gabion
(principal
witness)
insufficient
to
establish
qualifying
told
Pugay
not
to
do
the
deed.
Then
Samson
set
circumstances
of
treachery
and
conspiracy,
Miranda
on
fire
making
a
human
torch
out
of
him.
and
given
the
mitigating
circumstance
that
They
were
arrested
the
same
night
and
barely
a
few
he
never
intended
to
commit
so
grave
a
hours
after
the
incident
gave
their
written
wrong,
Samson
is
guilty
of
homicide.
statements.
B. Crimes
defined
and
penalized
by
special
Issue:
WON
conspiracy
is
present,
thus
affirming
laws
the
charge
of
murder.
If
not,
what
are
the
criminal
Reyes:
responsibilities
of
the
accused?
1. There
are
three
classes
of
crimes.
The
RPC
defines
and
penalizes
the
first
two
Held:
classes
of
crimes,
(1)
the
intentional
1. No.
Conspiracy
is
determined
when
two
or
felonies,
and
(2)
the
culpable
felonies.
The
more
persons
agree
to
commit
a
felony
and
third
class
of
crimes
are
defined
and
decide
to
commit
it.
Conspiracy
must
be
penalized
by
special
laws
which
include
proven
with
the
same
quantum
of
evidence
crimes
punished
by
municipal
or
city
as
the
felony
itself,
more
specifically
by
ordinances.
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
It
is
not
2. When
the
crime
is
punished
by
a
special
essential
that
there
be
proof
as
to
the
law,
as
a
rule,
intent
to
commit
the
crime
existence
of
a
previous
agreement
to
is
not
necessary.
It
is
sufficient
that
the
commit
a
crime.
It
is
sufficient
if,
at
the
time
offender
has
the
intent
to
perpetrate
the
of
commission
of
the
crime,
the
accused
had
act
prohibited
by
the
special
law.
the
same
purpose
and
were
united
in
its
3. Intent
to
commit
the
crime
and
intent
to
executed.
perpetrate
the
act
must
be
distinguished.
A
person
may
not
have
consciously
Since
there
was
no
animosity
between
intended
to
commit
a
crime;
but
he
did
Miranda
and
the
accused,
and
add
to
the
intend
to
commit
an
act,
and
that
act
is,
by
that
that
the
meeting
at
the
scene
of
the
the
very
nature
of
things,
the
crime
itself.
incident
was
purely
coincidental,
and
the
(U.S.
v.
Go
Chico,
14
Phil.
128)
main
intent
of
the
accused
is
to
make
fun
of
miranda.
In
the
first,
there
must
be
criminal
intent;
in
the
second,
it
is
enough
that
the
prohibited
Since
there
is
no
conspiracy
that
was
act
is
done
freely
and
consciously.
proven,
the
respective
criminal
4. In
those
crimes
punished
by
special
laws,
responsibility
of
Pugay
and
Samson
arising
the
act
alone,
irrespective
of
its
motives,
from
different
acts
directed
against
Miranda
constitutes
the
offense.
is
individual
and
NOT
collective
and
each
of
Rañeses
44
5. Good
faith
and
absence
of
criminal
intent
funds
in
or
credit
with
the
drawee
bank
for
the
not
valid
defenses
in
crimes
punished
by
payment
of
said
check
in
full
upon
presentment,
special
laws.
(For
specific
exemptions,
which
check
is
subsequently
dishonored
by
the
refer
to
pp.
56-‐58
of
Reyes’s
annotations
of
drawee
bank
for
insufficiency
of
funds
or
credit
or
the
RPC,
17th
edition.)
would
have
been
dishonored
for
the
same
reason
had
not
the
drawer,
without
any
valid
reason,
Crimes
Mala
in
se
and
Mala
prohibita
ordered
the
bank
to
stop
payment."
The
penalty
Reyes:
prescribed
for
the
offense
is
imprisonment
of
not
1. There
is
a
distinction
between
crimes
less
than
30
days
nor
more
than
one
year
or
a
fine
which
are
mala
in
se,
or
wrongful
from
or
not
less
than
the
amount
of
the
check
nor
more
their
nature,
such
as
theft,
rape,
than
double
said
amount,
but
in
no
case
to
exceed
homicide,
etc.,
and
those
that
are
mala
P200,000.00,
or
both
such
fine
and
imprisonment
at
prohibita,
or
wrong
merely
because
the
discretion
of
the
court.
prohibited
by
statute,
such
as
illegal
possession
of
firearms.
Crimes
mala
in
se
The
statute
likewise
imposes
the
same
penalty
on
are
those
so
serious
in
their
effects
on
"any
person
who,
having
sufficient
funds
in
or
society
as
to
call
for
almost
unanimous
credit
with
the
drawee
bank
when
he
makes
or
condemnation
of
its
members;
while
crimes
draws
and
issues
a
check,
shall
fail
to
keep
sufficient
mala
prohibita
are
violations
of
mere
rules
funds
or
to
maintain
a
credit
to
cover
the
full
of
convenience
designed
to
secure
a
more
amount
of
the
check
if
presented
within
a
period
of
orderly
regulation
of
the
affairs
of
society.
ninety
(90)
days
from
the
date
appearing
thereon,
(Bouvier’s
Law
Dictionary,
Rawle’s
3rd
for
which
reason
it
is
dishonored
by
the
drawee
Revision)
bank.
2. In
acts
mala
in
se,
the
intent
governs;
but
in
those
mala
prohibita,
the
only
inquiry
An
essential
element
of
the
offense
is
"knowledge"
is,
has
the
law
been
violated?
on
the
part
of
the
maker
or
drawer
of
the
check
of
3. The
term
mala
in
se
refers
generally
to
the
insufficiency
of
his
funds
in
or
credit
with
the
felonies
defined
and
penalized
by
the
bank
to
cover
the
check
upon
its
presentment.
Since
RPC.
When
the
acts
are
inherently
this
involves
a
state
of
mind
difficult
to
establish,
immoral,
they
are
mala
in
se,
even
if
the
statute
itself
creates
a
prima
facie
presumption
punished
by
special
laws.
On
the
other
of
such
knowledge
where
payment
of
the
check
"is
hand,
there
are
crimes
in
the
RPC
which
refused
by
the
drawee
because
of
insufficient
funds
were
originally
defined
and
penalized
by
in
or
credit
with
such
bank
when
presented
within
special
laws,
like
use
of
opium,
ninety
(90)
days
from
the
date
of
the
check.
To
malversation,
brigandage
and
libel.
mitigate
the
harshness
of
the
law
in
its
application,
4. The
term
mala
prohibita
refers
generally
the
statute
provides
that
such
presumption
shall
to
acts
made
criminal
by
special
laws.
not
arise
if
within
five
(5)
banking
days
from
receipt
of
the
notice
of
dishonor,
the
maker
or
Lozano
v.
Martinez,
146
SCRA
323
(1986)
drawer
makes
arrangements
for
payment
of
the
Facts:
Petitioners,
charged
with
Batas
Pambansa
check
by
the
bank
or
pays
the
holder
the
amount
of
Bilang
22
(BP
22
for
short),
popularly
known
as
the
the
check.
Bouncing
Check
Law,
assail
the
law's
constitutionality.
Another
provision
of
the
statute,
also
in
the
nature
of
a
rule
of
evidence,
provides
that
the
introduction
BP
22
punishes
a
person
"who
makes
or
draws
and
in
evidence
of
the
unpaid
and
dishonored
check
issues
any
check
on
account
or
for
value,
knowing
with
the
drawee
bank's
refusal
to
pay
"stamped
or
at
the
time
of
issue
that
he
does
not
have
sufficient
written
thereon
or
attached
thereto,
giving
the
Rañeses
45
reason
therefor,
"shall
constitute
prima
facie
proof
eventually
hurt
the
welfare
of
society
and
of
"the
making
or
issuance
of
said
check,
and
the
the
public
interest.
due
presentment
to
the
drawee
for
payment
and
the
dishonor
thereof
...
for
the
reason
written,
The
enactment
of
BP
22
is
a
declaration
by
stamped
or
attached
by
the
drawee
on
such
the
legislature
that,
as
a
matter
of
public
dishonored
check."
policy,
the
making
and
issuance
of
a
worthless
check
is
deemed
public
nuisance
The
presumptions
being
merely
prima
facie,
it
is
to
be
abated
by
the
imposition
of
penal
open
to
the
accused
of
course
to
present
proof
to
sanctions.
the
contrary
to
overcome
the
said
presumptions.
2. No.
The
freedom
of
contract
which
is
constitutionally
protected
is
freedom
to
Issues:
enter
into
"lawful"
contracts.
Contracts
1. WON
BP
22
violates
the
constitutional
which
contravene
public
policy
are
not
provision
forbidding
imprisonment
for
debt.
lawful.
Besides,
we
must
bear
in
mind
that
2. WON
BP
22
impairs
the
freedom
to
contract.
checks
can
not
be
categorized
as
mere
3. WON
it
violates
the
equal
protection
clause.
contracts.
It
is
a
commercial
instrument
which,
in
this
modem
day
and
age,
has
Held:
become
a
convenient
substitute
for
money;
1. No.
The
gravamen
of
the
offense
punished
it
forms
part
of
the
banking
system
and
by
BP
22
is
the
act
of
making
and
issuing
a
therefore
not
entirely
free
from
the
worthless
check
or
a
check
that
is
regulatory
power
of
the
state.
dishonored
upon
its
presentation
for
3. No.
Petitioners
contend
that
the
payee
is
payment.
It
is
not
the
non-‐payment
of
an
just
as
responsible
for
the
crime
as
the
obligation
which
the
law
punishes.
The
law
drawer
of
the
check,
since
without
the
is
not
intended
or
designed
to
coerce
a
indispensable
participation
of
the
payee
by
debtor
to
pay
his
debt.
The
thrust
of
the
law
his
acceptance
of
the
check
there
would
be
is
to
prohibit,
under
pain
of
penal
sanctions,
no
crime.
This
argument
is
tantamount
to
the
making
of
worthless
checks
and
putting
saying
that,
to
give
equal
protection,
the
law
them
in
circulation.
Because
of
its
should
punish
both
the
swindler
and
the
deleterious
effects
on
the
public
interest,
the
swindled.
Moreover,
the
clause
does
not
practice
is
proscribed
by
the
law.
The
law
preclude
classification
of
individuals,
who
punishes
the
act
not
as
an
offense
against
may
be
accorded
different
treatment
under
property,
but
an
offense
against
public
the
law
as
long
as
the
classification
is
no
order.
unreasonable
or
arbitrary.
The
effects
of
the
issuance
of
a
worthless
Magno
v.
C.A.,
210
SCRA
475
(1992)
check
transcends
the
private
interests
of
the
Facts:
Petitioner
Magno
was
in
the
process
of
parties
directly
involved
in
the
transaction
putting
up
a
car
repair
shop
sometime
in
April
and
touches
the
interests
of
the
community
1983,
but
he
did
not
have
complete
equipment
that
at
large.
The
mischief
it
creates
is
not
only
a
could
make
his
venture
workable.
He
also
had
wrong
to
the
payee
or
holder,
but
also
an
another
problem,
and
that
while
he
was
going
into
injury
to
the
public.
The
harmful
practice
of
this
entrepreneurship,
he
lacked
funds
with
which
putting
valueless
commercial
papers
in
to
purchase
the
necessary
equipment
to
make
such
circulation,
multiplied
a
thousand
fold,
can
business
operational.
Thus,
petitioner,
representing
very
wen
pollute
the
channels
of
trade
and
Ultra
Sources
International
Corporation,
commerce,
injure
the
banking
system
and
approached
Corazon
Teng,
(private
complainant)
Vice
President
of
Mancor
Industries
(hereinafter
Rañeses
46
referred
to
as
Mancor)
for
his
needed
car
repair
subject
of
the
petition,
were
held
momentarily
by
service
equipment
of
which
Mancor
was
a
Corazon
Teng,
on
the
request
of
Magno
as
they
distributor.
were
not
covered
with
sufficient
funds.
Having
been
approached
by
petitioner
on
his
Subsequently,
petitioner
could
not
pay
LS
Finance
predicament,
who
fully
bared
that
he
had
no
the
monthly
rentals,
thus
it
pulled
out
the
garage
sufficient
funds
to
buy
the
equipment
needed,
the
equipment.
It
was
then
on
this
occasion
that
former
(Corazon
Teng)
referred
Magno
to
LS
petitioner
became
aware
that
Corazon
Teng
was
the
Finance
and
Management
Corporation
(LS
Finance
one
who
advanced
the
warranty
deposit.
Petitioner
for
brevity)
advising
its
Vice-‐President,
Joey
Gomez,
with
his
wife
went
to
see
Corazon
Teng
and
that
Mancor
was
willing
and
able
to
supply
the
promised
to
pay
the
latter
but
the
payment
never
pieces
of
equipment
needed
if
LS
Finance
could
came
and
when
the
four
(4)
checks
were
deposited
accommodate
petitioner
and
provide
him
credit
they
were
returned
for
the
reason
"account
closed."
facilities.
For
having
issued
the
four
(4)
checks
that
later
The
arrangement
went
through
on
condition
that
bounced,
petitioner
was
charged
with
four
(4)
petitioner
has
to
put
up
a
warranty
deposit
counts
of
violation
of
B.P
Blg.
22.
After
trial,
he
was
equivalent
to
thirty
per
centum
(30%)
of
the
total
found
guilty
and
sentenced
to
imprisonment
for
one
value
of
the
pieces
of
equipment
to
be
purchased,
year
in
each
criminal
case
and
to
pay
complainant
amounting
to
P29,790.00.
Since
petitioner
could
not
the
respective
amounts
reflected
in
the
subject
come
up
with
such
amount,
he
requested
Joey
checks.
Gomez
on
personal
level
to
look
for
a
third
party
who
could
lend
him
the
equivalent
amount
of
the
Issue:
WON
petitioner
should
be
punished
for
the
warranty
deposit.
However,
unknown
to
petitioner,
issuance
of
the
checks
in
questions.
it
was
Corazon
Teng
who
advanced
the
deposit
in
question,
on
condition
that
the
same
would
be
paid
Held:
No.
By
the
nature
of
the
"warranty
deposit"
as
a
short
term
loan
at
3%
interest.
amounting
to
P29,790.00
corresponding
to
30%
of
the
"purchase/lease"
value
of
the
equipment
As
part
of
the
arrangement,
petitioner
and
LS
subject
of
the
transaction,
it
is
obvious
that
the
Finance
entered
into
a
leasing
agreement
whereby
"cash
out"
made
by
Mrs.
Teng
was
not
used
by
LS
Finance
would
lease
the
garage
equipments
and
petitioner
who
was
just
paying
rentals
for
the
petitioner
would
pay
the
corresponding
rent
with
equipment.
It
would
have
been
different
if
the
option
to
buy
the
same.
After
the
petitioner
opted
to
purchase
the
pieces
of
documentation
was
completed,
the
equipment
were
equipment
on
or
about
the
termination
of
the
lease-‐
delivered
to
petitioner
who
in
turn
issued
a
purchase
agreement
in
which
case
he
had
to
pay
the
postdated
check
and
gave
it
to
Joey
Gomez
who,
additional
amount
of
the
warranty
deposit
which
unknown
to
the
petitioner,
delivered
the
same
to
should
have
formed
part
of
the
purchase
price.
As
Corazon
Teng.
When
the
check
matured,
petitioner
the
transaction
did
not
ripen
into
a
purchase,
but
requested
through
Joey
Gomez
not
to
deposit
the
remained
a
lease
with
rentals
being
paid
for
the
check
as
he
(Magno)
was
no
longer
banking
with
loaned
equipment,
which
were
pulled
out
by
the
Pacific
Bank.
Lessor
(Mancor)
when
the
petitioner
failed
to
continue
paying
possibly
due
to
economic
To
replace
the
first
check
issued,
petitioner
issued
constraints
or
business
failure,
then
it
is
lawful
and
another
set
of
six
(6)
postdated
checks.
Two
(2)
just
that
the
warranty
deposit
should
not
be
checks
dated
July
29,
1983
were
deposited
and
charged
against
the
petitioner.
cleared
while
the
four
(4)
others,
which
were
the
subject
of
the
four
counts
of
the
aforestated
charges
Rañeses
47
To
charge
the
petitioner
for
the
refund
of
a
encourage
users
of
the
system
to
enrich
"warranty
deposit"
which
he
did
not
withdraw
as
it
themselves
through
manipulations
and
was
not
his
own
account,
it
having
remained
with
circumvention
of
the
noble
purpose
and
LS
Finance,
is
to
even
make
him
pay
an
unjust
objective
of
the
law.
(Quoting
Paras,
J.)
"debt",
to
say
the
least,
since
petitioner
did
not
2. …
still
in
mala
prohibita,
while
there
is
no
receive
the
amount
in
question.
All
the
while,
said
need
of
criminal
intent,
there
must
be
amount
was
in
the
safekeeping
of
the
financing
knowledge
that
the
same
existed.
Without
company,
which
is
managed,
supervised
and
the
knowledge
of
voluntariness
there
is
no
operated
by
the
corporation
officials
and
employees
crime.
(Quoting
Paras,
J.)
of
LS
Finance.
3. The
much
abused
theory
of
malum
prohibitum—that
the
only
point
of
inquiry
It
is
intriguing
to
realize
that
Mrs.
Teng
did
not
want
in
this
kind
of
offense
is,
whether
the
law
the
petitioner
to
know
that
it
was
she
who
has
been
violated—was
already
clearly
"accommodated"
petitioner's
request
for
Joey
relegated
to
the
background
in
favor
of
the
Gomez,
to
source
out
the
needed
funds
for
the
teleological
idea
of
fairness
and
justice.
"warranty
deposit".
Thus
it
unfolds
the
kind
of
4. The
Lozano
doctrine,
which
uses
the
theory
transaction
that
is
shrouded
with
mystery,
of
malum
prohibitum
as
justification,
was
a
gimmickry
and
doubtful
legality.
It
is
in
simple
haphazard
ruling
and
its
effect
is
a
language,
a
scheme
whereby
Mrs.
Teng
as
the
perversion
of
the
criminal
process,
because
supplier
of
the
equipment
in
the
name
of
her
payees
of
dishonored
are
using
the
threat
of
corporation,
Mancor,
would
be
able
to
"sell
or
lease"
criminal
sanction
to
enforce
collections
of
its
goods
as
in
this
case,
and
at
the
same
time,
their
credits.
privately
financing
those
who
desperately
need
5. Three
classes
of
crimes
are
recognized
in
petty
accommodations
as
this
one.
This
modus
the
second
and
third
paragraphs,
Art.
3
operandi
has
in
so
many
instances
victimized
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code
(Refer
to
page
unsuspecting
businessmen,
who
likewise
need
29
for
the
full
text
of
the
provision).
protection
from
the
law,
by
availing
of
the
1. Crimes
mala
in
se
are
unlawful
facts
deceptively
called
"warranty
deposit"
not
realizing
accompanied
by
evil
intent.
The
that
they
also
fall
prey
to
leasing
equipment
under
Code
calls
these
crimes
dolo
the
guise
of
a
lease-‐purchase
agreement
when
it
is
a
offenses.
This
class
of
crimes
is
scheme
designed
to
skim
off
business
clients.
based
on
the
general
condition
of
penal
liability
under
the
legal
This
maneuvering
has
serious
implications
especially
maxim,
actus
non
facit
reum,
nisi
with
respect
to
the
threat
of
the
penal
sanction
of
the
mens
sit
rea,
or
the
mens
rea
law
in
issue,
as
in
this
case.
And,
with
a
willing
court
doctrine,
under
which
the
unlawful
system
to
apply
the
full
harshness
of
the
special
law
act
alone
does
not
amount
to
guilt
(B.P
Blg.
22)
in
question,
using
the
"mala
prohibita"
unless
it
is
accompanied
by
a
guilty
doctrine,
the
noble
objective
of
the
law
is
tainted
with
mind.
materialism
and
opportunism
in
the
highest
degree.
Offenses
mala
in
se
require
malice
or
A
Theory
of
Crime
and
Punishment
by
David
G.
malicious
intention.
The
term
dolus,
Nitafan
as
an
element
of
the
mode
of
1. Magno
v.
Court
of
Appeals:
For
all
intents
commission
of
this
class
of
offenses,
and
purposes,
the
law
was
devised
to
involves
a
complex
idea,
which
safeguard
the
interest
of
the
banking
system
consists
of
several
elements;
and
the
legitimate
public
checking
account
freedom,
intelligence,
and
intent.
user.
It
did
not
intend
to
shelter
or
favor
nor
The
violation
must
be
a
voluntary
Rañeses
48
act,
otherwise
it
will
not
amount
to
a
corrupt
intent.
The
display
itself,
without
the
crime,
or
stating
it
in
another
way,
intervention
of
any
other
fact,
is
the
evil.
It
is
quite
no
criminal
liability
is
incurred.
different
from
that
large
class
of
crimes,
made
such
by
the
common
law
or
by
statute,
in
which
the
2. There
are
crimes
which,
by
the
act
injurious
effect
upon
the
public
depends
upon
the
alone,
irrespective
of
its
motives,
the
corrupt
intention
of
the
person
perpetrating
the
constitute
the
offenses
punished
by
act.
[…]
In
the
case
at
bar,
however,
the
evil
to
the
statute.
These
are
the
crimes
society
and
to
the
Government
does
not
depend
mala
prohibita,
where
in
upon
the
state
of
mind
of
the
one
who
displays
the
determining
the
existence
of
the
banner,
but
upon
the
effect
which
that
display
has
crime,
the
only
inquiry
is,
has
the
upon
the
public
mind.
In
the
one
case
the
public
is
law
been
violated?
affected
by
the
intention
of
the
actor;
in
the
other
by
the
act
itself.
Traditional
concept:
the
act
is
evil
because
it
is
prohibited.
An
offense
Relation
of
RPC
to
special
laws
malum
prohibitum
is
an
act
made
RPC,
Art.
10
wrong
by
legislation—a
forbidden
evil.
Offenses
not
subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
Code.
—
• With
the
latest
rulings
applying
the
theory
Offenses
which
are
or
in
the
future
may
be
of
malum
prohibitum,
the
traditional
punishable
under
special
laws
are
not
subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
Code.
This
Code
shall
be
concept
of
the
theory
has
been
“exploded.”
supplementary
to
such
laws,
unless
the
latter
Knowledge
of
the
prohibition
is
now
a
should
specially
provide
the
contrary.
requirement,
so
that
in
charging
an
offense
the
information
must
now
state
not
mere
“unlawfulness”
of
the
act
but
that
it
was
Reyes:
done
“knowingly”
or
“willfully,”
otherwise
1. Art.
10
is
composed
of
two
clauses.
In
the
the
information
is
insufficient
to
charge
an
first,
it
is
provided
that
offenses
under
offense.
special
laws
are
not
subject
to
the
provisions
of
the
Code.
The
second
makes
U.S.
v.
Go
Chico,
14
Phil.
128
(1909)
the
Code
supplementary
to
such
laws.
Facts:
Accused
Go
Chico
was
charged
with
a
violation
of
Sec.
1
of
Act
No.
1696
of
the
Philippine
The
first
clause
should
be
taken
to
mean
Commission,
which
punishes
any
person
who
shall
only
that
the
Penal
Code
is
not
intended
to
expose
to
public
view
any
flag,
banner,
emblem
or
supersede
special
penal
laws.
The
latter
are
device
used
during
the
late
insurrection
in
the
controlling
with
regard
to
offenses
therein
Philippines.
Even
if
the
accused
acted
without
specially
punished.
Said
clause
only
restates
criminal
intent
without
criminal
intent,
the
lower
the
elemental
rule
of
statutory
construction
court
convicted
him.
that
special
legal
provisions
prevail
over
general
ones.
Issue:
WON
the
conviction
of
the
accused
is
proper.
The
second
clause
contains
the
soul
of
the
Held:
Yes.
The
display
of
a
flag
or
emblem
used,
article.
The
main
idea
and
purpose
of
the
particularly
within
a
recent
period,
by
the
enemies
article
is
embodied
in
the
provision
that
the
of
the
Government
tends
to
incite
resistance
of
“Code
shall
be
supplementary”
to
special
governmental
functions
and
insurrection
against
laws,
unless
the
latter
should
specially
governmental
authority
just
as
effectively
if
made
in
provide
the
contrary.
(Dissent
of
Justice
the
best
of
good
faith
as
if
made
with
the
most
Perfecto,
People
v.
Gonzales,
82
Phil.
307)
Rañeses
49
2. IMPORTANT
WORDS
AND
PHRASES
8. Plea
of
guilty
as
a
mitigating
1. “Special
laws”-‐
defined
in
U.S.
v.
circumstance
is
not
available
to
offenses
Serapio,
23
Phil.
584,
as
a
penal
law
punishable
under
special
laws.
which
punishes
acts
not
defined
and
9. No
accessory
penalty,
unless
the
law
penalized
by
the
Penal
Code.
It
is
a
provides
therefor.
statute
enacted
by
the
legislative
10. Special
laws
amending
the
RPC
are
branch,
penal
in
character,
which
is
subject
to
its
provisions.
not
an
amendment
to
the
RPC.
Special
laws
usually
follow
the
form
of
American
penal
law.
C. Criminal
Liability
2. “Supplementary”
–
the
word
means
supplying
what
is
lacking;
How
incurred
additional.
Some
provisions
of
the
Penal
Code
are
perfectly
applicable
to
special
laws.
RPC,
Art.
4
3. “Unless
the
latter
should
provide
the
Criminal
liability.
—
Criminal
liability
shall
be
contrary.”
-‐
incurred:
3. The
provisions
of
the
RPC
on
penalties
cannot
be
applied
to
offenses
punishable
1.
By
any
person
committing
a
felony
(delito)
under
special
laws.
although
the
wrongful
act
done
be
different
from
that
which
he
intended.
4. Offenses
under
special
laws
are
not
subject
to
the
provisions
of
the
RPC
2.
By
any
person
performing
an
act
which
would
be
relating
to
attempted
and
frustrated
an
offense
against
persons
or
property,
were
it
not
crimes.
for
the
inherent
impossibility
of
its
accomplishment
5. The
special
law
has
to
fix
penalties
for
or
an
account
of
the
employment
of
inadequate
or
attempted
and
frustrated
crime.
The
ineffectual
means.
penalty
for
the
consummated
crime
cannot
be
imposed
when
the
stage
of
the
acts
of
Reyes:
execution
is
either
attempted
or
frustrated,
1. Criminal
liability
is
incurred
by
any
because
the
penalties
for
the
attempted
and
person
in
the
cases
mentioned
in
the
two
frustrated
crime
is
two
degrees
or
one
paragraphs
of
Art.
4.
The
article
has
no
degree
lower,
respectively.
The
special
law
reference
to
the
manner
criminal
liability
is
does
not
provide
for
penalty
one
or
two
incurred.
The
manner
of
incurring
criminal
degrees
lower
than
that
provided
for
the
liability
is
stated
in
Art.
3,
that
is,
consummated
stage.
The
special
law
has
to
performing
or
failing
to
do
an
act,
when
fix
a
penalty
for
the
attempt
and
a
penalty
either
is
punished
by
law,
by
means
of
for
the
frustration
of
the
crime
defined
by
deceit
(with
malice)
or
fault
(through
it,
in
order
that
the
crime
may
be
punished
negligence
or
imprudence).
in
case
its
commission
reached
only
the
2. One
who
commits
an
intentional
felony
is
attempted
or
frustrated
stage
of
execution.
responsible
for
all
the
consequences
6. When
a
special
law
covers
the
mere
which
may
naturally
and
logically
result
attempt
to
commit
the
crime
defined
by
therefrom,
whether
foreseen
or
intended
it,
the
attempted
stage
is
punishable
by
or
not.
Ordinarily,
when
a
person
commits
a
the
same
penalty
provided
by
the
law.
felony
with
malice,
he
intends
the
7. Art.
10,
RPC,
is
not
applicable
to
punish
consequences
of
his
felonious
act.
But
there
an
accomplice
under
the
special
law.
are
cases
where
the
consequences
of
the
felonious
acts
of
the
offender
are
not
Rañeses
50
intended
by
him.
In
those
cases,
“the
2. “Although
the
wrongful
act
done
be
wrongful
act
done”
is
“different
from
that
different
from
that
which
he
which
he
intended.”
intended.”
–
The
causes
which
may
produce
a
result
different
from
that
In
view
of
par.
1
of
Art.
4,
a
person
which
the
offender
intended
are:
(1)
committing
a
felony
is
criminally
liable
mistake
in
the
identity
of
the
victim;
although
the
consequences
of
his
felonious
(2)
mistake
in
the
blow,
that
is
when
act
are
not
intended
by
him.
the
offender
intending
to
do
an
injury
to
another
person
actually
One
is
not
relieved
from
criminal
liability
inflicts
it
on
another;
and
(3)
the
act
for
the
natural
consequences
of
one’s
illegal
exceeds
the
intent,
that
is,
the
acts,
merely
because
one
does
not
intend
to
injurious
result
is
greater
than
that
produce
such
consequences.
(U.S.
v.
Brobst,
intended.
14
Phil.
310)
4. Under
par.
1,
Art.
4,
a
person
committing
3. IMPORTANT
WORDS
AND
PHRASES
IN
a
felony
is
still
criminally
liable
even
if-‐
PAR.
1
OF
ART.
4.
1. There
is
a
mistake
in
the
identity
of
1. “Committing
a
felony.”
–
Not
mere
the
victim
–
error
in
personae.
performance
of
an
act.
A
felony
is
an
2. There
is
a
mistake
in
the
blow
–
act
punishable
by
the
RPC.
If
it
is
not
aberratio
ictus.
punishable
by
the
code,
it
is
not
a
3. The
injurious
result
is
greater
than
felony.
The
felony
committed
should
that
intended
–
praeter
intentionem.
be
one
committed
by
means
of
dolo,
5. The
first
paragraph
of
Art.
4
has
certain
that
is,
with
malice,
because
par.
1
of
requisites.
Art.
4
speaks
of
wrongful
act
done
1. That
an
intentional
felony
has
been
“different
from
that
which
he
committed;
and
intended.”
2. That
the
wrong
done
to
the
aggrieved
party
be
the
direct,
If
the
wrongful
act
results
from
natural
and
logical
consequence
of
imprudence,
negligence,
lack
of
the
felony
committed
by
the
foresight
or
lack
of
skill
of
the
offender.
offender,
his
liability
should
be
6. Any
person
who
creates
in
another’s
determined
under
Art.
365,
which
mind
an
immediate
sense
of
danger,
defines
and
penalizes
criminal
which
causes
the
latter
to
do
something
negligence.
resulting
in
the
latter’s
injuries,
is
liable
for
the
resulting
injuries.
The
act
or
omission
should
not
be
7. The
felony
committed
must
be
the
punished
by
a
special
law,
because
proximate
cause
of
the
resulting
injury.
the
offender
violating
a
special
law
Proximate
cause
is
“that
cause,
which,
in
may
have
the
intent
to
do
an
injury
natural
and
continuous
sequence,
unbroken
to
another.
In
such
case,
the
by
any
efficient
intervening
cause,
produces
wrongful
act
done
could
not
be
the
injury,
and
without
which
the
result
different
as
the
offender
did
not
would
not
have
occurred.”
(Bataclan
v.
intend
to
do
any
other
injury.
Medina,
102
Phil.
181,
186,
quoting
38
Am.
§ When
a
person
has
not
Jur.
695)
committed
a
felony,
he
is
not
criminally
liable
for
the
Moreover,
a
person
committing
a
felony
is
result
which
is
not
intended.
criminally
liable
for
all
natural
and
logical
Rañeses
51
consequences
resulting
therefrom
although
3. That
death
ensued
within
a
the
wrongful
act
done
be
different
from
that
reasonable
time.
(People
v.
Datu
which
he
intended.
“Natural”
refers
to
an
Baginda,
(C.A.,
44
O.G.
2287)
occurrence
in
the
ordinary
course
of
human
9. A
supervening
event
may
be
the
subject
life
or
events,
while
“logical”
means
that
of
amendment
of
original
information
or
there
is
a
rational
connection
between
the
of
a
new
charge
without
double
jeopardy.
act
of
the
accused
and
the
resulting
injury
or
damage.
The
felony
committed
must
be
the
proximate
cause
of
the
resulting
injury.
Proximate
cause
is
that
cause
which,
in
natural
and
continuous
sequence,
unbroken
by
any
efficient
intervening
cause,
produces
the
injury,
and
without
which
the
result
would
not
have
occurred.
The
proximate
legal
cause
is
that
acting
first
and
producing
the
injury,
either
immediately,
or
by
setting
other
events
in
motion,
all
constituting
a
natural
and
continuous
chain
of
event,
each
having
a
close
causal
connection
with
its
immediate
predecessor.
The
felony
committed
is
not
the
proximate
cause
of
the
resulting
injury
when:
1. There
is
an
active
force
that
intervened
between
the
felony
committed
and
the
resulting
injury,
and
the
active
force
is
a
distinct
act
or
fact
absolutely
foreign
from
the
felonious
act
of
the
accused;
or
2. The
resulting
injury
is
due
to
the
intentional
act
of
the
victim.
*Refer
to
pp.
78-‐79
of
Reyes’s
annotation
of
the
RPC,
17th
edition,
for
the
examples
of
causes
which
are
not
considered
efficient
intervening
causes.
8. There
are
certain
requisites
before
death
is
presumed
to
be
the
natural
consequence
of
physical
injuries
inflicted.
1. That
the
victim
at
the
time
the
physical
injuries
were
inflicted
was
in
normal
health.
2. That
death
may
be
expected
from
the
physical
injuries
inflicted.
Rañeses
52
RPC,
Art.
14
(1)
RPC,
Art.
14
(3)
Aggravating
circumstances.
-‐
The
following
are
aggravating
circumstances:
Aggravating
circumstances.
-‐
The
following
are
aggravating
circumstances:
1. That
advantage
be
taken
by
the
offender
of
his
public
position.
3. That
the
act
be
committed
with
insult
or
in
disregard
of
the
respect
due
to
the
offended
RPC,
Art.
13(3)
party
on
account
of
his
rank,
age,
or
sex,
or
that
it
be
committed
in
the
dwelling
of
the
Mitigating
circumstances.
-‐
The
following
are
offended
party,
if
the
latter
has
not
given
mitigating
circumstances:
provocation.
3. That
the
offender
had
no
intention
to
commit
so
grave
a
wrong
as
that
committed.
Reyes:
1. (Art.
14
[1])
Failure
in
official
duties
is
RPC,
Art.
48
tantamount
to
abuse
of
office.
Penalty
for
complex
crimes.
-‐
When
a
single
act
2. Same.
It
is
not
aggravating
when
it
is
an
constitutes
two
or
more
grave
or
less
grave
felonies,
integral
element
of,
or
inherent
in,
the
or
when
an
offense
is
a
necessary
means
for
offense.
committing
the
other,
the
penalty
for
the
most
3. (Art.
13[3])
This
mitigating
circumstance
serious
crime
shall
be
imposed,
the
same
to
be
can
only
be
applied
when
the
facts
show
applied
in
its
maximum
period.
(As
amended
by
Act
that
there
is
a
notable
and
evident
No.
4000.)
disproportion
between
the
means
RPC,
Art.
49
employed
to
execute
the
criminal
act
and
its
consequences.
(US
v.
Reyes,
36
Phil.
Penalty
to
be
imposed
upon
the
principals
when
the
904,
907)
crime
committed
is
different
from
that
intended.
-‐
4. Same.
Intention,
being
an
internal
state,
In
cases
in
which
the
felony
committed
is
different
must
be
judged
by
external
acts.
from
that
which
the
offender
intended
to
commit,
5. Same.
It
is
not
applicable
when
the
the
following
rules
shall
be
observed:
offender
employed
brute
force.
1.
If
the
penalty
prescribed
for
the
felony
committed
6. Same.
It
is
applicable
only
in
offenses
be
higher
than
that
corresponding
to
the
offense
resulting
in
physical
injuries
or
harm.
which
the
accused
intended
to
commit,
the
penalty
7. (Art.
48)
This
provision
requires
the
corresponding
to
the
latter
shall
be
imposed
in
its
commission
of
at
least
two
crimes.
But
maximum
period.
the
two
or
more
grave
or
less
grave
felonies
2.
If
the
penalty
prescribed
for
the
felony
committed
nmust
be
the
result
of
a
single
act,
or
an
be
lower
than
that
corresponding
to
the
one
which
offense
must
be
a
necessary
means
for
the
accused
intended
to
commit,
the
penalty
for
the
committing
the
other.
former
shall
be
imposed
in
its
maximum
period.
8. Same.
A
complex
crime
is
only
one
crime,
even
if
two
or
more
crimes
are
actually
3.
The
rule
established
by
the
next
preceding
committed.
The
offender
has
only
one
paragraph
shall
not
be
applicable
if
the
acts
criminal
intent.
committed
by
the
guilty
person
shall
also
constitute
an
attempt
or
frustration
of
another
crime,
if
the
9. Same.
Two
kinds
complex
crimes:
law
prescribes
a
higher
penalty
for
either
of
the
1. When
a
single
act
constitutes
two
or
latter
offenses,
in
which
case
the
penalty
provided
more
grave
or
less
grave
felonies.
for
the
attempted
or
the
frustrated
crime
shall
be
2. When
an
offense
is
a
necessary
imposed
in
its
maximum
period.
(Arts.
61,
62,
65)
means
for
committing
the
other.
Rañeses
53
10. Same.
“When
a
single
act
constitutes
two
20. Same.
When
two
crimes
produced
by
a
or
more
grave
or
less
grave
felonies.”
–
single
act
are
respectively
within
the
(1)
That
only
a
single
act
is
performed
by
exclusive
jurisdiction
of
two
courts
of
the
offender
and
(2)
that
the
single
act
different
jurisdiction,
the
court
of
higher
produces
(a)
two
or
more
less
grave
jurisdiction
shall
try
the
complex
crime.
felonies,
or
(b)
one
or
more
grave
and
one
21. Same.
Art.
48
is
intended
to
favor
the
or
more
less
grave
felonies
or
(c)
two
or
culprit.
In
directing
the
penalty
for
the
more
less
grave
felonies.
graver
offense
shall
be
imposed
in
its
11. Same.
“Two
or
more
less
grave
felonies.”
maximum
period,
Art.
48
could
have
had
no
–
In
the
case
of
a
compound
crime,
the
other
purpose
than
to
prescribe
a
penalty
offenses
involved
should
be
either
both
lower
than
the
aggregate
of
the
penalties
for
grave
or
both
less
grave,
or
one
of
them
a
each
offense,
if
imposed
separately.
When
grave
felony
and
the
other
less
grave.
two
or
more
crimes
are
the
result
of
a
single
12. Same.
Light
felonies
are
produced
by
the
act,
the
offender
is
deemed
less
perverse
same
act
should
be
treated
and
punished
than
when
he
commits
said
crimes
through
as
separate
offenses
or
may
be
absorbed
separate
but
distinct
acts.
(People
v.
by
the
grave
felony.
Hernandez,
99
Phil.
515,
542-‐543)
1. Several
light
felonies
resulting
from
22. Same.
The
penalty
for
complex
crime
is
one
single
act
–
not
complex.
the
penalty
for
the
most
serious
crime,
2. When
the
crime
is
committed
by
the
same
to
be
applied
in
its
maximum
force
or
violence,
slight
physical
period.
injuries
are
absorbed.
23. Same.
When
two
felonies
constituting
a
13. Same.
“When
an
offense
is
a
necessary
complex
cime
are
punishable
by
means
for
committing
the
other.”
–
(1)
imprisonment
and
fine,
respectively,
That
at
least
two
offenses
are
committed,
only
the
penalty
of
imprisonment
should
(2)
that
one
or
some
of
the
offenses
must
be
be
imposed.
necessary
to
commit
the
other,
and
(3)
That
24. Same.
This
provision
only
applies
when
both
or
all
the
offenses
must
be
punished
the
Code
does
not
provide
a
definite
under
the
same
statute.
specific
penalty
for
a
complex
crime.
14. Same.
“Necessary
means”
does
not
mean
25. One
information
should
be
filed
when
a
“indispensable
means.”
complex
crime
is
committed.
15. Same.
In
complex
crime,
when
the
26. Same.
When
a
complex
crime
is
charged
offender
executes
various
acts,
he
must
and
one
offense
is
not
proven,
the
have
a
single
purpose.
accused
can
be
convicted
of
the
other.
16. Same.
There
is
no
complex
crime
when
27. Same.
Art.
48
does
not
apply
when
the
one
offense
is
committed
to
conceal
the
law
provides
on
single
penalty
for
the
other.
special
complex
crime.
17. Same.
No
complex
crime
when
one
of
the
28. Same.
Plurality
of
crimes
–
consists
in
the
offenses
is
penalized
by
a
special
law.
successive
execution
by
the
same
individual
18. Same.
When
two
or
more
crimes
are
of
different
criminal
acts
upon
any
of
which
committed
but
(1)
not
by
a
single
act,
or
are
no
conviction
has
been
declared.
(2)
one
is
not
a
necessary
means
for
29. Same.
Kinds
of
plurality
crimes
–
(1)
omitting
the
other,
there
is
no
complex
formal
or
ideal
and
(2)
real
or
material
crime.
plurality
19. Same.
Thgere
is
no
complex
crime
of
30. Same.
A
continued
crime
is
not
a
complex
rebellion
with
murder,
arson,
robbery,
crime.
A
continued
crime
is
a
continuous,
or
other
common
crimes.
unlawful
act
or
series
of
acts
set
on
foot
by
a
Rañeses
54
single
impulse
and
operated
by
a
force
that
the
victim
is
of
tender
age
as
well
as
is
not
intermittent,
however
long
a
time
it
of
old
age.
may
occupy.
(22
C.J.S.,
52)
3. Sex
in
the
circumstances
31. Same.
In
material
plurality,
each
eact
enumerated
refer
to
the
female
sex,
constitutes
a
separate
crime,
while
each
not
the
male
sex.
act
in
a
continued
crime
constitute
only
40. Same.
It
is
not
applicable
when:
one
crime.
1. The
offender
acted
with
passion
and
32. (Art.
49)
It
only
applies
when
there
is
a
obfuscation
mistake
in
the
identity
of
the
victim
of
2. There
exists
a
relationship
between
the
crime,
and
the
penalty
for
the
crime
the
offended
party
and
the
offender.
committed
is
different
from
that
for
the
3. The
condition
of
being
a
woman
is
crime
intended
to
be
committed.
indispensable
in
the
commission
of
33. Same.
It
has
no
application
in
cases
the
crime.
where
a
more
serious
consequence
not
41. Same.
Disregard
of
sex
is
absorbed
in
intended
by
the
offender
befalls
the
treachery.
same
person.
42. Same.
That
the
crime
be
committed
in
34. Same.
It
is
applicable
only
when
the
the
dwelling
of
the
offended
party
intended
crime
actually
committed
is
1. The
abuse
of
confidence
which
the
punished
with
different
penalties.
offended
party
reposed
in
the
35. Same.
Art.
49
imposes
the
lesser
penalty
offender
by
opening
the
door
to
him;
to
be
applied
in
its
maximum
period,
or
while
Art.
48
applies
the
penalty
for
the
2. The
violation
of
the
sanctity
of
the
more
or
most
serious
crime
in
its
home
by
trespassing
therein
with
maximum
period.
violence
or
against
the
will
of
the
36. Same.
Rule
no.
3
in
Art.
49
is
not
owner.
necessary,
because
the
cases
43. Same.
Offended
party
must
not
give
contemplated
in
the
said
rule
may
be
provocation.
As
may
be
seen,
a
condition
covered
by
Art.
48.
sine
qua
non
of
this
circumstance,
is
that
the
37. (Art.
14[3])
The
four
circumstances
offended
party
“has
not
given
provocation”
enumerated
in
the
provision
can
be
to
the
offender.
When
it
is
the
offended
considered
single
or
together.
If
all
are
party
who
has
provoked
the
incident,
he
present,
they
have
the
weight
of
one
single
loses
his
right
to
the
respect
and
aggravating
circumstance.
consideration
due
him
in
his
own
house.
38. Same.
It
is
applicable
only
to
crimes
44. Same.
Provocation
must
be:
against
persons
or
honor.
1. Given
by
the
owner
of
the
dwelling
39. Same.
“With
insult
or
in
disregard.”
–
2. Sufficient,
and
There
must
be
evidence
that
in
the
3. Immediate
to
the
commission
f
the
commission
of
the
crime,
the
accused
crime
deliberately
intended
to
offend
or
insult
the
45. Same.
There
must
be
close
relation
sex
or
age
of
the
offended
party.
(People
v.
between
provocation
and
commission
of
Mangsant,
65
Phil.
548,
550-‐551)
the
crime
in
the
dwelling.
1. There
must
be
difference
in
the
46. Same.
Because
the
provocation
is
not
social
condition
of
the
offender
and
immediate,
dwelling
is
aggravating.
the
offended
party.
2. The
circumstance
of
lack
of
respect
U.S.
v.
Brobst,
14
Phil.
310
(1909)
due
to
age
applies
in
cases
where
Facts:
The
defendant,
James
L.
Brobst,
and
another
American
named
Mann,
were
engaged
in
work
on
a
Rañeses
55
mine
located
in
the
municipality
of
Masbate,
where
defendant's
mine;
his
sister
testified
that
on
the
they
gave
employment
to
a
number
of
native
morning
of
the
day
he
died,
he
left
her
house
in
laborers.
apparent
good
health
and
went
to
the
mines
to
look
for
work;
a
short
time
afterwards
he
received
a
Mann
discharged
one
of
these
laborers
named
violent
blow
on
his
lower
left
side,
a
region
of
the
Simeon
Saldivar,
warned
him
not
to
come
back
on
body
where
many
of
the
vital
organs
are
located;
the
premises,
and
told
the
defendant
not
to
employ
and
immediately
thereafter,
he
stared
up
the
short
him
again,
because
he
was
a
thief
and
a
disturbing
trail
leading
to
his
sister's
house,
and
died
as
he
element
with
the
other
laborers.
reached
the
door.
In
the
absence
of
evidence
of
any
intervening
cause,
we
think
there
can
be
no
A
few
days
afterwards,
sometime
after
6
o'clock
on
reasonable
doubt
that
his
death
resulted
from
the
the
morning
of
the
10th
of
July,
1907,
Saldivar,
in
blow.
company
with
three
of
four
others,
went
to
the
mine
to
look
for
work.
The
defendant,
caught
sight
In
the
case
at
bar
the
evidence
conclusively
of
Saldivar,
ordered
him
off
the
place,
exclaiming
in
establishes
the
voluntary,
intentional,
and
unlawful
bad
Spanish,
"Sigue,
Vamus!"
(Begone).
Saldivar
infliction
by
the
accused
of
a
severe
blow
on
the
made
no
move
to
leave,
and
although
the
order
was
person
of
the
deceased;
and
while
it
is
true
that
the
repeated,
merely
smiled
or
grinned
at
the
accused
does
not
appear
to
have
intended
to
take
defendant,
whereupon
the
latter
became
enraged,
the
life
of
his
victim,
there
can
no
doubt
that
in
thus
took
three
steps
toward
Saldivar,
and
struck
him
a
striking
the
deceased,
he
intended
to
do
him
some
powerful
blow
with
his
closed
fist
on
the
left
side,
injury,
at
least
to
the
extent
of
inflicting
some
just
over
the
lower
ribs,
at
the
point
where
the
degree
of
physical
pain
upon
him,
and
he
is
handle
of
Saldivar's
bolo
lay
against
the
belt
from
therefore,
criminally
responsible
for
the
natural,
which
it
was
suspended.
even
if
unexpected
results
of
his
act,
under
the
provisions
of
article
1
of
the
Penal
Code,
which
On
being
struck,
Saldivar
threw
up
his
hands,
prescribes
that:
staggered.
(dio
vueltas
-‐
spun
around
helplessly)
and
without
saying
a
word,
went
away
in
the
Any
person
voluntarily
committing
a
crime
or
direction
of
his
sister's
house,
which
stood
about
misdemeanor
shall
incur
criminal
liability,
even
200
yards
away,
and
about
100
feet
up
the
side
of
a
though
the
wrongful
act
committed
be
different
from
hill.
He
died
as
he
reached
the
door
of
the
house,
that
which
he
had
intended
to
commit.
and
was
buried
some
two
or
three
days
later.
In
such
cases
the
law
in
these
Islands
does
not
Issue:
Whether
or
not
Brobst
is
guilty
of
homicide
excuse
one
from
liability
for
the
natural
and
not
homicide
as
a
result
of
reckless
negligence.
consequences
of
hi
illegal
acts
merely
because
he
did
not
intend
to
produce
such
consequences,
but
it
Held:
Yes.
The
evidence
of
record
leaves
no
room
does
take
that
fact
into
consideration
as
an
for
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
struck
extenuating
circumstance,
as
did
the
trial
judge
in
Saldivar
a
powerful
body
blow
with
his
closed
fist;
this
case.
and
that
was
far
in
excess
of
such
authority,
and
was,
therefore,
unlawful,
and
cannot
be
excused
or
People
v.
Mananquil,
132
SCRA
196
(1984)
justified
as
an
exercise
of
necessary
force
in
the
Facts:
Valentina
Mananquil
y
Laredo
was
accused
exercise
of
a
right
of
parricide
allegedly
committed
as
follows:
The
deceased
came
to
his
death
as
a
result
of
the
On
March
6,
1965,
at
about
11:00
o'clock
in
the
blow
inflicted
by
the
defendant.
Two
or
three
days
evening,
appellant
went
to
the
NAWASA
Building
at
prior
to
his
death
he
was
employed
as
a
laborer
in
Pasay
City
where
her
husband
was
then
working
as
Rañeses
56
a
security
guard.
She
had
just
purchased
ten
(10)
2. Yes.
The
cause
of
death
as
shown
by
the
centavo
worth
of
gasoline
from
the
Esso
Gasoline
necropsy
report
is
pneumonia,
lobar
Station
at
Taft
Avenue
which
she
placed
in
a
coffee
bilateral.
Burns
2'
secondary.
There
is
no
bottle.
She
was
angry
of
her
husband,
Elias
Day
y
question
that
the
burns
sustained
by
the
Pablo,
because
the
latter
had
burned
her
clothing,
victim
as
shown
by
The
post-‐mortem
was
maintaining
a
mistress
and
had
been
taking
all
findings
immunity
about
62%
of
the
victim's
the
food
from
their
house.
Upon
reaching
the
entire
body.
The
evidence
shows
that
NAWASA
Building,
she
knocked
at
the
door.
pneumonia
was
a
mere
complication
of
the
Immediately,
after
the
door
was
opened,
Elias
Day
burns
sustained.
While
accepting
shouted
at
the
appellant
and
castigated
her
saying,
pneumonia
as
the
immediate
cause
of
death,
"puta
buguian
lakaw
galigaon"
The
appellant
tired
the
court
a
quo
held
on
to
state
that
this
of
hearing
the
victim,
then
got
the
bottle
of
gasoline
could
not
litem
resulted
had
not
the
victim
and
poured
the
contents
thereof
on
the
face
of
the
suffered
from
second
degree
burns.
It
victim
(t.s.n.,
p.
14,
Id).
Then,
she
got
a
matchbox
concluded,
and
rightly
so,
that
with
and
set
the
polo
shirt
of
the
victim
a
flame.
The
pneumonia
having
developed,
the
burns
appellant
was
investigated
by
elements
of
the
Pasay
became
as
to
the
cause
of
death,
merely
City
Police
to
whom
she
gave
a
written
statement
contributory
where
she
admitted
having
burned
the
victim.
Appellant's
case
falls
squarely
under
Art,
4,
Upon
the
other
hand,
the
victim
was
taken
first
to
Par.
1
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code
which
the
Philippine
General
Hospital
and
then
to
the
provides:
Trinity
General
Hospital
at
Sta.
Ana,
Manila,
when
he
died
on
March
10,
1965.
due
to
pneumonia,
lobar
Art.
4.
Criminal
Liability.
Criminal
bilateral
Burns
2
secondary.
liability
shall
be
incurred.
Issues:
By
any
person
committing
a
felony
1. WON
or
not
appellant's
extrajudicial
(delito)
although
the
wrongful
act
confession
was
voluntarily
given;
done
be
different
from
that
which
he
2. WON
or
not
the
burns
sustained
by
the
intended.
victim
contributed
to
cause
pneumonia
which
was
the
cause
of
the
victim's
death.
The
essential
requisites
of
which
are:
(a)
that
an
intentional
felony
has
been
Held:
committed;
and
(b)
that
the
wrong
done
to
1. Yes.
No
denunciation
of
any
sort
was
made
the
aggrieved
party
be
the
direct,
natural
nor
levelled
by
her
against
the
police
and
logical
consequence
of
the
felony
investigators.
Neither
was
there
any
committed
by
the
offender.
complaint
aired
by
her
to
the
effect
that
she
People
v.
Iligan,
191
SCRA
643
(1990)
merely
affixed
her
signatures
thereto
Facts:
At
around
2
in
the
morning
Esmeraldo
because
of
the
promise
by
the
police
that
Quinones
and
his
companions
Zaldy
Asis
and
Felix
she
will
be
released
later.
Lukban
were
walking
home
from
barangay
Sto.
Domingo
after
attending
a
barrio
fiesta.
On
the
way
Furthermore
almost
all
the
recitals
and
they
met
the
accused
Fernando
Iligan
and
his
narrations
appearing
in
the
said
statement
nephew
Edmundo
Asis
and
Juan
Macandog.
were
practically
repeated
by
her
on
the
Edmundo
Asis
pushed
them
aside
prompting
Zaldy
witness
stand
thus
authenticating
the
truth
Asis
to
box
him.
Felix
quickly
said
that
they
had
no
and
veracity
of
her
declarations
contained
desire
to
fight.
Upon
seeing
his
nephew
fall,
therein
Rañeses
57
Fernando
Iligan
drew
from
his
back
a
bolo
and
The
hacking
incident
happened
on
the
national
hacked
Zaldy
but
missed.
highway
where
vehicles
pass
any
moment;
the
hacking
blow
received
by
Quinones
weakened
him
Terrified
the
trio
ran,
pursued
by
the
three
accused.
and
was
run
over
by
a
vehicle.
The
hacking
by
Iligan
They
ran
for
a
good
while
and
even
passed
the
is
thus
deemed
as
the
proximate
cause
of
the
house
of
Quinones,
when
they
noticed
that
they
victim’s
death.
were
no
longer
being
chased
the
three
decided
to
head
back
to
Quinones
house.
On
the
way
back
the
Iligan
is
held
liable
for
homicide
absent
any
three
accused
suddenly
emerged
from
the
road
qualifying
circumstances
side,
Fernando
Iligan
then
hacked
Quinones
Jr.
on
the
forehead
with
his
bolo
causing
him
to
fall
down.
People
v.
Sabalones,
294
SCRA
751
(1998)
Felix
and
Zaldy
ran.
Upon
returning
they
saw
that
Facts:
Beronga,
Sabalones,
cabanero
and
Alegarbe
Quinones
Jr.
was
already
dead
with
his
head
busted.
were
convicted
of
2
counts
of
murder
and
3
counts
of
frustrated
murder
of
Glenn
tiempo,
Alfred
nardo,
The
postmortem
examination
report
and
the
death
rey
bolo,
reogelio
presores
and
nelson
tiempo.
A
certificate
indicates
that
the
victim
died
of
“shock
shooting
incident
on
June
1,
1985
in
Manuela
Comp,
and
massive
cerebral
hemorrhages
due
to
vehicular
Talisay
Cebu
led
to
these
deaths.
accident.”
Issues:
Issue:
WON
the
accused
are
liable
for
the
victim’s
1. WON
prosecution
witnesses
and
evidence
death
given
that
it
was
due
to
a
vehicular
accident
are
credible.
and
not
the
hacking.
2. WON
alibi’s
acceptable.
3. WON
correct
penalty
imposed.
Held:
Yes.
We
are
convinced
beyond
peradventure
that
indeed
after
Quinones,
Jr.
had
fallen
from
the
Held:
bolo
hacking
perpetrated
by
Iligan,
he
was
run
over
1. Yes.
RTC
findings
were
binding
to
court
by
a
vehicle.
This
finding,
however,
does
not
in
any
with
appreciated
testimonies
of
two
way
exonerate
Iligan
from
liability
for
the
death
of
witnesses.
There
was
positive
identification
Quinones
Jr.
This
being
under
ART
4
of
the
RPC
by
survivors
who
saw
them
when
they
which
states
that
criminal
liability
shall
be
incurred
peered
during
lulls
in
gunfire.
The
place
was
by
any
person
committing
a
felony
although
the
well-‐lit,
whether
from
post
of
car’s
wrongful
act
done
be
different
from
that
which
he
headlights.
The
extrajudicial
confession
has
intended.
no
bearing
because
the
conviction
was
based
on
positive
identification.
It
is
The
essential
requisites
of
Art
4
are:
that
an
binding,
though,
to
the
co-‐accused
because
intentional
felony
has
been
committed
and
that
the
it
is
used
as
circumstantial
evidence
wrong
done
to
the
aggrieved
party
be
the
direct
corroborated
by
one
witness.
The
natural
and
logical
consequence
of
the
felony
inconsistencies
are
minor
and
committed
by
the
offender.
inconsequential
which
strengthen
credibility
of
testimony.
Furthermore,
in
It
is
held
that
the
essential
elements
are
present
in
aberratio
ictus
(mistake
in
blow),
mistake
this
case.
The
intentional
felony
committed
was
the
does
not
diminish
culpability;
same
gravity
hacking
of
the
head
of
Quinones
the
fact
that
it
was
applies,
more
proper
to
use
error
in
considered
superficial
by
the
physician
is
personae.
immaterial.
The
location
of
the
wound
intended
to
do
away
with
him.
Rañeses
58
2. No.
It
was
still
quite
near
the
crime
scene.
It
President
Roxas,
the
accused
committed
two
grave
is
overruled
by
positive
identification.
felonies,
namely:
(1)
murder,
of
which
Simeon
Furthermore,
flight
indicates
guilt
Varela
was
the
victim;
and
(2)
multiple
attempted
murder,
of
which
President
Roxas,
Alfredo
Eva,
Jose
3. No.
Under
RPC
A248,
the
imposable
penalty
Fabio,
Pedro
Carrillo
and
Emilio
Maglalang
were
the
is
reclusion
temporal,
in
its
maximum
injured
parties.
period
to
death.
There
being
no
aggravating/mitigating
circumstance,
aside
The
killing
of
Simeon
Varela
was
attended
by
the
from
the
qualifying
circumstance
of
qualifying
circumstance
of
treachery.
In
the
case
of
treachery,
the
appellate
court
correctly
People
vs.
Mabug-‐at,
supra,
this
court
held
that
the
imposed
reclusion
perpetua
for
murder.
The
qualifying
circumstance
of
treachery
may
be
CA
however
erred
in
computing
the
penalty
properly
considered,
even
when
the
victim
of
the
for
each
of
the
three
counts
of
frustrated
attack
was
not
the
one
whom
the
defendant
murder.
Under
RPC
A50,
the
penalty
for
a
intended
to
kill,
if
it
appears
from
the
evidence
that
frustrated
felony
is
the
next
lower
in
degree
neither
of
the
two
persons
could
in
any
manner
put
than
that
prescribed
by
law
for
the
up
defense
against
the
attack,
or
become
aware
of
it.
consummated
felony
xxx.”
Because
there
In
the
same
case
it
was
held
that
the
qualifying
are
no
aggravating
or
mitigating
circumstance
of
premeditation
may
not
be
properly
circumstance
as
the
CA
itself
held,
the
taken
into
the
account
when
the
person
whom
the
penalty
prescribed
by
law
should
be
defendant
proposed
to
kill
was
different
from
the
imposed
in
its
medium
period.
one
who
became
his
victim.
People
v.
Guillen,
85
Phil.
307
(1950)
There
can
be
no
question
that
the
accused
Facts:
Guillen
was
charged
with
the
crime
of
attempted
to
kill
President
Roxas
by
throwing
a
murder
of
Simeon
Varela
(Barrela)
and
to
multiple
hand
grenade
at
him
with
the
intention
to
kill
him,
frustrated
murder
of
President
Roxas,
Alfredo
Eva,
thereby
commencing
the
commission
of
a
felony
by
Jose
Fabio,
Pedro
Carrillo
and
Emilio
Maglalang
over
acts,
but
he
did
not
succeed
in
assassinating
him
who
were
the
injured
parties,
as
the
information
"by
reason
of
some
cause
or
accident
other
than
his
filed
against
him
provided.
Guillen
pleaded
not
own
spontaneous
desistance."
For
the
same
reason
guilty
to
the
crime
charged
against
him,
but
was
we
qualify
the
injuries
caused
on
the
four
other
later
found
after
duly
admitting
his
intention
to
kill
persons
already
named
as
merely
attempted
and
the
President,
the
lower
court
found
him
guilty
not
frustrated
murder.
beyond
reasonable
doubt
and
was
sentenced
with
the
highest
capital
punishment,
for
the
murder
of
*The
accused
committed
a
mistake
in
blow
Simeon
Varela
(Barrela)
and
to
the
multiple
(aberratio
ictus),
hence
the
application
of
Art.
48.
frustrated
murder
of
President
Roxas
et
al.
People
v.
Albuquerque,
59
Phil.
150
(1933)
Issue:
WON
the
conviction
of
the
accused
was
Facts:
Appellant,
deeply
affected
by
the
knowledge
proper.
that
his
daughter
had
been
impregnated
by
the
Held:
No.
The
case
is
clearly
governed
by
the
first
victim,
made
efforts
to
force
victim
to
legitimize
clause
of
article
481
because
by
a
single
act,
that
a
marry
his
daughter.
Although
the
victim
agreed
to
throwing
highly
explosive
hand
grenade
at
give
the
child
a
monthly
allowance
by
way
of
support,
he
never
complied
with
his
promise.
Incensed,
the
appellant
went
into
the
victim’s
office.
1
Art.
48.
Penalty
for
Complex
Crimes.
—
When
a
single
act
Upon
hearing
the
victim
refuse
once
again,
constitutes
two
or
more
grave
or
less
grave
felonies,
or
when
an
offense
is
a
necessary
means
for
committing
the
appellant
whipped
out
his
penknife
and
stabbed
other,
the
penalty
for
the
most
serious
crime
shall
be
him
in
the
face.
Due
to
his
lack
of
control
of
the
imposed,
the
same
to
be
applied
in
its
maximum
period.
Rañeses
59
movement
of
his
arm,
the
weapon
landed
on
the
cases
where
the
crime
committed
befalls
a
different
base
of
the
neck
of
the
victim,
killing
him.
person
(aberratio
ictus).
Issue:
WON
conviction
of
the
appellant
was
proper
Bataclan
v.
Medina,
102
Phil.
181
(1957)
in
view
of
the
circumstances.
Facts:
The
deceased
Juan
Bataclan
was
among
the
passengers
of
Medina
Transportation,
driven
by
Held:
Yes.
The
appellant
did
not
intend
to
cause
so
Conrado
Saylon
and
operated
by
Mariano
Medina.
grave
an
injury
as
the
death
of
the
deceased.
In
his
On
its
way
from
Cavite
to
Pasay,
the
front
tires
testimony
the
appellant
affirmed
that
he
only
burst
and
the
vehicle
fell
into
a
canal.
Some
wanted
to
inflict
a
wound
that
would
leave
a
passengers
were
able
to
escape
by
themselves
or
permanent
scar
on
the
face
of
the
deceased,
or
one
with
some
help,
while
there
were
4,
including
that
would
compel
him
to
remain
in
the
hospital
for
Bataclan,
who
could
not
get
out.
Their
cries
were
a
week
or
two.
There
was
no
intention
to
kill
him,
as
heard
in
the
neighborhood.
Then
there
came
about
that
would
frustrate
his
efforts
to
get
the
deceased
10
men,
one
of
them
carrying
a
torch.
As
they
to
marry
his
daughter
or
at
least
provide
some
approached
the
bus,
it
caught
fire
and
the
support.
passengers
died.
The
fire
was
due
to
gasoline
leak
and
the
torch.
Salud
Villanueva
Vda.
de
Bataclan,
in
In
view
of
the
foregoing,
the
mitigating
her
name
and
on
behalf
of
her
5
minor
children,
circumstances
of
lack
of
intention
to
cause
so
grave
sought
to
claim
damages
from
the
bus
company.
an
injury
as
the
death
of
the
deceased
as
well
as
his
The
CFI
favored
the
plaintiff,
and
the
Court
of
voluntary
surrender
to
the
authorities,
and
acted
Appeals
forwarded
the
case
to
the
Supreme
Court
under
the
influence
of
passion
and
obfuscation
due
to
the
amount
involved.
should
be
taken
into
consideration.
Issue:
WON
Medina
Transportation
was
liable
for
Appellant’s
contention
of
self-‐defense
has
no
merit
the
deaths
and
damages
incurred
by
the
passengers.
as
he
provoked
and
commenced
the
aggression.
Defense
counsel’s
claim
for
application
of
Art.
49
of
Held:
Yes.
The
case
involves
a
breach
of
contract
of
the
RPC2
has
no
merit
for
it
is
only
applicable
in
transportation
for
hire,
the
Medina
Transportation
having
undertaken
to
carry
Bataclan
safely
to
his
destination,
Pasay
City.
We
also
agree
with
the
trial
2
Article
49.
Penalty
to
be
imposed
upon
the
principals
court
that
there
was
negligence
on
the
part
of
the
when
the
crime
committed
is
different
from
that
intended.
defendant,
through
his
agent,
the
driver
Saylon.
-‐
In
cases
in
which
the
felony
committed
is
different
from
There
is
evidence
to
show
that
at
the
time
of
the
that
which
the
offender
intended
to
commit,
the
blow
out,
the
bus
was
speeding,
as
testified
to
by
following
rules
shall
be
observed:
one
of
the
passengers,
and
as
shown
by
the
fact
that
1.
If
the
penalty
prescribed
for
the
felony
committed
be
according
to
the
testimony
of
the
witnesses,
higher
than
that
corresponding
to
the
offense
which
the
including
that
of
the
defense,
from
the
point
where
accused
intended
to
commit,
the
penalty
corresponding
one
of
the
front
tires
burst
up
to
the
canal
where
to
the
latter
shall
be
imposed
in
its
maximum
period.
the
bus
overturned
after
zig-‐zaging,
there
was
a
2.
If
the
penalty
prescribed
for
the
felony
committed
be
distance
of
about
150
meters.
The
chauffeur,
after
lower
than
that
corresponding
to
the
one
which
the
the
blow-‐out,
must
have
applied
the
brakes
in
order
accused
intended
to
commit,
the
penalty
for
the
former
shall
be
imposed
in
its
maximum
period.
to
stop
the
bus,
but
because
of
the
velocity
at
which
the
bus
must
have
been
running,
its
momentum
3.
The
rule
established
by
the
next
preceding
paragraph
carried
it
over
a
distance
of
150
meters
before
it
fell
shall
not
be
applicable
if
the
acts
committed
by
the
guilty
into
the
canal
and
turned
turtle.
person
shall
also
constitute
an
attempt
or
frustration
of
another
crime,
if
the
law
prescribes
a
higher
penalty
for
either
of
the
latter
offenses,
in
which
case
the
penalty
be
imposed
in
its
maximum
period.(Read
also
Arts.
61,
provided
for
the
attempted
or
the
frustrated
crime
shall
62,
and
65)
Rañeses
60
can
also
in
part
be
attributed
to
the
negligence
of
There
is
no
question
that
under
the
circumstances,
the
carrier,
through
is
driver
and
its
conductor.
the
defendant
carrier
is
liable.
The
only
question
is
According
to
the
witness,
the
driver
and
the
to
what
degree.
A
satisfactory
definition
of
conductor
were
on
the
road
walking
back
and
forth.
proximate
cause
is
found
in
Volume
38,
pages
695-‐ They,
or
at
least,
the
driver
should
and
must
have
696
of
American
jurisprudence,
cited
by
plaintiffs-‐ known
that
in
the
position
in
which
the
overturned
appellants
in
their
brief.
It
is
as
follows:
bus
was,
gasoline
could
and
must
have
leaked
from
the
gasoline
tank
and
soaked
the
area
in
and
around
.
.
.
'that
cause,
which,
in
natural
and
continuous
the
bus,
this
aside
from
the
fact
that
gasoline
when
sequence,
unbroken
by
any
efficient
intervening
spilled,
specially
over
a
large
area,
can
be
smelt
and
cause,
produces
the
injury,
and
without
which
the
directed
even
from
a
distance,
and
yet
neither
the
result
would
not
have
occurred.'
And
more
driver
nor
the
conductor
would
appear
to
have
comprehensively,
'the
proximate
legal
cause
is
that
cautioned
or
taken
steps
to
warn
the
rescuers
not
to
acting
first
and
producing
the
injury,
either
bring
the
lighted
torch
too
near
the
bus.
immediately
or
by
setting
other
events
in
motion,
all
constituting
a
natural
and
continuous
chain
of
Impossible
Crimes
events,
each
having
a
close
causal
connection
with
its
Reyes:
immediate
predecessor,
the
final
event
in
the
chain
1. The
commission
of
an
impossible
crime
immediately
effecting
the
injury
as
a
natural
and
is
indicative
of
criminal
propensity
or
probable
result
of
the
cause
which
first
acted,
under
criminal
tendency
on
the
part
of
the
such
circumstances
that
the
person
responsible
for
actor.
Such
person
is
a
potential
criminal.
the
first
event
should,
as
an
ordinary
prudent
and
According
to
positivist
thinking,
the
intelligent
person,
have
reasonable
ground
to
expect
community
must
be
protected
from
anti-‐
at
the
moment
of
his
act
or
default
that
an
injury
to
social
activities,
whether
actual
or
potential,
some
person
might
probably
result
therefrom.
of
the
morbid
type
of
man
called
“socially
dangerous
person.”
In
the
present
case
under
the
circumstances
2. To
be
classified
as
an
impossible
crime,
obtaining
in
the
same,
the
proximate
cause
was
the
certain
requisites
must
be
met.
overturning
of
the
bus,
this
for
the
reason
that
1. That
the
act
performed
would
be
an
when
the
vehicle
turned
not
only
on
its
side
but
offense
against
persons
or
property.
completely
on
its
back,
the
leaking
of
the
gasoline
2. That
the
act
was
done
with
evil
from
the
tank
was
not
unnatural
or
unexpected;
intent.
that
the
coming
of
the
men
with
a
lighted
torch
was
3. That
its
accomplishment
is
in
response
to
the
call
for
help,
made
not
only
by
inherently
impossible,
or
that
the
the
passengers,
but
most
probably,
by
the
driver
means
employed
is
either
and
the
conductor
themselves,
and
that
because
it
inadequate
or
ineffectual.
was
dark
(about
2:30
in
the
morning),
the
rescuers
4. That
the
act
performed
should
not
had
to
carry
a
light
with
them,
and
coming
as
they
constitute
a
violation
of
another
did
from
a
rural
area
where
lanterns
and
flashlights
provision
of
the
RPC.
were
not
available;
and
what
was
more
natural
than
that
said
rescuers
should
innocently
approach
the
vehicle
to
extend
the
aid
and
effect
the
rescue
requested
from
them.
In
other
words,
the
coming
of
the
men
with
a
torch
was
to
be
expected
and
was
a
natural
sequence
of
the
overturning
of
the
bus,
the
trapping
of
some
of
its
passengers
and
the
call
for
outside
help.
What
is
more,
the
burning
of
the
bus
Rañeses
61
RPC,
Art.
4
(2)
d. Infanticide
(Art.
255)
e. Abortion
(Arts.
256,
257,
Criminal
liability.
—
Criminal
liability
shall
be
258
and
259)
incurred:
f. Duel
(Arts.
260
and
261)
2.
By
any
person
performing
an
act
which
would
be
g. Physical
injuries
(Arts.
262,
an
offense
against
persons
or
property,
were
it
not
263,
264,
265
and
266)
for
the
inherent
impossibility
of
its
accomplishment
h. Rape
(Art.
266-‐A)
or
an
account
of
the
employment
of
inadequate
or
ineffectual
means.
Felonies
against
property:
a. Robbery
(Arts.
294,
297,
Art.
59
298,
299,
300,
302
and
303)
Penalty
to
be
imposed
in
case
of
failure
to
commit
the
b. Brigandage
(Arts.
306
and
crime
because
the
means
employed
or
the
aims
307)
sought
are
impossible.
-‐
When
the
person
intending
c. Theft
(Arts.
308,
310
and
to
commit
an
offense
has
already
performed
the
311)
acts
for
the
execution
of
the
same
but
nevertheless
d. Usurpation
(Arts.
312
and
the
crime
was
not
produced
by
reason
of
the
fact
313)
that
the
act
intended
was
by
its
nature
one
of
e. Culpable
insolvency
(Art.
impossible
accomplishment
or
because
the
means
314)
employed
by
such
person
are
essentially
inadequate
to
produce
the
result
desired
by
him,
the
court,
f. Swindling
and
other
deceits
having
in
mind
the
social
danger
and
the
degree
of
(Arts.
315,
316,
317
and
criminality
shown
by
the
offender,
shall
impose
318)
upon
him
the
penalty
of
arresto
mayor
or
a
fine
g. Chattel
mortgage
(Art.
319)
from
200
to
500
pesos.
h. Arson
and
other
crimes
involving
destruction
(Arts.
320,
321,
322,
323,
324,
325
Reyes:
and
326)
1. IMPORTANT
WORDS
AND
PHRASES
IN
i. Malicious
mischief
(Arts.
PAR.
2
OF
ART.
4
327,
328,
329,
330
and
331)
1. “Performing
an
act
which
would
be
an
offense
against
persons
or
If
the
act
performed
would
be
an
property.”
–
In
committing
an
offense
other
than
a
felony
against
impossible
crime,
the
offender
persons
or
against
property,
there
is
intends
to
commit
a
felony
against
no
impossible
crime.
persons
or
a
felony
against
property,
2. “Were
it
not
for
the
inherent
and
the
act
performed
would
have
impossibility
of
its
accomplishment
been
an
offense
against
persons
or
or
on
account
of
the
employment
of
property.
But
a
felong
against
inadequate
or
ineffectual
means.”
–
persons
or
property
should
not
be
In
impossible
crime,
the
act
actually
committed,
for,
otherwise,
performed
by
the
offender
cannot
he
would
be
liable
for
that
felony.
produce
an
offense
against
persons
There
would
be
no
impossible
crime
or
property,
because:
(1)
the
to
speak
of.
commission
of
the
offense
(against
persons
or
against
property)
is
Felonies
against
persons:
inherently
impossible
of
a. Parricide
(Art.
246)
accomplishment;
or
(2)
the
means
b. Murder
(Art.
248)
c. Homicide
(Art.
249)
Rañeses
62
employed
is
either
(a)
inadequate;
the
said
1/8
unit
of
a
Philippine
Charity
or
(b)
ineffectual.
Sweepstakes
ticket
is
genuine
and
that
he
is
entitled
to
the
corresponding
amount
of
P359.55
so
won
by
“Inherent
impossibility
of
its
said
ticket
accomplishment.”
–
This
phrase
means
that
the
act
intended
by
the
Said
accused
failed
to
perform
all
the
acts
of
offender
is
by
its
nature
one
of
execution
which
would
have
produce
the
crime
of
impossible
accomplishment.
(Art.
estafa
through
falsification
of
a
security
as
a
59)
consequence
by
reason
of
some
causes
other
than
this
spontaneous
desistance,
to
wit:
one
Bayani
There
must
be
either
(1)
legal
Miller,
an
employee
to
whom
the
said
accused
impossibility,
or
(2)
physical
presented
said
ticket
in
the
Philippine
Charity
impossibility
of
accomplishing
the
Sweepstakes
Office
discovered
that
the
said
ticket
intended
crime.
as
presented
by
the
said
accused
was
falsified
and
2. In
impossible
crime
the
act
immediately
thereafter
he
called
for
a
policeman
performed
should
not
constitute
a
who
apprehended
and
arrested
the
said
accused
violation
of
another
provision
of
the
right
then
and
there.
Code.
3. The
purpose
of
punishing
impossible
Issue:
WON
said
act
constitutes
an
impossible
crimes
is
to
suppress
criminal
crime
propensity
or
criminal
tendencies.
Objectively,
the
offender
has
not
Held:
No.
It
may
be
that
appellant
was
either
committed
a
felony,
but
subjectively,
he
reckless
or
foolish
in
believing
that
a
falsification
as
is
a
criminal.
patent
as
that
which
he
admitted
to
have
perpetrated
would
succeed;
but
the
recklessness
People
v.
Balmores,
85
Phil.
493
(1950)
and
clumsiness
of
the
falsification
did
not
make
the
Facts:
Appellant,
waiving
the
right
to
be
assisted
by
crime
impossible
within
the
purview
of
paragraph
counsel,
pleaded
guilty
to
the
following
information
2,
article
4,
in
relation
to
article
59,
of
the
Revised
filed
against
him
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
Penal
Code
Manila:
Judging
from
the
appearance
of
the
falsified
ticket
The
accused
did
then
and
there
willfully,
unlawfully
in
question,
we
are
not
prepared
to
say
that
it
and
feloniously
commence
the
commission
of
the
would
have
been
impossible
for
the
appellant
to
crime
of
estafa
through
falsification
of
a
security
consummate
the
crime
of
estafa
thru
falsification
of
directly
by
overt
acts,
to
wit;
by
then
and
there
said
ticket
if
the
clerk
to
whom
it
was
presented
for
tearing
off
at
the
bottom
in
a
cross-‐wise
direction
a
the
payment
had
not
exercised
due
care.
portion
of
a
genuine
1/8
unit
Philippine
Charity
Sweepstakes
ticket
thereby
removing
the
true
and
Intod
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
215
SCRA
52
(1992)
real
unidentified
number
of
same
and
substituting
Facts:
In
the
morning
of
February
4,
1979,
Sulpicio
and
writing
in
ink
at
the
bottom
on
the
left
side
of
Intod,
Jorge
Pangasian,
Santos
Tubio
and
Avelino
said
ticket
the
figure
or
number
074000
thus
Daligdig
went
to
Salvador
Mandaya's
house
in
making
the
said
ticket
bear
the
said
number
Katugasan,
Lopez
Jaena,
Misamis
Occidental
and
074000,
which
is
a
prize-‐winning
number.
asked
him
to
go
with
them
to
the
house
of
Bernardina
Palangpangan.
Thereafter,
Mandaya
and
He
presented
the
falsified
ticket.
exchanging
the
Intod,
Pangasian,
Tubio
and
Daligdig
had
a
meeting
same
for
the
corresponding
cash
that
said
number
with
Aniceto
Dumalagan.
He
told
Mandaya
that
he
has
won,
fraudulently
pretending
in
said
office
that
wanted
Palangpangan
to
be
killed
because
of
a
land
Rañeses
63
dispute
between
them
and
that
Mandaya
should
In
our
jurisdiction,
impossible
crimes
are
recognized.
accompany
the
four
(4)
men,
otherwise,
he
would
The
impossibility
of
accomplishing
the
criminal
also
be
killed.
intent
is
not
merely
a
defense,
but
an
act
penalized
by
itself.
Furthermore,
the
phrase
"inherent
At
about
10:00
o'clock
in
the
evening
of
the
same
impossibility"
that
is
found
in
Article
4(2)
of
the
day,
Petitioner,
Mandaya,
Pangasian,
Tubio
and
Revised
Penal
Code
makes
no
distinction
between
Daligdig,
all
armed
with
firearms,
arrived
at
factual
or
physical
impossibility
and
legal
Palangpangan's
house
in
Katugasan,
Lopez
Jaena,
impossibility
Misamis
Occidental.
At
the
instance
of
his
companions,
Mandaya
pointed
the
location
of
To
uphold
the
contention
of
respondent
that
the
Palangpangan's
bedroom.
Thereafter,
Petitioner,
offense
was
Attempted
Murder
because
the
absence
Pangasian,
Tubio
and
Daligdig
fired
at
said
room.
It
of
Palangpangan
was
a
supervening
cause
turned
out,
however,
that
Palangpangan
was
in
independent
of
the
actor's
will,
will
render
useless
another
City
and
her
home
was
then
occupied
by
the
provision
in
Article
4,
which
makes
a
person
her
son-‐in-‐law
and
his
family.
No
one
was
in
the
criminally
liable
for
an
act
"which
would
be
an
room
when
the
accused
fired
the
shots.
No
one
was
offense
against
persons
or
property,
were
it
not
for
hit
by
the
gun
fire.
the
inherent
impossibility
of
its
accomplishment
.
.
."
In
that
case
all
circumstances
which
prevented
Petitioner
and
his
companions
were
positively
the
consummation
of
the
offense
will
be
treated
as
identified
by
witnesses.
One
witness
testified
that
an
accident
independent
of
the
actor's
will
which
is
before
the
five
men
left
the
premises,
they
shouted:
an
element
of
attempted
and
frustrated
felonies.
"We
will
kill
you
(the
witness)
and
especially
Bernardina
Palangpangan
and
we
will
come
back
if
Stages
of
Commission
(sic)
you
were
not
injured
Definitions
Issue:
WON
said
act
constitutes
an
impossible
crime
RPC,
Art.
6
Held:
Yes.
The
factual
situation
in
the
case
at
bar
Consummated,
frustrated,
and
attempted
felonies.
-‐
present
a
physical
impossibility
which
rendered
the
Consummated
felonies
as
well
as
those
which
are
intended
crime
impossible
of
accomplishment.
And
frustrated
and
attempted,
are
punishable.
under
Article
4,
paragraph
2
of
the
Revised
Penal
A
felony
is
consummated
when
all
the
elements
Code,
such
is
sufficient
to
make
the
act
an
necessary
for
its
execution
and
accomplishment
are
impossible
crime.
present;
and
it
is
frustrated
when
the
offender
performs
all
the
acts
of
execution
which
would
To
be
impossible
under
this
clause,
the
act
intended
produce
the
felony
as
a
consequence
but
which,
by
the
offender
must
be
by
its
nature
one
nevertheless,
do
not
produce
it
by
reason
of
causes
impossible
of
accomplishment.
There
must
be
independent
of
the
will
of
the
perpetrator.
either
impossibility
of
accomplishing
the
intended
There
is
an
attempt
when
the
offender
commences
act
in
order
to
qualify
the
act
an
impossible
crime.
the
commission
of
a
felony
directly
by
overt
acts,
Legal
impossibility
occurs
where
the
intended
acts,
and
does
not
perform
all
the
acts
of
execution
which
even
if
completed,
would
not
amount
to
a
crime.
should
produce
the
felony
by
reason
of
some
cause
Factual
impossibility
occurs
when
extraneous
or
accident
other
than
his
own
spontaneous
circumstances
unknown
to
the
actor
or
beyond
his
desistance.
control
prevent
the
consummation
of
the
intended
crime.
The
case
at
bar
belongs
to
this
category.
Reyes:
Rañeses
64
1. Consummated
-‐
A
felony
is
consummated
a
felony
directly
by
overt
acts.
He
has
not
when
all
the
elements
necessary
for
its
performed
all
the
acts
of
execution
which
execution
and
accomplishment
are
present.
should
produce
the
felony.
2. Frustrated
-‐
It
is
frustrated
when
the
offender
performs
all
the
acts
of
execution
Elements
of
attempted
felony:
which
would
produce
the
felony
as
a
1. The
offender
commences
the
consequence
but
which,
nevertheless,
do
commission
of
the
felony
directly
by
not
produce
it
by
reason
of
causes
overt
acts;
independent
of
the
will
of
the
perpetrator.
2. He
does
not
perform
all
the
acts
of
3. Attempted
-‐
There
is
an
attempt
when
the
execution
which
should
produce
the
offender
commences
the
commission
of
a
felony.
felony
directly
by
overt
acts,
and
does
not
3. The
offender’s
act
is
not
stopped
by
perform
all
the
acts
of
execution
which
his
own
voluntary
desistance;
should
produce
the
felony
by
reason
of
4. The
non-‐performance
of
all
acts
of
some
cause
or
accident
other
than
his
own
execution
was
due
to
cause
or
spontaneous
desistance.
accident
other
than
his
own
4. Development
of
crime.
From
the
moment
spontaneous
desistance.
the
culprit
conceives
the
idea
of
committing
6. IMPORTANT
WORDS
AND
PHRASES
IN
a
crime
up
to
the
realization
of
the
same,
his
ART.
6
(Attempted
felony)
act
passes
through
certain
stages.
o “Commences
the
commission
of
a
1. Internal
acts,
such
as
mere
ideas
in
felony
directly
by
overt
acts.”
A
the
mind
of
a
person,
are
not
felony
is
deemed
to
have
been
punishable
even
if,
had
they
been
commenced
through
overt
acts
carried
out,
would
constitute
a
when
(1)
there
are
external
acts
and
crime.
(2)
such
external
acts
have
direct
connection
with
the
crime
intended
Intention
and
effect
must
concur.
to
be
committed.
Mere
intention
producing
no
effect
§ Overt
act
–
some
physical
is
no
more
a
crime
than
a
mere
activity
or
deed
indicating
effect
without
the
intention
is
a
the
intention
to
commit
a
crime.
particular
crime,
more
than
2. External
acts
cover
(a)
preparatory
a
mere
planning
or
acts;
and
(b)
acts
of
execution.
preparation,
which
if
carried
a. Preparatory
acts
–
ordinarily
not
to
its
complete
termination
punishable.
Hence,
proposal
to
following
its
natural
course,
commit
a
felony,
which
are
without
being
frustrated
by
preparatory
acts,
are
not
external
obstacles
nor
by
the
punishable,
except
when
the
law
voluntary
desistance
of
the
provides
for
their
punishment
in
perpetrator,
will
logically
certain
felonies.
(Art.
8)
and
necessarily
ripen
into
a
b. Acts
of
execution
–
they
are
concrete
offense.
punishable
under
the
RPC.
The
7. Indeterminate
offense
–
it
is
one
where
stages
of
acts
of
execution
–
the
purpose
of
the
offender
in
performing
attempted,
frustrated
and
an
act
is
not
certain.
Its
nature
in
relation
to
consummated
–
are
punishable.
its
object
is
ambiguous.
5. Attempted
felony
–
there
is
an
attempt
8. The
intention
of
the
accused
must
be
when
the
offender
begins
the
commission
of
viewed
from
the
nature
of
the
acts
Rañeses
65
executed
by
him,
and
not
from
his
the
felony
because
of
some
cause
or
admission.
The
intention
of
the
accused
accident.
must
be
ascertained
from
the
facts
and,
4. “Other
than
his
own
spontaneous
therefore,
it
is
necessary
that
the
mind
be
desistance.”
–
If
the
actor
does
not
able
to
directly
infer
from
them
the
perform
all
the
acts
of
execution
by
intention
of
the
perpetrator
to
cause
a
reason
of
his
own
spontaneous
particular
injury.
desistance,
there
is
no
attempted
felony.
The
law
does
not
punish
him.
Acts
susceptible
of
double
interpretation…
must
not
and
cannot
furnish
grounds
by
The
desistance
may
be
through
fear
themselves
for
attempted
crime
(People
v.
or
remorse.
(People
v.
Pambaya,
See
Lamahang,
61
Phil.
707)
60
Phil.
1022)
It
is
not
necessary
that
it
be
actuated
by
a
good
motive.
In
offenses
not
consummated,
as
the
The
Code
requires
only
that
the
material
damage
is
wanting,
the
nature
of
discontinuance
of
the
crime
comes
the
action
intended
cannot
exactly
be
from
the
person
who
has
begun
it,
ascertained,
but
the
same
must
be
inferred
and
that
he
stops
of
his
own
free
from
the
nature
of
the
acts
executed.
(I
will.
(Albert)
Groizard,
p.
99)
The
overt
acts
leading
to
the
9. The
desistance
should
be
made
before
all
commission
of
the
offense
are
not
the
acts
of
execution
are
performed.
punishable
except
when
they
are
aimed
10. The
desistance
which
exempts
from
directly
at
its
execution,
and
therefore
must
criminal
liability
has
reference
to
the
have
an
immediate
and
necessary
relation
to
crime
intended
to
be
committed,
and
has
the
offense.
(I
Viada,
p.
47)
no
reference
to
the
crime
actually
1. “Directly
by
overt
acts.”
–
the
law
committed
by
the
offender
before
his
requires
that
the
“offender
desistance.
commences
the
commission
of
the
11. In
attempted
felony,
the
offender
never
felony
directly
by
overt
acts.”
Only
passes
the
subjective
phase
of
the
offenders
who
personally
execute
offense.
the
commission
of
a
crime
can
be
1. Subjective
phase
-‐
that
portion
of
guilty
of
attempted
felony.
The
word
the
acts
constituting
the
crime,
“directly”
suggests
that
the
offender
starting
from
the
point
where
the
must
commence
the
commission
of
offender
begins
the
commission
of
the
felony
by
taking
direct
part
in
the
crime
in
that
point
where
he
still
the
execution
of
the
act.
has
control
over
his
acts,
including
2. “Does
not
perform
all
acts
of
their
(acts’)
natural
course.
execution.”
–
If
the
offender
has
performed
all
acts
of
execution
– F
between
these
two
points
the
nothing
more
is
left
to
be
done
–
the
offender
is
stopped
by
any
cause
stage
of
execution
is
that
of
a
outside
of
his
own
voluntary
frustrated
felony,
if
the
felony
is
nt
desistance,
the
subjective
phase
has
produced;
or
consummated,
if
the
not
been
passed
and
it
is
an
attempt.
felony
is
produced.
If
he
is
not
so
stopped
but
continues
3. “By
reason
of
some
cause
or
until
he
performs
the
last
act,
it
is
accident.”
–
In
attempted
felony,
the
frustrated,
provided
that
the
crime
is
offender
fails
to
perform
all
the
acts
not
produced.
The
acts
then
of
the
of
execution
which
should
produce
Rañeses
66
offender
reached
the
objective
phase
consummation
of
the
offense
or
may
of
the
crime.
be
due
to
the
perpetrator’s
own
will.
12. Frustrated
Felony
Elements:
If
the
crime
is
not
produced
because
1. The
offender
performs
all
the
acts
of
of
the
timely
intervention
of
a
third
execution;
person,
it
is
frustrated.
2. All
the
acts
performed
would
produce
the
felony
as
a
If
the
crime
is
not
produced
because
consequence;
the
offender
himself
presented
its
3. But
the
felony
is
not
produced;
consummation,
there
is
no
4. By
reason
of
causes
independent
of
frustrated
felony,
for
the
4th
element
the
will
of
the
perpetrator.
is
present.
13. IMPORTANT
WORDS
AND
PHRASES
IN
ART.
6
(Frustrated
Felony)
Note
that
the
4th
element
says
that
1. “Performs
all
the
acts
of
execution.”
the
felony
is
not
produced
“by
–
In
frustrated
felony,
the
offender
reason
of
causes
independent
of
the
must
perform
all
the
acts
of
will
of
the
perpetrator.”
Hence,
if
the
execution.
Nothing
more
is
left
to
be
cause
which
presented
the
done
by
the
offender,
because
he
has
consummation
of
the
offese
was
the
performed
the
last
act
necessary
to
perpetrator’s
own
and
exclusive
produce
the
crime.
This
element
will,
the
4th
element
does
not
exist.
distinguishes
frustrated
felony
from
14. Frustrated
felony
distinguished
from
attempted
felon.
In
attempted
attempted
felony.
felony,
the
offender
does
not
1. In
both,
the
offender
has
not
perform
all
the
acts
of
execution.
He
accomplished
his
criminal
purpose.
does
not
perform
the
last
act
2. While
in
frustrated
felony,
the
necessary
to
produce
the
crime.
He
offender
has
performed
all
the
acts
merely
commences
the
commission
of
execution
which
would
produce
of
a
felony
directly
by
overt
acts.
the
felony
as
a
consequence,
in
2. “Would
produce
the
felony
as
a
attempted
felony,
the
offender
consequence.”
–
All
the
acts
of
merely
commences
the
commission
execution
performed
by
the
offender
of
a
felony
directly
by
overt
acts
and
could
have
produced
the
felony
as
a
does
not
perform
all
the
acts
of
consequence.
execution.
3. “Do
not
produce
it.”
–
In
frustrated
felony,
the
acts
performed
by
the
In
other
words,
in
frustrated
felony,
offender
do
not
produce
the
felony,
the
offender
has
reached
the
because
if
the
felony
is
produced
it
objective
phase;
in
attempted
felony,
would
be
consummated.
the
offender
has
not
passed
the
4. “Independent
of
the
will
of
the
subjective
phase.
perpetrator.”
–
Even
if
all
the
acts
of
15. Attempted
or
frustrated
felony
execution
have
been
performed,
the
distinguished
from
impossible
crime.
crime
may
not
be
consummated,
1. In
attempted
or
frustrated
felony
because
certain
causes
may
prevent
and
impossible
crime,
the
evil
intent
its
consummation.
These
certain
of
the
offender
is
not
accomplished.
causes
may
be
the
intervention
of
2. But
while
in
impossible
crime,
the
third
persons
who
prevented
the
evil
intent
of
the
offender
cannot
be
Rañeses
67
accomplished,
in
attempted
or
1. Formal
crimes
–
consummated
in
one
frustrated
felony
the
evil
intent
of
instant,
no
attempt.
(i.e.
slander,
the
offender
is
possible
false
testimony)
accomplishment.
2. Crimes
consummated
by
mere
3. In
impossible
crime,
the
evil
intent
attempt
or
proposal
or
by
overt
act.
of
the
offender
cannot
be
(i.e.
flight
to
enemy’s
country
accomplished
because
it
is
[Art.121])
inherently
impossible
of
3. Felony
by
omission.
–
there
can
be
no
accomplishment
or
because
the
attempted
stage
when
the
felony
is
means
employed
by
the
offender
is
by
omission,
because
in
this
kind
of
inadequate
or
ineffectual;
in
felony
the
offender
does
not
execute
attempted
or
frustrated
felony,
what
acts.
He
omits
to
perform
an
act
prevented
its
accomplishment
is
the
which
the
law
requires
him
to
do.
intervention
of
certain
cause
or
4. Crimes
requiring
the
intervention
of
accident
in
which
the
offender
had
two
persons
to
commit
them
are
no
part.
consummated
by
mere
agreement.
16. Consummated
felony
–
a
felony
is
(i.e.
betting
in
sport
contests)
consummated
when
all
the
elements
5. Material
crimes
–
There
are
three
necessary
for
its
execution
are
present.
stages
of
execution
–
attempted,
17. IMPORTANT
WORDS
AND
PHRASES
IN
frustrated,
consummated,
(i.e.
rape,
ART.
6
(Consummated
felony)
homicide).
o “All
the
elements:
necessary
for
its
20. There
is
no
attempted
or
frustrated
execution
and
accomplishment
“are
impossible
crime.
present.”
RPC,
Art.
7
In
consummated
felony,
all
the
elements
necessary
for
its
execution
When
light
felonies
are
punishable.
-‐
Light
felonies
and
accomplishment
must
be
are
punishable
only
when
they
have
been
consummated,
with
the
exception
of
those
committed
present.
Every
crime
has
its
own
against
person
or
property.
elements
which
must
all
be
present
to
constitute
a
culpable
violation
of
a
precept
of
law.
Reyes:
18. When
not
all
the
elements
of
a
felony
are
1. Light
felonies
are
those
infractions
of
law
proved-‐
when
a
felony
has
two
or
more
for
the
commission
of
which
the
penalty
elements
and
one
of
them
is
not
proved
by
of
arresto
menor
or
a
fine
not
exceeding
the
prosecution
during
the
trial,
either
(1)
200
pesos,
or
both,
is
provided.
(Art.
9,
the
felony
is
not
shown
to
have
been
par.
3)
consummated,
or
(2)
the
felony
is
not
2. Light
felonies
punished
by
the
RPC:
shown
to
have
been
committed,
or
(3)
1. Slight
physical
injuries.
(Art.
266)
another
felony
is
shown
to
have
been
2. Theft.
(Art.
309,
pars.
7
and
8)
committed.
3. Alteration
of
boundary
arks.
(Art.
313)
Hence,
all
the
elements
of
the
felony
for
4. Malicious
mischief.
(Art.
328,
par.
3;
which
the
accused
is
prosecuted
must
be
Art.
329,
par.
3)
present
in
order
to
hold
him
liable
therefor
5. Intriguing
against
honor.
(Art.
364)
in
its
consummated
stage.
3. IMPORTANT
WORDS
AND
PHRASES
19. Manner
of
committing
the
crime.
Rañeses
68
1. “With
the
exception
of
those
A
felony
is
frustrated
when
the
offender
performs
committed
against
persons
or
all
the
acts
of
execution
which
should
produce
the
property.”
felony
as
a
consequence,
but
which,
nevertheless,
do
not
produce
it
by
reason
of
causes
independent
General
rule:
Light
felonies
are
of
the
will
of
the
perpetrator.
To
put
it
in
another
punishable
only
when
they
have
way,
in
case
of
an
attempt
the
offender
never
passes
been
consummated,
UNLESS
they
the
subjective
phase
of
the
offense.
are
committed
against
persons
or
property.
If
that’s
the
case,
they
are
On
the
other
hand,
attempted
murder
is
defined
as
punishable,
even
if
they
are
when
the
offender
commences
the
commission
of
the
attempted
or
frustrated
only.
felony
directly
by
overt
acts,
and
does
not
perform
all
the
acts
of
execution
which
constitute
the
felony
by
U.S.
v.
Eduave.
36
Phil.
209
(1917)
reason
of
some
cause
or
accident
other
than
his
own
Facts:
The
accused
rushed
upon
the
girl
suddenly
voluntarily
desistance.
Hence
the
subjective
phase
is
and
struck
her
from
behind,
in
part
at
least,
with
a
completely
passed.
Subjectively
the
crime
is
sharp
bolo,
producing
a
frightful
gash
in
the
lumbar
complete.
region
and
slightly
to
the
side
eight
and
one-‐half
inches
long
and
two
inches
deep,
severing
all
of
the
The
subjective
phase
is
that
portion
of
the
acts
muscles
and
tissues
of
that
part.
Fortunately
the
girl
constituting
the
crime
included
between
the
act
was
able
to
survive
which
begins
the
commission
of
the
crime
and
the
last
act
performed
by
the
offender
which,
with
the
The
motive
of
the
crime
was
that
the
accused
was
prior
acts,
should
result
in
the
consummated
crime.
incensed
at
the
girl
for
the
reason
that
she
had
From
that
time
forward
the
phase
is
objective.
It
theretofore
charged
him
criminally
before
the
local
may
also
be
said
to
be
that
period
occupied
by
the
officials
with
having
raped
her
and
with
being
the
acts
of
the
offender
over
which
he
has
control
that
cause
of
her
pregnancy.
He
was
her
mother's
period
between
the
point
where
he
begins
and
the
querido
and
was
living
with
her
as
such
at
the
time
points
where
he
voluntarily
desists.
If
between
the
crime
here
charged
was
committed
these
two
points
the
offender
is
stopped
by
reason
of
any
cause
outside
of
his
own
voluntary
The
accused
is
charged
with
frustrated
murder.
We
desistance,
the
subjective
phase
has
not
been
are
satisfied
that
there
was
an
intent
to
kill
in
this
passed
and
it
is
an
attempt.
If
he
is
not
so
stopped
case.
A
deadly
weapon
was
used.
The
blow
was
but
continues
until
he
performs
the
last
act,
it
is
directed
toward
a
vital
part
of
the
body.
The
frustrated.
aggressor
stated
his
purpose
to
kill,
thought
he
had
killed,
and
threw
the
body
into
the
bushes.
When
he
People
v.
Enriquez,
281
SCRA
103
(1997)
gave
himself
up
he
declared
that
he
had
killed
the
Facts:
Accused
Enriquez
and
Rosales
were
complainant.
supposed
to
sell
6
kg
of
marijuana
in
violation
of
the
Dangerous
Drugs
Act
of
1972,
but
were
caught
red-‐
Issue:
WON
the
accused
is
to
be
charged
with
handed
in
a
buy-‐bust
operation:
Rosales
had
just
frustrated
murder.
delivered
the
drug,
while
Enriquez
peddled
sale
to
agents.
Sale
and
delivery
of
marijuana
is
punishable
Held:
Yes.
The
crime
cannot
be
attempted
murder.
under
the
aforementioned
statute.
This
is
clear
from
the
fact
that
the
defendant
performed
all
of
the
acts
which
should
have
Issue:
WON
‘attempted
delivery’
of
the
prohibited
resulted
in
the
consummated
crime
and
voluntarily
drug
is
applicable
in
the
case
at
bar.
desisted
from
further
acts.
Rañeses
69
Held:
No.
Offense
penalized
by
a
special
law
and
(Cont.)
not
the
RPC,
hence
no
such
thing
as
attempted
delivery.
Incomplete
delivery,
granting
it
is
true,
is
Whenever
the
crime
of
rape
is
committed
with
the
inconsequential.
Mere
act
of
conveying
drugs
use
of
a
deadly
weapon
or
by
two
or
more
persons,
the
penalty
shall
be
reclusion
perpetua
to
death.
punishable,
immaterial
whether
or
not
place
of
destination
is
reached.
When
the
victim
has
become
insane,
the
penalty
shall
be
death.
Doctrine:
If
the
act
is
punishable
under
a
special
law,
the
stages
of
execution
cannot
be
applied.
When
rape
is
attempted
or
frustrated
and
a
homicide
is
committed
by
reason
or
on
the
occasion
thereof,
the
penalty
shall
be
likewise
death.
People
v
Listerio,
335
SCRA
40
(2000)
Facts:
Araque
brothers
went
to
Muntinlupa
to
collect
money
from
a
certain
Tino.
Being
unable
to
People
v.
Erinia,
50
Phil.
998
(1927)
collect,
they
started
on
their
way
home.
However,
Facts:
The
accused
endeavored
to
have
carnal
before
they
could
do
so,
Listerio
et
al,
accosted
and
knowledge
with
victim
(3
years
old
+
11months).
attacked
them
with
bladed
weapons
and
lead
pipes,
The
attempt
foiled
from
further
violating
the
child
killing
Jeonito
Araque
and
wounding
his
brother
by
the
appearance
of
victim’s
parents
and
sister.
Marlon
Araque.
Physician
found
inflammation
of
the
exterior
parts
of
the
organ,
but
no
signs
of
penetration.
Mother
Issue:
WON
the
conviction
of
attempted
homicide
saw
that
genitals
was
covered
with
sticky
at
least
in
terms
of
Marlon
Araque
was
correct.
substance,
however,
no
proof
was
shown
to
corroborate
such
an
allegation.
Held:
No.
It
should
have
been
frustrated
homicide.
Accused
only
left
when
victims
became
Issue:
WON
this
was
considered
consummated
unconscious.
Gravity
of
wunds
should
not
be
the
rape.
determinative
factor
but
whether
or
not
the
subjective
phase
in
the
commission
of
a
crime
has
Held:
No,
this
was
merely
frustrated
rape.
It
was
been
passed.
suggested
penetration
was
impossible
due
to
the
age
of
the
child,
but
for
rape
to
be
consummated
*Refer
to
item
11,
sub-‐item
1
on
page
65
for
the
only
partial
penetration
was
required,
up
to
the
definition
of
the
subjective
phase.
labia.
However,
as
no
such
proof
of
penetration
was
evident,
benefit
of
the
doubt
was
accorded
to
the
Specific
Felonies
accused,
hence
only
frustrated
rape
Rape
RPC,
Art.
335
*Later
rape
cases
have
dismissed
Erinia
as
a
stray
decision,
and
is
therefore
not
controlling.
When
and
how
rape
is
committed.
—
Rape
is
committed
by
having
carnal
knowledge
of
a
woman
People
v.
Hernandez,
49
Phil.
980
(1925)
under
any
of
the
following
circumstances:
Facts:
Domingo
Hernandez,
70
yrs
old
charged
of
1. by
using
force
or
intimidation;
raping
his
9
yr
old
step
granddaughter,
Conrada
2. When
the
woman
is
deprived
of
reason
or
Jocson
with
threat
to
kill
if
she/doesn’t
give
in
to
his
otherwise
unconscious;
and
wish.
Aggravating:
(1)
related,
(2)
grave
abuse
of
3. When
the
woman
is
under
twelve
years
of
confidence
since
they
lived
in
same
house.
age
The
crime
of
rape
shall
be
punished
by
reclusion
Issue:
WON
act
is
consummated
rape
perpetua.
Held:
Yes,
plus
there
is
an
aggravating
circumstance.
Rañeses
70
1. People
v.
Rivers:
rupture
of
hymen
not
enter
and
with
difficulty;
vaginal
cavity
tight,
no
necessary
as
long
as
there
is
proof
that
discharges
noted
there’s
some
degree
of
entrance
of
male
organ
within
labia
of
the
victim.
Issue:
WON
rape
is
consummated
2. Physical
exam
findings:
hymen
intact,
labia
and
vaginal
opening
inflamed,
abundance
of
Held:
Rape
was
consummated.
Perfect
penetration
semen,
she
felt
intense
pain.
is
not
essential.
For
the
consummation
of
rape,
any
penetration
of
the
female
organ
by
the
male
organ
People
v.
Orita,
184
SCRA
105
(1990)
is
sufficient
to
qualify
as
having
carnal
knowledge.
Facts:
At
around
1:30
am,
after
attending
a
party,
In
the
crime
of
rape,
from
the
moment
the
offender
Abayan
came
home
to
her
boarding
house.
As
she
has
carnal
knowledge
of
the
victim,
he
actually
knocked
at
the
door,
Orita
suddenly
held
her
and
attains
his
purpose
and
from
that
moment,
the
poked
a
knife
at
her
neck.
She
pleaded
for
him
to
let
essential
elements
of
the
offense
have
been
her
go
but
instead
of
doing
so,
Orita
dragged
her
accomplished.
upstairs
with
him
while
he
had
his
left
arm
wrapped
around
her
neck
and
his
right
hand
*According
to
Orita,
there
is
no
more
frustrated
holding
and
poking
the
balisong
at
the
victim.
At
the
rape.
second
floor,
he
commanded
Christina
to
look
for
a
room.
Upon
finding
a
room,
Orita
held
her
against
People
v.
Campuhan,
329
SCRA
270
(2000)
the
wall
while
he
undressed
himself.
He
then
Facts:
Primo
Campuhan
was
accused
of
raping
four
ordered
her
to
undress.
As
she
took
off
her
shirt,
he
year
old
Crysthel
Pamintuan.
Campuhan
was
caught
pulled
off
her
bra,
pants
and
panty,
and
ordered
her
by
child’s
mother
on
April
25,
1996
at
around
4pm
to
lie
on
the
floor.
He
then
mounted
her
and,
in
their
house.
Campuhan,
helper
of
Corazon’s
pointing
the
balisong
at
her
neck,
ordered
he
to
brother
was
allegedly
kneeling
in
front
of
the
child
hold
his
penis
and
insert
it
in
her
vagina.
In
this
with
both
their
pants
downa
dn
child
was
crying
position,
only
a
portion
of
his
penis
entered
her,
so
“ayoko,
ayoko”
while
Primo
forced
his
penis
into
he
ordered
Abayan
to
go
on
top
of
him.
With
him
child’s
vagina
lying
on
his
back
and
Abayan
mounting
him,
still,
he
did
not
achieve
full
penetration
and
only
part
of
his
Issue:
WON
crime
is
consummated
rape
penis
was
inserted
in
the
vagina.
At
this
instance,
Abayan
got
the
opportunity
to
escape
Orita
because
Held:
No.
Modified
to
attempted
rape
he
had
both
his
hands
and
the
knife
on
the
floor.
1. Consummated
rape:
perfect
penetration
not
essential.
Slight
penetration
is
equivalent
to
Abayan,
still
naked,
was
chased
from
room
to
room
rape.
Mere
touching
of
external
genitalia
with
Orita
climbing
over
the
partitions.
Abayan,
considered
when
its
an
essential
part
of
frantic
and
scared,
jumped
out
of
a
window
and
penetration
not
just
touching
in
ordinary
darted
for
the
municipal
building
and
was
finally
sense
(People
v.
Orita).
Labia
majora
must
found
by
Pat.
Donceras
and
other
policemen.
Due
to
be
entered
for
rape
to
be
consummated
darkness
though,
the
failed
to
apprehend
Orita.
(People
v.
Escober)
2. Attempted
–
no
penetration
or
didn’t
reach
In
the
medico
legal,
Dr.
Ma.
Luisa
Abude
had
the
labia/mere
grazing
of
surface
following
findings:
circumscribed
hematoma
at
Ant.
3. Failed
to
prove
that
penetration
occurred.
neck,
linear
abrasions
below
left
breas,
multiple
Mother’s
testimony
questionable
with
pinpoint
marks
at
the
back,
abrasions
on
both
regards
to
her
position
relative
to
Primo
kness,
erythemetous
areas
noted
surrounding
and
child.
They
failed
to
establish
how
she
vaginal
orifice,
tender;
hymen
intact;
no
laceration
could
have
seen
actual
contact
in
her
fresh
and
old
noted;
examining
finger
can
barely
position
Rañeses
71
4. Man’s
instinct
is
to
run
when
caught.
Primo
Held:
Yes.
Aggravating
Circumstance,
public
could
not
have
stayed
or
to
satisfy
his
lust
possession
even
if
..
seeing
Corazon
1. He
performed
all
acts
of
execution
as
5. Child
denied
penetration
occurred
required
by
RPC
Art.
3.
He
didn’t
need
to
6. People
v.
Villamor:
consummation
even
take
it
out
of
the
building
when
penetration
doubted:
pain’s
felt,
2. Spanish
Supreme
Court:
taking
first
caught
discoloration
of
inner
lips
of
vagina
or
red
by
police
still
consummated
no
proof
of
labia
minora
or
hymenal
tags
not
visible.
contrary;
pickpocket
got
money
but
Now
seen
in
case,
Medico
legal
officer,
returned
it
later
on,
still
consummated;
took
though
penetration
not
needed
to
prove
money
even
if
its
on
top
of
safe,
still
contact,
no
medical
basis
to
hold
that
there
consummated.
was
sexual
contact.
Hymen
intact.
Interesting
metaphors:
“shelling
of
the
castle
of
People
v.
Dino,
45
O.G.,
3445
orgasmic
potency,”
“strafing
the
citadel
of
passion,”
Facts:
Accused
Dino
found
guilty
as
accomplice
in
“bombardment
of
the
drawbridge.”
the
crime
of
qualified
theft
and
sentenced
to
penalty
from
3
months
11
days
of
arresto
mayor,
to
1
year
8
Theft
months
21
days
of
prision
correccional.
Appellant
RPC,
Art.
308.
was
driver
of
US
Army,
and
after
dropping
off
articles
in
the
port
in
South
Harbor
in
Manila,
he
Who
are
liable
for
theft.
—
Theft
is
committed
by
was
found
with
3
boxes
of
10
caliber
.30
army
rifles
any
person
who,
with
intent
to
gain
but
without
(carbines).
violence
against
or
intimidation
of
persons
nor
force
upon
things,
shall
take
personal
property
of
Issue:
another
without
the
latter's
consent.
1. WON
crime
is
consummated
theft.
Theft
is
likewise
committed
by:
2. WON
conviction
as
accomplice
was
proper.
1. Any
person
who,
having
found
lost
Held:
property,
shall
fail
to
deliver
the
same
to
1. No.
The
court
held
in
this
case
the
crime
of
the
local
authorities
or
to
its
owner;
theft
cannot
be
said
to
be
consummated,
2. Any
person
who,
after
having
maliciously
since
the
fact
determinative
of
damaged
the
property
of
another,
shall
remove
or
make
use
of
the
fruits
or
object
consummation
is
the
ability
of
the
thief
to
of
the
damage
caused
by
him;
and
dispose
freely
of
the
articles
stolen,
even
if
it
3. Any
person
who
shall
enter
an
inclosed
were
more
or
less
momentary,
and
in
the
estate
or
a
field
where
trespass
is
forbidden
case
at
bar,
this
fact
can
only
be
seen
to
have
or
which
belongs
to
another
and
without
occurred
if
the
carbines
passed
the
MP
the
consent
of
its
owner,
shall
hunt
or
fish
checkpoint.
Therefore,
the
appellant
should
upon
the
same
or
shall
gather
cereals,
or
be
convicted
of
frustrated
theft.
other
forest
or
farm
products.
2. No.
Since
the
passing
of
the
truck
through
the
MP
checkpoint
was
an
essential
part
to
the
consummation
of
the
crime,
the
U.S.
v.
Adiao,
38
Phil.
752
(1918)
appellant
should
be
considered
a
principal
Facts:
Tomas
Adiao,
customs
inspector,
got
a
instead
of
an
accomplice,
since
he
directly
leather
bag
costing
P0.80
from
baggage
of
T.
participated
in
the
commission
of
the
crime.
Murakami
and
kept
it
in
his
desk
where
it
was
found
by
other
employees
Aristotel
Valenzuela
v.
People,
G.R.
No.
160188,
Issue:
WON
act
is
consummated
theft.
21
June
2007
Rañeses
72
Facts:
Aristotel
Valenzuela
and
Jovy
Calderon
tried
dispose
freely
of
the
articles
stolen.
Unlawful
taking
to
steal
boxes
of
Tide
from
SM
Super
Sale
Club
in
is
deemed
complete
from
the
moment
the
offender
North
Edsa.
Security
guard
Lorenzo
Lago
witnessed
gains
possession
of
the
thing,
even
if
he
has
no
this
and
stopped
the
taxi
that
the
2
were
riding
in
opportunity
to
dispose
of
the
same.
Theft
cannot
trying
to
escape
with
the
goods.
The
accused
ran
have
a
frustrated
stage,
since
unlawful
taking
and
Lago
fired
a
warning
shot
to
alert
the
other
produces
the
felony
in
its
consummated
stage.
guards,
causing
the
apprehension
of
the
accused.
RTC
of
QC
convicted
both
of
the
crime
of
Robbery
consummated
theft.
RPC,
Art.
293.
Petitioners
appealed,
but
only
Valenzuela
was
Who
are
guilty
of
robbery.
—
Any
person
who,
with
considered
to
have
filed
the
appeal
since
Calderon
intent
to
gain,
shall
take
any
personal
property
was
considered
to
have
abandoned
the
appeal.
belonging
to
another,
by
means
of
violence
or
intimidation
of
any
person,
or
using
force
upon
anything
shall
be
guilty
of
robbery.
Issue:
WON
crime
is
consummated
theft.
Held:
Yes.
The
Court
said
that
the
Dino
ruling
has
People
v.
Lamahang,
61
Phil.
703
(1935)
not
been
held
as
precedent
by
the
court.
It
also
Facts:
Aurelio
Lamahang
was
caught
opening
with
discussed
that
a
felony
has
a
“subjective
phase”
or
an
iron
bar
a
wall
of
a
store
of
cheap
goods
in
that
portion
of
the
acts
constituting
the
crime
Fuentes
St.
Iloilo.
He
broke
one
board
and
was
included
between
the
act
which
begins
the
unfastening
another
when
a
patrolling
police
caught
commission
of
the
crime
and
ends
with
the
last
act
him.
Owners
of
the
store
were
sleeping
inside
store
performed
by
the
offender,
which
would
produce
as
it
was
early
dawn.
Convicted
of
attempt
of
the
felony.
robbery
• Elements
of
Theft:
1. That
there
be
taking
of
personal
Issue:
WON
crime
is
attempted
robbery?
property
2. That
the
said
property
belongs
to
Held:
No.
Attempted
trespass
to
dwelling.
Attempt
another
should
have
logical
relation
to
a
particular
and
3. That
the
taking
be
done
with
intent
to
concrete
offense
which
would
lead
directly
to
gain
consummation.
Necessary
to
establish
unavoidable
4. That
the
taking
be
done
without
the
connection
&
logical
&
natural
relation
of
cause
and
consent
of
the
owner
effect.
Important
to
show
clear
intent
to
commit
5. That
the
taking
be
accomplished
crime.
In
case
at
bar,
we
can
only
infer
that
his
without
the
use
of
violence
against
or
intent
was
to
enter
by
force,
other
inferences
are
intimidation
of
persons
or
force
upon
not
justified
by
facts.
Groizard:
infer
only
from
things
nature
of
acts
executed.
Acts
susceptible
of
double
• For
the
theft
to
have
been
frustrated,
certain
interpretation
can’t
furnish
ground
for
themselves.
factors
are
to
be
considered:
Mind
should
not
directly
infer
intent.
Spain
SC:
1. That
the
felony
is
not
produced
necessary
that
objectives
established
or
acts
2. That
such
failure
is
due
to
causes
themselves
obviously
disclose
criminal
objective.
independent
of
the
will
of
the
perpetrator
People
v.
Salvilla,
184
SCRA
671
(1990)
It
is
Congress,
and
not
the
courts,
which
is
to
define
Facts:
April
12,
1986,
at
about
noon
time
–
and
punish
crime,
and
it
has
defined
theft
as
to
Petitioner,
together
with
Reynaldo,
Ronaldo
and
having
the
5
elements
mentioned
above—the
Simplicio
(all
surnamed
Canasares),
staged
a
elements
not
including
“ability
of
the
thief
to
robbery
at
the
New
Iloilo
Lumber
Yard.
They
were
Rañeses
73
armed
with
homemade
guns
and
a
hand
grenade.
Issues:
On
their
way
inside
the
establishment,
they
met
1. WON
the
crime
of
robbery
was
Rodita
Habiero,
an
employee
there
who
was
on
her
consummated
way
out
for
her
meal
break,
and
informed
her
that
it
2. WON
there
was
a
mitigating
circumstance
of
was
a
hold-‐up.
They
went
inside
the
office
and
the
voluntary
surrender
petitioner
pointed
his
gun
at
Severino
Choco,
the
owner,
and
his
two
daughters,
Mary
and
Mimmie.
Held:
They
informed
Severino
that
all
they
needed
was
1. Yes.
The
robbery
shall
be
deemed
money.
Severino
asked
Mary
to
get
a
paper
bag
consummated
if
the
unlawful
“taking”
is
wherein
he
placed
P20,000
cash
(P5000
acc
to
the
complete.
defense)
and
handed
it
to
the
petitioner.
Simplicio
Canasares
took
the
wallet
and
wristwatch
of
Unlawful
taking
of
personal
property
of
Severino
after
which
the
latter,
his
2
daughters
and
another
is
an
essential
part
of
the
crime
of
Rodita
were
kept
inside
the
office.
According
to
the
robbery.
The
respondent
claimed
that
none
appellant,
he
stopped
Severino
from
getting
the
of
the
items
(money,
watches
and
wallet)
wallet
and
watches.
At
about
2:00
of
the
same
day,
were
recovered
from
them.
However,
based
the
appellant
told
Severino
to
produce
P100,000
so
on
the
evidence,
the
money
demanded,
the
he
and
the
other
hostages
can
be
released.
Severino
wallet
and
the
wristwatch
were
within
the
told
him
it
would
be
hard
to
do
that
since
banks
are
dominion
and
control
of
the
appellant
and
closed
because
it
was
a
Saturday.
The
police
and
his
co-‐accused
and
thus
the
taking
was
military
authorities
had
surrounded
the
lumber
completed.
yard.
Major
Melquiades
Sequio,
Station
Commander
of
the
INP
of
Iloilo
City,
negotiated
with
the
accused
it
is
not
necessary
that
the
property
be
and
appealed
to
them
to
surrender.
The
accused
taken
into
the
hands
of
the
robber
or
that
he
refused
to
surrender
and
release
the
hostages.
Rosa
should
have
actually
carried
the
property
Caram,
OIC
Mayor
of
Iloilo
City,
joined
the
away,
out
of
the
physical
presence
of
the
negotiations.
Appellant
demanded
P100,000,
a
lawful
possessor,
or
that
he
should
have
coaster,
and
some
raincoats.
Caram
offered
made
his
escape
with
it.
P50,000
instead.
Later,
the
accused
agreed
to
receive
the
same
and
to
release
Rodita
to
be
2. No.
The
“surrender”
of
the
appellant
and
accompanied
by
Mary
in
going
out
of
the
office.
One
his
co-‐accused
cannot
be
considered
in
their
of
the
accused
gave
a
key
to
Mayor
Caram
and
with
favor
to
mitigate
their
liability.
the
key,
Mayor
Caram
unlocked
the
door
and
handed
to
Rodita
P50,000,
which
Rodita
gave
to
one
To
be
mitigating,
surrender
must
have
the
of
the
accused.
Rodita
was
later
set
free
but
Mary
following
requisites:
(1)
that
the
offender
was
herded
back
to
the
office.
The
police
and
had
not
been
actually
arrested,
(2)
that
the
military
authorities
decided
to
assault
the
place
offender
surrendered
himself
to
a
person
in
when
the
accused
still
wouldn’t
budge
after
more
authority
or
to
his
agent,
and
that
the
ultimatums.
This
resulted
to
injuries
to
the
girls,
as
surrender
was
voluntary.
The
“surrender”
well
as
to
the
accused
Ronaldo
and
Reynaldo
by
the
appellant
and
his
co-‐accused
hardly
Canasares.
Mary’s
right
leg
had
to
be
amputated
meets
these
requirements.
There
is
no
due
to
her
injuries.
The
appellant
maintained
that
voluntary
surrender
to
speak
of.
the
money,
wallet
and
watches
were
all
left
on
the
counter
and
were
never
touched
by
them.
He
also
claimed
that
they
never
fired
on
the
military
because
they
intended
to
surrender.
Rañeses
74
Murder saw
Borinaga
from
the
window
strike
with
a
knife
RPC,
Art.
248
at
Mooney,
but
fortunately,
knife
lodged
in
the
back
of
the
chair
on
which
Mooney
was
seated.
Mooney
Murder.
—
Any
person
who,
not
falling
within
the
fell
from
the
chair
uninjured
while
Borinaga
fled
to
provisions
of
Article
246
shall
kill
another,
shall
be
the
market
place.
Borinaga
was
persistent
and
after
guilty
of
murder
and
shall
be
punished
by
reclusion
nearly
ten
minutes,
returned
with
knife
in
hand
to
temporal
in
its
maximum
period
to
death,
if
renew
attack
but
was
unable
to
do
so
because
committed
with
any
of
the
following
attendant
Perpetua
turned
a
flashlight
on
Borinaga,
circumstances:
frightening
him.
1. With
treachery,
taking
advantage
of
superior
strength,
with
the
aid
of
armed
Above
instances
gave
rise
to
CFI
of
Leyte
convicting
men,
or
employing
means
to
weaken
the
Borinaga
and
sentencing
him
to
14
years,
8
months
defense
or
of
means
or
persons
to
insure
or
and
a
day
of
reclusion
temporal,
with
accessory
afford
impunity.
penalty
and
costs.
Court
held
that
1)
homicidal
2.
In
consideration
of
a
price,
reward,
or
intent
of
the
accused
was
plainly
evidenced;
2)
promise.
murder
was
in
the
heart
and
mind
of
the
accused;
3. By
means
of
inundation,
fire,
poison,
explosion,
shipwreck,
stranding
of
a
vessel,
3)
aggressor
stated
his
purpose
and
even
derailment
or
assault
upon
a
street
car
or
apologized
to
his
friends
for
not
accomplishing
that
locomotive,
fall
of
an
airship,
by
means
of
purpose;
4)
blow
was
directed
towards
vital
organs;
motor
vehicles,
or
with
the
use
of
any
other
and
5)
means
used
were
suitable
for
means
involving
great
waste
and
ruin.
accomplishment
therefore,
crime
qualifies
as
4. On
occasion
of
any
of
the
calamities
murder.
enumerated
in
the
preceding
paragraph,
or
of
an
earthquake,
eruption
of
a
volcano,
Issue:
WON
the
crime
committed
is
attempted
destructive
cyclone,
epidemic
or
other
murder.
public
calamity.
5. With
evident
premeditation.
6. With
cruelty,
by
deliberately
and
Held:
No.
The
crime
committed
is
frustrated
inhumanly
augmenting
the
suffering
of
the
murder.
The
essential
condition
of
a
frustrated
victim,
or
outraging
or
scoffing
at
his
crime,
that
the
author
performs
all
the
acts
of
person
or
corpse.
execution,
attended
the
attack.
Nothing
remained
to
be
done
to
accomplish
the
work
of
the
assailant
completely.
The
cause
resulting
in
the
failure
of
the
People
v.
Borinaga.
55
Phil.
433
(1930)
attack
arose
by
reason
of
forces
independent
of
the
Facts:
On
March
4,
1929,
an
American
named
Harry
will
of
the
perpetrator.
No
superfine
distinctions
H.
Mooney,
contracted
with
Juan
Lawaan
for
the
need
be
drawn
in
favor
of
the
accused
to
establish
a
construction
of
a
fish
corral.
Basilio
Borinaga
was
lesser
crime
than
that
of
frustrated
murder,
for
the
associated
with
Lawaan.
On
the
morning
of
same
facts
disclose
a
wanton
disregard
of
the
sanctity
of
date,
Lawaan
and
his
men
went
to
Mooney’s
shop
human
life
fully
meriting
the
penalty
imposed
in
the
and
tried
to
collect
the
whole
amount
fixed
by
the
trial
court.
contract
notwithstanding
that
only
2/3
of
the
fish
corral
was
finished.
Mooney
refused
to
pay
and
People
v.
Sy
Pio,
94
Phil.
885
(1954)
Lawaan
threatened
him
that
if
he
did
not
pay,
Facts:
Sy
Pio
shot
three
people
early
in
the
morning
something
would
happen
to
him.
of
September
3,
1949.
Tan
Siong
Kiap,
Ong
Pian
and
Jose
Sy.
Sy
Pio
entered
the
store
at
511
Misericordia
On
the
evening
of
the
same
day,
Mooney
was
in
the
Sta
Cruz
Manila
and
started
firing
with
a
.45
caliber
store
of
a
neighbor
Perpetua
Najarro
and
was
pistol.
First
to
be
shot
was
Jose
Sy.
Upon
seeing
Sy
seated
with
his
back
being
to
the
window.
Perpetua
Pio
fire
at
Jose
Sy,
Tan
asked
“what
is
the
idea?”
Rañeses
75
thereupon,
Sy
Pio
turned
around
and
fired
at
him
as
Trinidad.
It
is
attempted
and
not
frustrated
murder
well.
Tan
was
shot
at
his
right
shoulder
and
it
because
he
failed
to
execute
all
acts
due
to
moving
passed
through
his
back.
He
ran
to
a
room
behind
vehicle
and
this
shielded
Tan’s
body
and
his
wound
the
store
to
hide.
He
was
still
able
to
hear
gunshots
was
not
fatal
thus
not
sufficient
to
cause
death
from
Sy
Pio’s
pistol,
but
afterwards,
Sy
Pio
ran
(People
v.
Pilones)
away.
People
v.
Ravelo,
202
SCRA
655
(1991)
Issue:
WON
accused
is
guilty
of
frustrated
murder.
Facts:
The
accused-‐appellants
are
members
of
the
Civilian
Home
Defense
Force
(CHDF)
stationed
at
a
Held:
No.
Accused
is
guilty
of
attempted
murder.
checkpoint
near
the
airport
of
Tandag.
At
1. Sy
Pio
had
to
turn
around
to
shoot
Tan
approximately
6:30
PM
of
May
21,
1984,
accused-‐
Siong
Kiap.
appellants
allegedly
kidnapped
by
means
of
force
2. There
is
sufficient
proof.
(Uncontradicted
one
Reynaldo
Gaurano.
They
then
detained
Gaurano
testimony
of
the
victim,
admissions
made
to
at
the
house
of
Pedro
Ravelo,
one
of
the
accused.
Lomotan,
testimony
of
physician,
etc.)
Thereafter,
they
assaulted,
attacked,
and
burned
3. Assignment
of
error
must
be
dismissed.
Gaurano,
with
the
intent
of
killing
the
latter.
Offended
party
spent
P300
for
the
hospital
Reynaldo
Gaurano
died
on
May
22.
fees.
4. The
fact
that
he
was
able
to
escape
which
At
about
1AM
of
May
22,
the
accused-‐appellants
appellant
must
have
seen,
must
have
also
kidnapped
by
means
of
force
Joey
Lugatiman.
produced
in
the
mind
of
the
defendant-‐ The
latter
was
also
brought
to
Ravelo's
house
appellant
that
he
was
not
able
to
hit
his
where
he
was
tortured.
At
5AM,
Lugatiman
was
victim
at
a
vital
part
of
the
body.
The
transferred
to
the
house
of
accused-‐appellant
defendant
appellant
knew
that
he
had
not
Padilla.
There
he
was
tied
to
the
wall
with
a
nylon
actually
performed
all
acts
of
execution
line
and
was
told
he
would
be
killed
at
9AM.
Shortly
necessary
to
kill
his
victim.
Under
these
after,
accused-‐appellants
had
to
attend
to
Gaurano;
circumstances,
it
cannot
be
said
that
the
Lugatiman
was
thus
left
alone.
He
was
able
to
subjective
phase
of
the
acts
of
execution
had
escape.
been
completed.
He
reported
what
happened
to
him
and
to
Gaurano
People
v.
Trinidad,
169
SCRA
51
(1989)
to
the
police
authorities.
RTC
convicted
the
Facts:
Trinidad
accused
of
2
counts
of
murder
&
1
accused-‐appellants
of
murder
of
Gaurano
and
count
frustrated
murder.
Accused
in
member
of
INP
frustrated
murder
of
Lugatiman.
in
Nasipit.
Crime
occurred
in
Butuan
between
El
Rio
&
Agfa
while
they
were
in
a
Ford
Fiera
bound
for
In
this
appeal,
counsel
for
the
accused
aver
that
the
Davao.
Trinidad
shot
&
killed
Soriano
&
Laron
while
lower
court
erred
in
finding
that
accused-‐appellants
he
shot
and
injured
Tan
are
guilty
of
frustrated
murder.
Counsel
further
contends
that
there
can
be
no
frustrated
murder
Issue:
WON
conviction
is
proper?
absent
any
proof
of
intent
to
kill,
which
is
an
essential
element
of
the
offense
of
frustrated
Held:
Affirmed.
Murder
and
attempted
murder.
murder.
The
trial
court
merely
relied
on
the
Trinidad
alibi
is
weak
and
overridden
by
Tan
and
statement
of
the
accused-‐appellants
stating
they
Commendador’s
positive
identification.
Though
would
kill
Lugatiman
to
establish
intent
to
kill.
some
discrepancies
in
testimonies
are
found,
these
are
trivial.
Distance
between
Trinidad
&
2
deceased
Issue:
WON
the
statement
by
the
accused
stating
immaterial.
Important
is
that
he
shot
them.
Tan
has
that
Lugatiman
would
be
killed
is
sufficient
proof
of
no
seen
ill
motive
to
falsifiably
testify
against
intent
to
convict
a
person
of
frustrated
murder
Rañeses
76
Held:
No.
In
a
crime
of
murder
or
an
attempt
of
Shortly
after,
Isabela
Holgado,
Maria
Guttierez,
and
frustration
thereof,
the
offender
must
have
the
Hilarion
Holgado
arrived
at
the
place
with
food
for
intent
or
the
actual
design
to
kill
which
must
be
the
laborers.
Marcelino
Panaligan,
the
cousin
of
manifested
by
external
acts.
A
verbal
expression
is
Isabelo
and
Arcadio,
also
arrived
and
ordered
not
sufficient
to
show
an
actual
design
to
perpetrate
Arcadio
and
the
workers
to
resume
their
work.
the
act.
Intent
must
be
shown
not
only
by
a
With
this,
they
all
simultaneously
struck
with
their
statement
of
the
aggressor,
but
also
by
the
bolos.
Marcelo
Kalalo
slashed
Arcadio
while
Felipe
execution
of
all
acts
and
the
use
of
means
necessary
Kalalo,
Juan
Kalalo
and
Gregorio
Ramos
slashed
to
deliver
a
fatal
blow
while
the
victim
is
not
placed
Marcelino
Panaligan.
Both
Arcadio
and
Marcelino
in
a
position
to
defend
himself.
died
instantly.
Homicide
Marcelo
Kalalo
then
took
a
revolver
from
the
belt
of
RPC,
Art.
249
the
lifeless
Marcelino,
and
fired
four
shots
at
Hilarion
Holgado
who
was
then
also
fleeing
from
Homicide.
—
Any
person
who,
not
falling
within
the
the
scene.
provisions
of
Article
246,
shall
kill
another
without
the
attendance
of
any
of
the
circumstances
Issues:
enumerated
in
the
next
preceding
article,
shall
be
1. WON
the
appellants
Marcelo
Kalalo,
Juan
deemed
guilty
of
homicide
and
be
punished
by
Kalalo,
Felipe
Kalalo,
and
Gregorio
Ramos
reclusion
temporal.
are
guilty
of
murder
or
of
simple
homicide.
2. WON
Marcelo
Kalalo
is
guilty
of
discharge
of
People
v.
Kalalo,
59
Phil.
715
(1934)
firearms
or
attempted
homicide
Facts:
Appellant
Marcelo
Kalalo
and
Isabel
Holgado
had
a
litigation
over
a
parcel
of
land
situated
in
the
Held:
barrio
of
Calumpang,
Batangas.
Marcelo
Kalalo
1. The
court
held
that
the
appellants
are
cultivated
the
land
in
questions
during
the
merely
guilty
of
homicide
for
the
crimes
of
agricultural
years
1931-‐1932
but
when
the
harvest
killing
Arcadio
and
Marcelino
as
no
time
came,
Isabela
Holgado
reaped
all
that
had
been
mitigating
circumstance
has
been
proved.
planted
thereon.
Marcelo
filed
complaints
against
The
accused
and
the
deceased
were
both
Isabel,
however
these
were
dismissed
by
the
CFI
of
armed.
Marcelino
has
a
revolver
while
the
Batangas
twice.
accused
have
bolos.
The
risk
was
even
between
the
two
parties.
On
October
1,
1932,
Isabela
Holgado
and
her
2. It
was
held
that
he
is
guilty
of
attempted
brother
Arcadio
Hodalgo
decided
to
have
the
said
homicide.
Evidence
shows
that
Marcelo
land
plowed
and
employed
several
workers
for
that
Kalalo
fired
four
successive
shots
at
Hilarion
purpose.
Arcadio
Hodalgo
together
with
the
hired
Holgado
while
the
latter
was
fleeing
from
workers
went
to
plow
the
land
early
that
day.
the
scene.
This
fact
simply
shows
that
he
was
then
intent
on
killing
Hilarion
Holgado.
Marcelo
Kalalo
who
had
been
informed
thereof,
he
has
performed
all
acts
necessary
to
proceeded
to
the
land
together
with
his
brothers
commit
the
crime
but
failed
by
reason
of
Felipe
Kalalo
and
Juan
Kalalo,
brother
in
law
causes
independent
of
his
will
(poor
aim,
Gregorio
Ramos,
and
Aejandro
Garcia.
Five
of
them
victim
succeeded
in
dodging
his
shots).
are
all
armed
with
bolos.
Fausta
Abrenica
and
Alipia
Abrenica,
mother
and
aunt,
respectively
of
the
Penalties
to
be
imposed
in
relation
to
stages
Kalalo
brothers,
followed
them
thereafter.
Upon
of
commission
their
arrival,
they
ordered
those
workers
of
Isabel
and
Arcadio
Hodalgo
to
stop.
Rañeses
77
RPC,
Art.
6
RPC,
Art.
55
*Refer
to
page
63
for
the
full
text
of
the
provision
Penalty
to
be
imposed
upon
accessories
of
a
frustrated
crime.
—
The
penalty
lower
by
two
RPC,
Art.
7
degrees
than
that
prescribed
by
law
for
the
frustrated
felony
shall
be
imposed
upon
the
*Refer
to
page
67
for
the
full
text
of
the
provision
accessories
to
the
commission
of
a
frustrated
RPC,
Art.
50
felony.
Penalty
to
be
imposed
upon
accomplices
in
consummated
crime.
—
The
penalty
next
lower
in
degree
than
that
prescribed
by
law
for
the
Conspiracy
and
proposal
to
commit
a
felony
consummated
shall
be
imposed
upon
the
accomplices
in
the
commission
of
a
consummated
RPC,
Art.
8
felony.
Conspiracy
and
proposal
to
commit
felony.
—
RPC,
Art.
53
Conspiracy
and
proposal
to
commit
felony
are
punishable
only
in
the
cases
in
which
the
law
Penalty
to
be
imposed
upon
accessories
to
the
specially
provides
a
penalty
therefor.
commission
of
a
consummated
felony.
—
The
penalty
lower
by
two
degrees
than
that
prescribed
RPC,
Art.
115
by
law
for
the
consummated
felony
shall
be
imposed
upon
the
accessories
to
the
commission
of
Conspiracy
and
proposal
to
commit
treason;
Penalty.
a
consummated
felony.
—
The
conspiracy
or
proposal
to
commit
the
crime
of
treason
shall
be
punished
respectively,
by
prision
RPC,
Art.
54.
mayor
and
a
fine
not
exceeding
P10,000
pesos,
and
prision
correccional
and
a
fine
not
exceeding
Penalty
to
imposed
upon
accomplices
in
a
frustrated
P5,000
pesos.
crime.
—
The
penalty
next
lower
in
degree
than
prescribed
by
law
for
the
frustrated
felony
shall
be
RPC,
Art.
136
imposed
upon
the
accomplices
in
the
commission
of
a
frustrated
felony.
Conspiracy
and
proposal
to
commit
coup
d'etat,
rebellion
or
insurrection.
—
The
conspiracy
and
proposal
to
commit
coup
d'etat
shall
be
punished
by
prision
mayor
in
minimum
period
and
a
fine
which
shall
not
exceed
eight
thousand
pesos
(P8,000.00).
Rañeses
78
RPC,
Art.
141
(Cont.)
eriods
it
being
sufficient
for
the
imposition
thereof
that
the
initial
steps
have
been
taken
Conspiracy
to
commit
sedition.
—
Persons
toward
carrying
out
the
purposes
of
the
conspiring
to
commit
the
crime
of
sedition
shall
be
combination.
punished
by
prision
correccional
in
its
medium
period
and
a
fine
not
exceeding
2,000
pesos.
Any
property
possessed
under
any
contract
or
by
(Reinstated
by
E.O.
No.
187).
any
combination
mentioned
in
the
preceding
paragraphs,
and
being
the
subject
thereof,
shall
be
RPC,
Art.
186
forfeited
to
the
Government
of
the
Philippines.
Monopolies
and
combinations
in
restraint
of
trade.
—
Whenever
any
of
the
offenses
described
above
is
The
penalty
of
prision
correccional
in
its
minimum
committed
by
a
corporation
or
association,
the
period
or
a
fine
ranging
from
200
to
6,000
pesos,
or
president
and
each
one
of
its
agents
or
both,
shall
be
imposed
upon:
representatives
in
the
Philippines
in
case
of
a
foreign
corporation
or
association,
who
shall
have
1.
Any
person
who
shall
enter
into
any
contract
or
knowingly
permitted
or
failed
to
prevent
the
agreement
or
shall
take
part
in
any
conspiracy
or
commission
of
such
offense,
shall
be
held
liable
as
combination
in
the
form
of
a
trust
or
otherwise,
in
principals
thereof.
restraint
of
trade
or
commerce
or
to
prevent
by
artificial
means
free
competition
in
the
market;
RPC,
Art.
306
2.
Any
person
who
shall
monopolize
any
Who
are
brigands;
Penalty.
—
When
more
than
merchandise
or
object
of
trade
or
commerce,
or
three
armed
persons
form
a
band
of
robbers
for
the
shall
combine
with
any
other
person
or
persons
to
purpose
of
committing
robbery
in
the
highway,
or
monopolize
and
merchandise
or
object
in
order
to
kidnapping
persons
for
the
purpose
of
extortion
or
alter
the
price
thereof
by
spreading
false
rumors
or
to
obtain
ransom
or
for
any
other
purpose
to
be
making
use
of
any
other
article
to
restrain
free
attained
by
means
of
force
and
violence,
they
shall
competition
in
the
market;
be
deemed
highway
robbers
or
brigands.
3.
Any
person
who,
being
a
manufacturer,
producer,
Persons
found
guilty
of
this
offense
shall
be
or
processor
of
any
merchandise
or
object
of
punished
by
prision
mayor
in
its
medium
period
to
commerce
or
an
importer
of
any
merchandise
or
reclusion
temporal
in
its
minimum
period
if
the
act
object
of
commerce
from
any
foreign
country,
either
or
acts
committed
by
them
are
not
punishable
by
as
principal
or
agent,
wholesaler
or
retailer,
shall
higher
penalties,
in
which
case,
they
shall
suffer
combine,
conspire
or
agree
in
any
manner
with
any
such
high
penalties.
person
likewise
engaged
in
the
manufacture,
production,
processing,
assembling
or
importation
If
any
of
the
arms
carried
by
any
of
said
persons
be
of
such
merchandise
or
object
of
commerce
or
with
an
unlicensed
firearms,
it
shall
be
presumed
that
any
other
persons
not
so
similarly
engaged
for
the
said
persons
are
highway
robbers
or
brigands,
and
purpose
of
making
transactions
prejudicial
to
lawful
in
case
of
convictions
the
penalty
shall
be
imposed
commerce,
or
of
increasing
the
market
price
in
any
in
the
maximum
period.
part
of
the
Philippines,
of
any
such
merchandise
or
object
of
commerce
manufactured,
produced,
processed,
assembled
in
or
imported
into
the
Reyes:
Philippines,
or
of
any
article
in
the
manufacture
of
1. (Art.
8)
IMPORTANT
WORDS
AND
which
such
manufactured,
produced,
or
imported
PHRASES
merchandise
or
object
of
commerce
is
used.
1. “Conspiracy
and
proposal
to
commit
If
the
offense
mentioned
in
this
article
affects
any
felony.”
–
Conspiracy
and
proposal
food
substance,
motor
fuel
or
lubricants,
or
other
to
commit
are
two
different
acts
or
articles
of
prime
necessity,
the
penalty
shall
be
that
felonies:
(1)
conspiracy
to
commit
a
of
prision
mayor
in
its
maximum
and
medium
felony,
and
(2)
proposal
to
commit
a
felony.
Rañeses
79
2. “Only
in
the
cases
in
which
the
law
1. The
person
who
proposes
is
not
specifically
provides
a
penalty
determined
to
commit
the
felony.
therefor.”
–
Unless
there
is
a
specific
2. There
is
no
decided,
concrete
and
provision
in
the
RPC
providing
a
formal
proposal.
penalty
for
conspiracy
or
proposal
3. It
is
not
the
execution
of
a
felony
to
commit
a
felony,
mere
conspiracy
that
is
proposed.
or
proposal
to
commit
a
felony
is
not
9. The
crimes
in
which
conspiracy
and
a
felony.
proposal
are
punishable
are
against
the
2. General
rule:
Conspiracy
and
proposal
to
security
of
the
State
or
economic
commit
a
felony
are
not
punishable.
They
security.
are
ppunishable
only
in
the
cases
in
which
the
law
specially
provides
a
penalty
People
v.
Peralta,
25
SCRA
759
(1968)
therefor.
Facts:
On
February
16,
1958,
in
the
municipality
of
3. When
the
conspiracy
relates
to
a
crime
Muntinglupa,
province
of
Rizal,
two
known
warring
actually
committed,
it
is
not
a
felony
but
gangs
inside
the
New
Bilibid
Prison
as
“Sigue-‐Sigue”
only
a
manner
of
incurring
criminal
and
“OXO”
were
preparing
to
attend
a
mass
at
7
liability,
that
is,
when
there
is
a.m.
However,
a
fight
between
the
two
rival
gangs
conspiracy,
the
act
of
one
is
the
act
of
all.
caused
a
big
commotion
in
the
plaza
where
the
4. Requisites
of
conspiracy:
prisoners
were
currently
assembled.
The
fight
was
1. That
two
or
more
persons
come
to
quelled
and
those
involved
where
led
away
to
the
an
agreement;.
–
agreement
investigation
while
the
rest
of
the
prisoners
were
presupposes
meeting
of
the
minds
of
ordered
to
return
to
their
respective
quarters.
two
or
more
persons
2. That
the
agreement
concerned
the
In
the
investigation,
it
was
found
out
that
the
commission
of
a
felony.
–
the
accused,
“OXO”
members,
Amadeo
Peralta,
Andres
agreement
must
refer
to
the
Factora,
Leonardo
Dosal,
Angel
Paramog,
Gervasio
commission
of
a
crime.
It
must
be
an
Larita
and
Florencio
Luna
(six
among
the
twenty-‐
agreement
to
act,
to
effect.
To
bring
two
defendants
charged
therein
with
multiple
about
what
has
already
been
murder),
are
also
convicts
confined
in
the
said
conceived
and
determined
prisons
by
virtue
of
final
judgments.
3. That
the
execution
of
the
felony
be
decided
upon.
–
the
conspirators
They
conspired,
confederated
and
mutually
helped
have
made
up
their
minds
to
commit
and
aided
each
other,
with
evident
premeditation
the
crime.
There
must
be
and
treachery,
all
armed
with
deadly
weapons,
did,
determination
to
commit
the
crime
then
and
there,
willfully,
unlawfully
and
feloniously
of
treason,
rebellion
or
sedition
killed
“Sigue-‐Sigue”
sympathizers
Jose
Carriego,
5. Direct
proof
is
not
necessary
to
establish
Eugenio
Barbosa
and
Santos
Cruz,
also
convicts
conspiracy.
confined
in
the
same
institution,
by
hitting,
6. Quantum
of
proof
is
required
to
establish
stabbing,
and
striking
them
with
ice
picks,
clubs
and
it.
other
improvised
weapons,
pointed
and/or
7. Requisites
of
proposal:
sharpened,
thereby
inflicting
upon
the
victims
1. That
a
person
has
decided
to
commit
multiple
serious
injuries
which
directly
caused
their
a
felony;
and
deaths.
2. That
he
proposes
its
execution
to
some
other
person
or
persons.
Issues:
8. There
is
no
criminal
proposal
when:
1. WON
conspiracy
attended
the
commission
of
the
multiple
murder
Rañeses
80
Conspiracy
alone,
without
execution
of
its
2. WON
an
aggravating
circumstance
of
quasi-‐ purpose,
is
not
a
crime
punishable
by
law,
recidivism
is
present
in
the
commission
of
except
in
special
instances
(Article
8,
the
crime?
Revised
Penal
Code)
which,
do
not
include
robbery.
Held:
1. Yes.
A
conspiracy
exists
when
two
or
more
Reverting
now
to
the
case
at
bar,
the
trial
persons
come
to
an
agreement
concerning
court
correctly
ruled
that
conspiracy
the
commission
of
a
felony
and
decide
to
attended
the
commission
of
the
murders.
To
commit
it.
Generally,
conspiracy
is
not
a
wit,
although
there
is
no
direct
evidence
of
crime
unless
when
the
law
specifically
conspiracy,
the
court
can
safely
say
that
provides
a
penalty
thereof
as
in
treason,
there
are
several
circumstances
to
show
rebellion
and
sedition.
However,
when
in
that
the
crime
committed
by
the
accused
resolute
execution
of
a
common
scheme,
a
was
planned.
First,
all
the
deceased
were
felony
is
committed
by
two
or
more
Tagalogs
and
members
of
sympathizers
of
malefactors,
the
existence
of
a
conspiracy
“Sigue-‐Sigue”
gang
(OXO
members
were
assumes
a
pivotal
importance
in
the
from
either
Visayas
or
Mindanao),
singled
determination
of
the
liability
of
the
out
and
killed
thereby,
showing
that
their
perpetrators.
Once
an
express
or
implied
killing
has
been
planned.
Second,
the
conspiracy
is
proved,
all
of
the
conspirators
accused
were
all
armed
with
improvised
are
liable
as
co-‐principals
regardless
of
the
weapons
showing
that
they
really
prepared
extent
and
character
of
their
respective
for
the
occasion.
Third,
the
accused
active
participation
in
the
commission
of
the
accomplished
the
killing
with
team
work
crime/s
perpetrated
in
furtherance
of
the
precision
going
from
one
brigade
to
another
conspiracy
because
in
contemplation
of
law
and
attacking
the
same
men
whom
they
the
act
of
one
is
the
act
of
all.
have
previously
marked
for
liquidation
and
lastly,
almost
the
same
people
took
part
in
The
collective
criminal
liability
emanates
the
killing
of
the
Carriego,
Barbosa
and
Cruz.
from
the
ensnaring
nature
of
conspiracy.
2. Yes.
In
view
of
the
attendance
of
the
special
The
concerted
action
of
the
conspirators
in
aggravating
circumstances
of
quasi-‐
consummating
their
common
purpose
is
a
recidivism,
as
all
of
the
six
accused
at
the
patent
display
of
their
evil
partnership,
and
time
of
the
commission
of
the
offenses
were
for
the
consequences
of
such
criminal
serving
sentences
in
the
New
Bilibid
Prison
enterprise
they
must
be
held
solidarity
by
virtue
of
convictions
by
final
judgments
liable.
However,
in
order
to
hold
an
accused
that
penalty
for
each
offense
must
be
guilty
as
co-‐principal
by
reason
of
imposed
in
its
maximum
period,
which
is
conspiracy,
it
must
be
established
that
he
the
mandate
of
the
first
paragraph
of
article
performed
an
overt
act
in
furtherance
of
the
160
of
the
RPC.
Hence,
severe
penalty
conspiracy,
either
by
actively
participating
imposed
on
a
quasi-‐recidivist
is
justified
in
the
actual
commission
of
the
crime,
or
by
because
of
the
perversity
and
incorrigibility
lending
moral
assistance
to
his
co-‐ of
the
crime.
conspirators
by
being
present
at
the
scene
of
the
crime,
or
by
exerting
moral
US
v.
Bautista,
6
Phil.
581
(1906)
ascendancy
over
the
rest
of
the
conspirators
Facts:
In
1903
a
junta
was
organized
and
a
as
to
move
them
to
executing
the
conspiracy
entered
into
by
a
number
of
Filipinos
in
conspiracy.
Hong
Kong,
for
the
purpose
of
overthrowing
the
government
of
the
United
States
in
the
Philippine
Rañeses
81
Islands
by
force
of
arms
and
establishing
a
new
RPC,
Art.
9
government.
Grave
felonies,
less
grave
felonies
and
light
felonies.
-‐
Francisco
Bautista
(1),
a
close
friend
of
the
chief
of
Grave
felonies
are
those
to
which
the
law
attaches
military
forces
(of
the
conspirators)
took
part
of
the
capital
punishment
or
penalties
which
in
any
of
their
periods
are
afflictive,
in
accordance
with
several
meetings.
Tomas
Puzon
(2)
held
several
article
25
of
this
Code.
conferences
whereat
plans
are
made
for
the
coming
insurrection;
he
was
appointed
Brigadier-‐General
of
Less
grave
felonies
are
those
which
the
law
the
Signal
Corps
of
the
revolutionary
forces.
Aniceto
punishes
with
penalties
which
in
their
maximum
period
are
correctional,
in
accordance
with
the
de
Guzman
(3)
accepted
some
bonds
from
one
of
above-‐mentioned
article.
the
conspirators.
Light
felonies
are
those
infractions
of
law
for
the
The
lower
court
convicted
the
three
men
of
commission
of
which
the
penalty
of
arresto
menor
conspiracy.
Bautista
was
sentenced
to
4
years
or
a
fine
not
exceeding
200
pesos
or
both,
is
provided.
imprisonment
and
a
P3,000
fine;
Puzon
and
De
Guzman
to
3
years
imprisonment
and
P1,000.
Reyes:
Issue:
WON
the
accused
are
guilty
of
conspiracy.
1. IMPORTANT
WORDS
OR
PHRASES
1. “To
which
the
law
attaches
the
Held:
Yes,
Bautista
and
Puzon
are
guilty
of
capital
punishment.”
–
Capital
conspiracy.
Bautista
was
fully
aware
of
the
punishment
is
death
penalty.
purposes
of
the
meetings
he
participated
in,
and
2. “Or
penalties
in
any
of
their
periods
even
gave
an
assurance
to
the
chief
of
military
are
afflictive.”
-‐
Although
the
word
forces
that
he
is
making
the
necessary
preparations.
“any”
is
used
in
the
phrase,
when
the
Puzon
voluntarily
accepted
his
appointment
and
in
penalty
prescribed
for
the
offense
is
doing
so
assumed
all
the
obligations
implied
by
composed
of
two
or
more
distinct
such
acceptance.
This
may
be
considered
as
an
penalties.
The
higher
or
the
highest
evidence
of
the
criminal
connection
of
the
accused
of
the
penalties
must
be
an
afflictive
with
the
conspiracy.
penalty3.
However,
de
Guzman
is
not
guilty
of
conspiracy.
He
If
the
penalty
prescribed
is
might
have
been
helping
the
conspirators
by
composed
of
two
or
more
periods
accepting
bonds
in
the
bundles,
but
he
has
not
been
corresponding
to
different
divisible
aware
of
the
contents
nor
does
he
was,
in
any
penalties,
the
higher
or
maximum
occasion,
assumed
any
obligation
with
respect
to
period
must
be
that
of
an
afflictive
those
bonds.
penalty.
*See
RPC
Art.
136:
Crimes
against
public
order:
If
the
penalty
is
composed
of
two
conspiracy
and
proposal
to
commit
coup
d’
etat,
periods
of
an
afflictive
penalty
or
of
rebellion
or
insurrection.
two
periods
corresponding
to
different
afflictive
penalties,
the
Classification
of
Felonies
offense
for
which
it
is
prescribed
is
a
RPC,
Art.
7
grave
felony.
3. “Penalties
which
in
their
maximum
*Refer
page
67
for
the
full
text
of
the
provision
and
period
are
correctional.”
–
When
the
Reyes’s
explanation.
3
Reclusion
perpetua,
reclusion
temporal
Rañeses
82
penalty
prescribed
for
the
offense
is
composed
of
two
or
more
disctint
penalties,
the
higher
or
highest
of
the
penalties
must
be
a
correctional
penalty.
If
the
penalty
prescribed
is
composed
of
two
or
more
periods
corresponding
to
different
divisible
penalties,
the
higher
of
maximum
period
must
be
that
of
correctional
penalty4.
If
the
penalty
is
composed
of
two
periods
of
a
correctional
penalty,
like
destierro
and
arresto
mayor,
the
offense
for
which
it
is
prescribed
is
a
less
grave
felony.
4. “The
penalty
of
arresto
menor
or
a
fine
not
exceeding
200
pesos,
or
both,
is
provided.”
–
When
the
code
provides
a
fine
P200
for
the
commission
of
a
felony,
it
is
a
light
felony.
If
the
amount
provided
for
by
the
Code
is
more
than
P200,
then
it
is
a
less
grave
felony,
because
according
to
art.
26,
a
fine
not
exceeding
P6k
is
a
correctional
penalty.
If
the
amount
provided
for
is
more
than
P6k,
then
it
is
a
grave
felony,
because,
according
to
Art.
26,
a
fine
exceeding
said
amount
is
an
afflictive
penalty.
Althought
Art.
26
provides
that
a
fine
not
less
than
P200
is
a
correctional
penalty,
Art.
9
which
defines
light
felonies
should
prevail,
because
the
latter
classifies
felonies
according
to
their
gravity,
while
the
former
classifies
the
fine
according
to
the
amount
thereof.
4
Prision
correctional,
arresto
mayor,
suspension,
destierro
Rañeses
83
Circumstances
Which
Affect
prescribed
in
the
next
preceding
circumstance
are
present,
and
the
further
requisite,
in
case
the
Criminal
Liability
revocation
was
given
by
the
person
attacked,
that
the
one
making
defense
had
no
part
therein.
3.
That
the
act
be
committed
with
insult
or
in
14.
That
craft,
fraud,
or
disguise
be
employed.
disregard
of
the
respect
due
to
the
offended
party
on
account
of
his
rank,
age,
or
sex,
or
that
it
be
15.
That
advantage
be
taken
of
superior
strength,
or
committed
in
the
dwelling
of
the
offended
party,
if
means
be
employed
to
weaken
the
defense.
the
latter
has
not
given
provocation.
16.
That
the
act
be
committed
with
treachery
4.
That
the
act
be
committed
with
abuse
of
(alevosia).
confidence
or
obvious
ungratefulness.
There
is
treachery
when
the
offender
commits
any
5.
That
the
crime
be
committed
in
the
palace
of
the
of
the
crimes
against
the
person,
employing
means,
Chief
Executive,
or
in
his
presence,
or
where
public
methods,
or
forms
in
the
execution
thereof
which
authorities
are
engaged
in
the
discharge
of
their
tend
directly
and
specially
to
insure
its
execution,
duties,
or
in
a
place
dedicated
to
religious
worship.
without
risk
to
himself
arising
from
the
defense
which
the
offended
party
might
make.
6.
That
the
crime
be
committed
in
the
nighttime,
or
in
an
uninhabited
place,
or
by
a
band,
whenever
17.
That
means
be
employed
or
circumstances
such
circumstances
may
facilitate
the
commission
brought
about
which
add
ignominy
to
the
natural
of
the
offense.
effects
of
the
act.
Whenever
more
than
three
armed
malefactors
shall
18.
That
the
crime
be
committed
after
an
unlawful
have
acted
together
in
the
commission
of
an
entry.
offense,
it
shall
be
deemed
to
have
been
committed
There
is
an
unlawful
entry
when
an
entrance
is
by
a
band.
effected
by
a
way
not
intended
for
the
purpose.
7.
That
the
crime
be
committed
on
the
occasion
of
a
19.
That
as
a
means
to
the
commission
of
a
crime
a
conflagration,
shipwreck,
earthquake,
epidemic,
or
wall,
roof,
floor,
door,
or
window
be
broken.
other
calamity
or
misfortune.
20.
That
the
crime
be
committed
with
the
aid
of
8.
That
the
crime
be
committed
with
the
aid
of
persons
under
fifteen
years
of
age
or
by
means
of
armed
men
or
persons
who
insure
or
afford
motor
vehicles,
motorized
watercraft,
airships,
or
impunity.
other
similar
means.
(As
amended
by
Rep.
Act
No.
9.
That
the
accused
is
a
recidivist.
5438,
approved
Sept.
9,
1968.)
A
recidivist
is
one
who,
at
the
time
of
his
trial
for
21.
That
the
wrong
done
in
the
commission
of
the
one
crime,
shall
have
been
previously
convicted
by
crime
be
deliberately
augmented
by
causing
other
final
judgment
of
another
crime
embraced
in
the
wrong
not
necessary
for
its
commission.
same
title
of
this
Code.
10.
That
the
offender
has
been
previously
punished
Insult
to
public
authorities
for
an
offense
to
which
the
law
attaches
an
equal
or
Reyes:
greater
penalty
or
for
two
or
more
crimes
to
which
1. Basis:
Greater
perversity
of
offender,
as
it
attaches
a
lighter
penalty.
shown
by
the
lack
of
respect
for
the
public
authorities.
11.
That
the
crime
be
committed
in
consideration
of
2. Requisites:
a
price,
reward,
or
promise.
1. That
the
public
authority
is
engaged
in
the
exercise
of
his
functions.
12.
That
the
crime
be
committed
by
means
of
2. That
he
who
is
thus
engaged
In
the
inundation,
fire,
poison,
explosion,
stranding
of
a
exercise
of
said
functions
is
not
the
vessel
or
intentional
damage
thereto,
derailment
of
person
against
whom
the
crime
is
a
locomotive,
or
by
the
use
of
any
other
artifice
committed.
(U.S.
vs.
Rodriguez,
19
involving
great
waste
and
ruin.
Rañeses
128
Phil.
150,
156;
People
vs.
Siojo,
61
Facts:
Floro
Rodil
was
found
guilty
of
the
crime
of
Phil.
307,
317)
murder
by
the
Circuit
Criminal
Court
for
the
death
3. The
offender
knows
him
to
be
a
of
Lt.Masana.
public
authority.
4. His
presence
has
not
prevented
the
Version
of
the
prosecutor
offender
from
committing
the
• April
24,
1971
around
1:00
pm
–
Masana
criminal
act.
together
with
Fidel,
Ligsa
and
Mojica
was
3. Meaning
of
“public
authority.”
A
public
having
lunch
inside
a
restaurant
in
front
of
authority,
sometimes
also
called
a
person
in
the
Indang
Market.
While
they
were
eating,
authority,
is
a
public
officer
who
is
already
their
attention
was
called
by
Rodil
who
was
vested
with
jurisdiction,
that
is,
a
public
outside
blowing
his
whistle.
Masana,
in
officer
who
has
the
power
to
govern
and
civilian
clothing,
accompanied
by
Fidel
went
execute
the
las.
The
councilor,
the
mayor,
outside
and
asked
Rodil,
after
identifying
the
governor,
etc.,
are
persons
in
authority.
himself
as
a
PC
officer,
whether
the
gun
that
The
barangay
captainand
barangay
was
tucked
under
his
shirt
had
a
license
chairman
ae
also
persons
in
authority.
(Art.
• Instead
if
answering
Rodil
attempted
to
152,
as
amended
by
P.D.
No.
1232,
Nov.
7,
draw
his
gun
but
Fidel
grabbed
the
gave
and
1977)
gave
it
to
Masana.
4. Not
applicable
when
crime
is
committed
• The
three
went
inside
the
restaurant
and
in
the
presence
of
an
agent
only.
An
agent
Masana
wrote
a
receipt
for
the
gun
and
he
of
a
person
in
authority
is
“any
person
who,
asked
Rodil
to
sign
it
but
the
appellant
by
direct
provision
of
law
or
by
election
or
refused
to
do
so.
Masana
refused
to
return
by
appointment
by
competent
authority,
is
the
gun
to
Rodil
and
as
Masana
was
about
to
charged
with
the
maintenance
of
public
stand
up
Rodil
pulled
out
his
dagger
and
order
and
the
protection
and
security
of
life
stabbed
Masana
several
times
on
the
chest
and
property,
such
as
barrio
councilman,
and
stomach
causing
his
death
after
several
barrio
policeman
and
barangay
leader,
and
hours.
any
person
who
comes
to
the
aid
of
perons
• The
companions
of
Masana
took
the
accused
in
authority.”
(Art.
152,
as
amended
by
BP
into
custody.
Blg.
873)
5. The
crime
should
not
be
committed
Version
of
the
defense
against
the
public
officer.
If
the
crime
is
• Rodil
is
claiming
self-‐defense
committed
against
a
public
authority
while
• Rodil
together
with
his
wife
were
eating
he
is
in
the
performance
of
his
official
duty,
inside
the
restaurant
and
while
they
were
the
offender
commits
direct
assault
(Art.
waiting
for
their
food
Masana
approached
148.)
without
this
aggravating
and
inquired
whether
he
was
a
member
of
circumstance,
because
it
is
not
a
crime
the
Anti-‐smuggling
Unit.
Rodil
answered
in
committed
“in
contempt
of
or
with
insult”
to
the
affirmative
and
Masana
invited
him
to
him,
but
a
crime
directly
committed
against
join
him
in
his
table.
him.
• Rodil
accepted
the
invitation.
During
their
6. Knowledge
that
a
public
authority
is
conversation
Masana
asked
for
present
is
essential.
Lack
of
knowledge
on
identification
of
Rodil
and
the
latter
showed
the
part
of
the
offender
that
a
public
his
ID.
Masana
told
Rodil
that
his
ID
was
authority
is
present
indicates
lack
of
fake
and
Rodil
insisted
that
it
was
genuine.
intention
to
insult
the
public
authority.
Masana
was
demanding
that
Rodil
7. Presence
of
public
authority
has
not
surrender
his
ID
to
him
but
Rodil
refused.
prevented
offender
from
committing
the
When
Rodil
refused
Masana
pulled
out
his
crime.
An
offense
may
said
to
have
been
gun
and
hit
the
accused
on
the
head
with
its
committed
in
contempt
of
a
public
authority
handle
for
2
times
and
as
a
result
blood
when
his
presence,
made
known
to
the
gushed
out
from
his
head
and
face.
offender,
has
not
prevented
the
latter
from
• Rodil
pulled
out
his
dagger
and
stabbed
committing
the
criminal
act.
Masana
and
then
ran
out
of
the
restaurant.
• Rodil
went
to
the
direction
of
the
Municipal
People
v.
Rodil,
109
SCRA
308
(1981)
building
where
he
intended
to
surrender.
Rañeses
129
On
his
was
he
met
the
Chief
of
Police
and
he
it
at
the
same
time
possible
or
hard
for
the
was
accompanied
to
the
municipal
building
victim
to
defend
himself
or
retaliate.
and
was
given
first
aid
treatment.
• Treachery
exists
when
the
offender
commits
any
of
the
crimes
against
the
Issues:
person
employing
means,
methods,
or
forms
1. WON
self-‐defense
can
be
availed
by
Rodil.
in
the
execution
thereof
which
tend
to
2. WON
the
crime
committed
was
murder
or
directly
and
specially
to
insure
its
execution,
homicide
merely
or
murder
or
homicide
w/o
risk
to
himself
arising
from
the
defense
complexed
(sic)
with
assault
upon
an
agent
of
which
the
offended
party
might
make.
authority.
• Information
does
not
allege
the
fact
that
the
3. WON
the
AC
disregard
of
rank
should
be
accused
then
knew
that,
before
or
at
the
appreciated
time
of
the
assault,
the
victim
was
an
agent
of
a
person
in
authority.
• Such
knowledge
must
be
expressly
and
Held:
specifically
averred
in
the
information;
1. No.
Self-‐defense
must
be
proven
by
clear,
otherwise,
in
the
absence
of
such
allegation,
sufficient,
satisfactory
and
convincing
the
required
knowledge
would
only
be
evidence
appreciated
as
a
generic
aggravating
• Accused
must
rely
on
the
strength
of
his
circumstance.
own
evidence
and
not
on
the
weakness
of
• It
is
essential
that
the
accused
must
have
the
prosecution.
knowledge
that
the
person
attacked
was
a
• Having
admitted
the
wounding
or
killing
of
person
in
authority
or
his
agent
in
the
the
victim,
the
accused
must
be
held
liable
exercise
of
his
duties,
because
the
accused
for
the
crime
unless
he
establishes
to
the
must
have
the
intention
to
offend,
injure,
or
satisfaction
of
the
court
the
fact
of
assault
the
offended
party
as
a
person
in
legitimate
self-‐defense.
authority
or
agent
of
a
person
in
authority.
• Court
cannot
perceive
how
the
refusal
of
the
3. Yes.
Whenever
there
is
a
difference
in
social
accused
to
give
his
ID
could
have
provoked
condition
between
the
offender
and
the
or
enraged
the
deceased
to
the
extent
of
offended
party,
this
aggravating
initiating
the
aggression
by
drawing
his
circumstance
sometimes
is
present.
pistol
and
hitting
the
accused
with
its
butt.
• Mesana
identified
himself
as
a
PC
officer
and
• It
is
the
accused
who
had
every
reason
to
be
the
accused
is
merely
a
member
of
the
Anti-‐
resentful
of
the
deceased
and
to
be
enraged
Smuggling
Unit
and
therefore
inferior
both
after
the
deceased
refused
to
heed
his
plea
in
rank
and
social
status.
that
his
gun
be
returned.
• Rank
–
refers
to
a
high
social
position
or
standing
2. Crime
committed
was
homicide
(No
• Cases
wherein
the
aggravating
circumstance
complex
crime
but
there
is
a
general
of
disregard
of
rank
was
appreciated
aggravating
circumstance)
o People
vs.
Benito
–
clerk
murdered
• Murder
–
it
was
established
by
the
assistant
chief
of
the
personnel
prosecution
that
during
the
stabbing
transaction
division
incident,
appellant
suddenly
and
without
o People
vs.
Torres
–
murder
of
Col.
giving
the
victim
a
chance
to
defend
himself,
Salgado
and
injuries
to
Gen.
stabbed
the
latter
several
times
with
a
Castaneda
dagger,
inflicting
mortal
wounds.
o People
vs.
Valeriano
–
murder
of
• No
treachery
–
assailant
&
victim
was
face
district
judge
to
face.
Attack
wasn’t
treacherous
because
• Chief
of
Police
(Panaligan)
was
present
the
victim
was
able
to
ward
off
the
same
w/
during
the
incident.
Panaligan
was
the
one
his
hand.
Force
of
warding
off
the
attack
who
wrested
the
dagger
from
Rodil
and
the
was
so
strong
that
the
accused
bump
his
accused
knew
him
to
be
the
chief
of
police.
head
on
a
table
nearby,
causing
injuries
to
• Chief
of
police
is
considered
a
public
him.
Failed
to
show
that
the
accused
made
authority
or
a
person
in
authority
for
he
is
any
preparation
to
kill
his
victim
so
as
to
vested
with
jurisdiction
or
authority
to
insure
the
commission
of
the
crime,
making
maintain
peace
and
order
and
is
specifically
Rañeses
130
duty
bound
to
prosecute
and
to
apprehend
c. “The
home
is
a
sort
of
sacred
place
for
violators
of
the
law
its
owner.
He
who
goes
to
another’s
house
to
slander
him,
hurt
him
or
do
Dissent:
Melencio-‐Herrera
him
wrong,
is
more
guilty
than
he
who
• Contempt
of,
or
which
insult
to
public
offends
him
elsewhere.”
(Viada,
5th
authorities
to
be
considered
as
aggravating,
edition,
Bol.
II,
pp.
323-‐324)
it
is
essential
that:
4. Offended
party
must
not
give
• Crime
is
committed
in
the
presence
of
a
provocation.
If
the
offended
party
public
authority,
not
a
mere
agent
of
the
provoked
the
incident,
he
loses
his
right
to
authorities
respect
and
consideration
due
him
in
his
• Public
authority
is
engaged
in
the
exercise
own
house.
(People
vs.
Ambis,
supra)
of
his
functions
and
is
not
the
person
5. Meaning
of
provocation
in
the
against
whom
the
crime
is
committed.
aggravating
circumstance
of
dwelling.
• Masana
is
not
a
public
authority
nor
a
a. Given
by
the
owner
of
the
dwelling
person
in
authority
he
is
a
mere
agent
of
a
b. Sufficient,
and
person
in
authority
c. Immediate
to
the
commission
of
the
• Disregard
of
the
respect
due
to
rank
crime.
• There
must
be
a
difference
in
social
If
the
above
conditions
are
present,
the
condition
of
the
offender
and
the
offended
offended
party
is
deemed
to
have
given
party
provocation,
and
the
fact
that
the
crime
is
• Offender
and
offended
are
of
the
same
rank
committed
in
the
dwelling
of
the
offended
the
aggravating
circumstance
does
not
party
is
not
an
aggravating
circumstance.
apply
• Difference
in
rank
bet
a
lieutenant
and
On
the
other
hand,
if
any
of
those
conditions
officer
of
anti-‐smuggling
unit
is
not
such
of
a
is
not
present,
the
offended
party
is
deemed
degree
as
to
justify
consideration
of
not
to
have
given
provocation,
and
the
fact
disrespect
of
rank
due
to
the
offended
party.
that
the
crime
is
committed
in
the
dwelling
of
the
offended
party
is
an
aggravating
circumstance.
Note:
The
ruling
in
this
case
directly
contradicts
6. There
must
be
close
relation
between
Reyes’s
statement
with
regard
to
the
Chief
of
Police
provocation
and
commission
of
the
being
mere
agent.
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
chief
of
crime
in
the
dwelling.
police
is
now
a
person
of
authority
as
well.
7. Because
the
provocation
is
not
immediate,
dwelling
is
aggravating.
Dwelling
8. Owner
of
dwelling
gave
immediate
Reyes:
provocation
à
dwelling
is
not
1. Dwelling
must
be
a
building
or
structure,
aggravating.
exclusively
used
for
rest
and
comfort.
A
9. Prosecution
must
prove
that
no
“combination
house
and
store”
(People
vs.
provocation
was
given
by
the
offended
Magnaye,
89
Phil.
233,
239),
or
a
market
party.
stall
where
the
victim
slept
is
not
a
dwelling.
10. The
offender
need
not
enter
the
dwelling
2. Basis:
Greater
perversity
of
offender,
as
for
the
circumstance
to
apply.
shown
by
the
place
of
the
commission
of
the
11. If
the
crime
took
place
outside
the
offense.
dwelling,
it
is
still
aggravating
if
the
3. What
aggravates
the
commission
of
the
commission
of
the
crime
was
begun
crime
on
one’s
dwelling?
inside.
a. The
abuse
of
confidence
which
the
12. Dwelling
is
not
included
in
treachery.
offended
party
reposed
in
the
offender
by
opening
the
door
to
him;
or
People
v.
Daniel,
86
SCRA
511
(1978)
b. The
violation
of
the
sanctity
of
the
home
Facts:
13-‐yr
old
Margarita
Paleng
filed
complaint
by
trespassing
therein
with
violence
or
against
Amado
Daniel
alias
“Amado
Ato”
for
the
against
the
will
of
the
owner.
crime
of
rape.
(Dissenting
opinion
of
Justice
Villareal,
• On
Sept
20,
1965,
Margarita,
a
native
of
Mt
People
vs.
Ambis,
68
Phil.
635,
637)
Province,
arrived
in
Baguio
City
from
Tublay
Rañeses
131
in
a
Dangwa
bus.
She
was
then
en
route
to
the
place
where
he
lives
or
dwells.
Be
he
a
lessee,
a
her
boarding
house
in
Guisad
as
she
was
a
boarder,
or
a
bed-‐spacer,
the
place
is
his
home
the
high
school
student
at
the
Baguio
Eastern
sanctity
of
w/c
the
law
seeks
to
protect
and
uphold.
High
School.
While
she
was
waiting
inside
the
bus,
the
accused
Daniel
came
and
Nighttime/Disguise
started
molesting
her
by
inquiring
her
name
Reyes:
and
getting
hold
of
her
bag.
She
did
not
1. Par.6.
(Nighttime).
Basis:
Time
and
place
allow
the
latter
and
instead
called
the
of
the
commission
of
the
crime
and
the
attention
of
the
bus
driver
and
the
means
and
ways
employed.
conductor
but
was
merely
shrugged
by
2. Same.
When
aggravating.
them.
It
seemed
that
they
were
also
afraid
a. When
it
facilitated
the
commission
of
of
the
accused.
Despite
the
rain,
she
left
the
the
crime;
or
bus
and
went
to
ride
in
a
jeep
parked
some
b. When
especially
sought
for
by
the
100meters
away.
The
accused
followed
her
offender
to
insure
the
commission
of
the
and
rode
and
sat
beside
her.
When
crime
or
for
the
purpose
of
impunity
Margarita
alighted
in
Guisad,
she
was
again
(People
vs.
Pardo,
79
Phil.
568,
578);
or
followed
by
the
accused.
Reaching
her
c. When
the
offender
took
advantage
boarding
house,
she
opened
the
door
and
thereof
for
the
purpose
of
impunity.
was
about
to
close
it
when
the
accused
(U.S.
vs.
Billedo,
32
Phil.
574,
579;
dashed
in
and
closed
the
door
behind
him.
People
vs.
Mathagon,
60
Phil.
887,
893)
He
pulled
a
dagger
8
inches
long
and
threatened
her
saying,
“If
you
will
talk,
I
will
Although
nocturnity
(sic)
should
not
be
kill
you.”
Because
of
her
fear,
Margarita
fell
estimated
as
an
aggravating
silent.
She
was
then
forced
to
lie
down
w/
circumstance,
since
the
time
for
the
the
accused
placing
a
handkerchief
in
her
commission
of
the
crime
was
not
mouth
and
holding
a
dagger
to
her
neck.
deliberately
chosen
by
the
accused;
yet,
Her
attempts
to
flee
was
to
no
avail
as
she
if
it
appears
that
the
accused
took
was
only
4
ft
8
inches
tall
&
95
lbs
while
advantage
of
the
darkness
for
the
more
Daniel
was
5
ft
7
inches
tall
and
weighed
successful
consummation
of
his
plans,
to
126
lbs.
The
accused
was
successful
in
prevent
his
being
recognized,
and
that
having
carnal
knowledge
of
Margarita.
the
crime
might
be
perpetrated
Thereafter
she
lost
consciousness.
When
unmolested,
the
aggravating
she
recovered,
Daniel
had
already
gone.
circumstance
of
nocturnity
should
be
• For
his
defense,
Daniel
asserts
that
he
and
applied.
Margarita
have
known
each
other
since
3. Same.
Nighttime
may
facilitate
the
1963
and
this
was
in
fact
the
2nd
time
he
commission
of
the
crime,
when
because
had
carnal
knowledge
of
her.
Also,
he
of
the
darkness
of
the
night
the
crime
can
alleges
that
he
promised
to
marry
Margarita
be
perpetrated
unmolested,
or
and
was
actually
surprised
the
she
filed
the
interference
can
be
avoided,
or
there
complaint
against
him.
Medico-‐Legal
report
would
be
greater
certainty
in
attaining
indicated
that
Margarita
was
a
virgin
before
the
ends
of
the
offender.
(People
vs.
the
incident
complained
of.
Matbagon,
60
Phil.
887,
894)
4. Same.
Nighttime
need
not
be
specifically
Issue:
WON
the
aggravating
circumstance
of
sought
for
when
(1)
it
facilitated
the
“dwelling”
can
be
appreciated
in
the
case
at
bar.
commission
of
the
offense,
or
(2)
the
offender
took
advantage
of
the
same
to
Held:
Yes.
The
crime
committed
by
Daniel
is
rape
commit
the
crime.
w/
the
use
of
a
deadly
weapon
w/
the
aggravating
5. Same.
“Nighttime”
should
be
understood,
circumstance
of
having
been
committed
in
the
according
to
Viada,
as
that
period
of
dwelling
of
the
offended
party.
Although
Margarita
darkness
beginning
at
end
of
dusk
and
was
merely
renting
a
bedspace
in
a
boarding
house,
ending
at
dawn.
Nights
are
from
sunset
her
room
constituted
for
all
intents
and
purposes
a
to
sunrise.
(Art.
13,
Civil
Code)
“dwelling”
as
the
term
is
used
in
Art
14
(3)
RPC.
It
is
6. Same.
The
information
must
allege
that
not
necessary,
under
the
law,
that
the
victim
owns
nighttime
was
sought
for
or
taken
Rañeses
132
advantage
of
by
the
accused
or
that
it
Bonaobra
told
him
it
was
Jose
Abion.
The
two
facilitated
the
commission
of
the
crime.
accused
pretended
to
paddle
away.
When
they
were
7. Same.
Not
aggravating
when
the
crime
about
7
meters
away,
Bermas‘
companion
fired
his
began
at
daytime.
Armalite
m16
rifle
at
Bonaobra
and
his
companions.
a. The
commission
of
the
crime
must
begin
They
heard
2
volleys
fired
at
them.
They
lay
down
and
be
accomplished
in
the
nighttime.
but
could
not
avoid
the
attack.
After
5
minutes,
b. The
offense
must
be
actually
committed
Renato,
upon
instruction
from
his
father
Arturo,
in
the
darkness
of
the
night.
crawled
to
turn
off
remaining
pressure
gas
lamp
c. When
the
place
of
the
crime
is
and
loosen
the
anchor.
He
then
lost
consciousness.
illuminated
by
light,
nighttime
is
not
The
boat
was
carried
away
by
the
currents
of
the
aggravating.
sea
and
into
the
shore,
where
they
were
found
by
8. Par.
14.
(Disguise).
Disguise
is
the
use
of
Jose,
Rudy,
and
Santiago
Abion
the
following
any
device
to
conceal
identity.
morning.
Arturo
Abion
and
Catalino
Bellen
were
9. Same.
The
purpose
of
the
offender
in
already
dead.
Renato
Abion,
Jesus
Lotera,
and
using
any
device
must
be
to
conceal
his
Bonaobra
were
seriously
wounded,
such
that
had
identity.
they
not
received
medical
attention,
they
would
have
died
from
said
wounds.
Antonio
Abion
was
People
v.
Bermas,
309
SCRA
741
(1999)
also
injured
though
not
as
grave.
Teodoro
Cas
was
Facts:
missing,
and
his
body
was
found
3
days
later
in
a
Lower
court
ruling:
Rustom
Bermas
and
Galma
neighboring
town
in
Albay.
Santiago
found
2
slugs
Arcilla
were
found
guilty
of
Multiple
Murder
and
inside
the
fishing
boat,
which
he
surrendered
to
the
Multiple
Frustrated
Murder,
“with
evident
police.
premeditation,
conspiring,
confederating
and
helping
one
another,
with
treachery,
taking
Prior
to
the
night
in
question,
the
following
events
advantage
of
nighttime,
with
the
use
of
high
happened:
powered
firearms,
and
with
intent
to
kill.”
Rustom
Bermas
worked
in
a
mining
firm
and
was
a
October
13,
1984
–
at
a
public
dance
at
Namanday,
councilman
for
Brgy.
Liguan
while
Galma
Arcilla
Albay,
Arcilla
was
involved
in
a
fistfight
with
was
a
member
of
the
PC
Company,
with
the
position
Leopoldo
Abion.
He
boxed
Leopoldo
in
the
chest
of
Asst.
Detachment
Commander,
and
was
in
leaving
him
writhing
in
pain
on
the
ground.
possession
of
an
Armalite
M-‐16.
Thereafter,
the
Abion
brothers
arrived
to
get
even
with
Arcilla
and
Daniel
Abion
was
able
to
hit
On
April
20,
1985,
at
around
8:30
in
the
evening,
at
appellant
on
the
face
with
a
piece
of
wood.
Rustom
the
sea
of
Albay,
Arturo,
Abion,
Antonio
Abion,
Bermas,
the
usual
confederate
and
companion
of
Renato
Abion,
Teodoro
Cas,
Jesus
Lotera,
Catalino
accused,
arrived
to
seek
revenge
for
Arcilla,
but
Bellen,
and
Expedito
Bonaobra
(barangay
captain)
Daniel
had
already
left.
were
aboard
a
fishing
boat
named
―Sagrada
Familia‖,
owned
by
the
Abion
family,
for
the
October
14,
1985
–
Galma
Arcilla,
with
a
group
of
purpose
of
catching
fish.
armed
men
forced
open
a
window
in
Santiago‘s
house
looking
for
the
latter.
Santiago‘s
pregnant
The
accused
Rustom
Bermas
and
a
masked
wife
was
so
scared,
she
miscarried.
companion,
which
the
courts
held
to
be
Galma
April
4,
1985
–
Rustom
Bermas
pounded
on
a
table
Arcilla,
approached
the
party
through
a
small
and
said
to
Santiago,
―I
will
bring
home
the
paddled
boat.
They
circled
the
fishing
boat
Sagrada
Baraka‖.
Baraka
is
the
appellation
(title/label)
of
four
times
which
gave
survivors/witnesses
the
Abion
family.
This
was
considered
a
death
Bonaobra
and
Renato
Abion
opportunity
to
threat
to
the
family.
recognize
Bermas
as
the
one
paddling
the
boat.
Bonaobra
asked
Arturo
to
remove
the
shade
of
the
On
appeal:
Defendants‘
defense
was
alibi,
insisting
gas
lamp
so
they
could
recognize
Bermas‘
that
they
were
at
a
different
place
at
the
time
of
the
companion
but
they
still
could
not
due
to
the
mask
crime
in
question.
Arcilla
further
contends
that
he
was
wearing.
Bonaobra
asked
Bermas
if
they
lower
court
erred
in
ruling
it
was
he
who
was
the
were
fishing.
The
accused
said
yes,
and
that
they
masked
companion
since
none
of
the
witnesses
were
looking
for
somebody.
He
then
asked
identified
him
as
the
masked
man
who
fired
at
the
Bonaobra
who
owned
the
fishing
boat
and
victims.
There
was
also
that
question
of
the
firearm,
Rañeses
133
and
that
the
one
used
to
commit
the
felony
was
not
with
the
one
who
executed
the
criminal
act.
the
same
one
he
was
issued
with,
and
that
the
In
this
case,
Bermas‘
act
of
paddling
to
and
firearm
he
owned
was
not
in
his
possession
that
from
the
boat,
as
well
as
his
silence
while
night.
Bermas
claims
he
had
no
motive
to
kill
and
the
victims
were
being
gunned
down
by
his
that
conspiracy
was
not
proven.
companion,
was
enough
to
warrant
a
conspiracy.
He
must
be
equally
liable
as
co-‐
Issues:
principal.
It
was
also
a
well-‐known
fact
that
1. WON
defendant’s
alibi
can
be
accepted.
he
was
a
close
companion
of
his
co-‐accused
2. WON
the
aggravating
circumstance
of
and
they
were
frequently
seen
together,
as
nighttime
may
be
appreciated.
testified
by
other
witnesses.
3. WON
the
aggravating
circumstance
of
disguise
may
be
appreciated.
Treachery
was
appreciated
in
this
case
because
it
satisfied
the
requirements
that
a)
Held:
malefactor
employed
means
of
execution
to
1. No.
Alibi
is
the
weakest
of
all
defenses
ensure
his
safety
from
retaliatory
acts
of
the
because
it
is
easy
to
contrive
and
difficult
to
victim
b)
said
means
were
deliberate.
disprove.
Defendant‘s
defense
of
alibi
easily
Essence
of
treachery
is
in
the
swift
and
crumbles
in
the
weight
of
evidence
unexpected
attack
on
unsuspecting
and
presented
against
them.
unarmed
victims.
Although
the
witnesses
were
unable
to
2. No.
Nighttime
was
not
appreciated
as
an
identify
the
masked
man,
it
is
of
no
moment
aggravating
circumstance
in
this
case.
The
because
there
were
enough
circumstantial
mere
fact
that
the
offense
happened
at
night
evidence
on
which
the
ruling
could
be
based
was
not
enough
to
sustain
a
finding
of
on.
The
facts
established
are
enough
to
nocturnity.
It
only
becomes
an
aggravating
warrant
a
finding
of
guilt
beyond
reasonable
circumstance
when
the
following
requisites
doubt.
Circumstantial
evidence
may
be
are
present:
1.
It
was
specially
SOUGHT
by
sufficient
to
warrant
a
conviction.
Physical
the
offender
2.
It
was
TAKEN
ADVANTAGE
evidence
speaks
more
eloquently
than
all
by
him,
or
3.
It
FACILITATES
commission
of
the
witnesses
put
together.
the
crime
by
insuring
immunity
from
capture.
The
firearm
used
in
the
felony
was
found
to
be
exactly
the
one
issued
to
Galma
Arcilla.
In
this
case,
nothing
suggests
that
it
was
That
he
allegedly
left
his
gun
in
the
custody
consciously
resorted
to.
of
another
person
was
dubious
because
the
military
requirement
is
to
leave
firearms
at
3. Yes.
Disguise,
however,
was
appreciated
as
the
headquarters
where
it
would
be
safer.
an
aggravating
circumstance
because
of
He
also
failed
to
satisfactorily
explain
where
appellant‘s
use
of
a
mask.
and
how
the
missing
ammunitions
were
used.
Evident
premeditation
Reyes:
In
sum,
court
held
that
Arcilla
had
been
1. Basis:
Ways
of
committing
the
crime,
lying
in
order
to
exculpate
himself.
because
evident
premeditation
implies
a
deliberate
planning
of
the
act
before
With
regard
to
Bermas‘
contention
that
he
executing
it.
had
no
ill
motive
since
the
quarrel
was
2. Evident
premeditation
may
be
between
Arcilla
and
the
Ambions,
court
held
considered
as
to
principal
by
induction.
that
proof
of
ill
motive
becomes
irrelevant
3. Essence
of
premeditation.
Execution
of
in
the
face
of
positive
identification.
Bermas
the
criminal
act
must
be
preceded
by
cool
was
positively
identified
by
Bonaobra
and
thought
and
reflection
upon
the
resolution
Renato
Ambion.
to
carry
out
the
criminal
intent
during
the
space
of
time
sufficient
to
arrive
at
a
calm
Conspiracy
is
proven
by
the
specific
acts
judgment.
(People
vs.
Durante,
53
Phil.
363,
done
with
such
closeness
and
coordination
369)
Rañeses
134
4. The
premeditation
must
be
“evident.”
Facts:
The
accused,
Manalinde,
who
pleaded
guilty
There
must
be
evidence
showing
that
the
confessed
that
his
wife
died
about
one
hundred
accused
meditated
and
reflected
on
his
days
before;
that
he
was
directed
by
Datto
Mupuck
intention
between
the
time
when
the
crime
to
go
huramentado
and
to
kill
the
two
persons
he
was
conceived
by
him
and
the
time
it
was
would
meet
in
the
town;
that
if
he
was
successful
in
actually
perpetrated.
the
matter,
Mupuck
would
give
him
a
pretty
woman
5. Requisites:
on
his
return;
that
in
order
to
carry
out
his
1. The
time
when
the
offender
determined
intention
to
kill
two
persons
in
the
town
of
to
commit
the
crime;
Cotobato,
he
provided
himself
with
a
kris,
which
he
2. An
act
manifestly
indicating
that
the
concealed
in
banana
leaves;
that
he
traveled
for
a
culprit
has
clung
to
his
determination;
day
and
a
night
from
his
home;
that
upon
reaching
and
the
town,
he
attacked
from
behind
a
Spaniard
3. A
sufficient
lapse
of
time
between
the
named
Igual,
and
immediately
after,
he
attacked
a
determination
and
execution,
to
allow
Chinaman
named
Choa,
who
was
close
by;
and
that
him
to
reflect
upon
the
consequences
of
he
had
no
quarrel
with
the
assaulted
persons.
Both
his
act
and
to
allow
his
conscience
to
victims
died
as
a
result.
overcome
the
resolution
of
his
will.
6. The
date
and
time
when
the
offender
Issue:
WON
the
aggravating
circumstance
of
determined
to
commit
the
crime
evident
premeditation
is
established
by
the
facts.
essential.
7. The
premeditation
must
be
based
upon
Held:
Yes.
Those
facts
establish
the
aggravating
external
acts
and
not
presumed
from
circumstance
of
evident
premeditation.
mere
lapse
of
time.
(U.S.
vs.
Ricafort,
1
Phil.
173,
176)
The
three
requisites
of
evident
premeditation
are
8. Mere
threats
without
the
second
element
illustrated
by
the
facts:
(external
acts)
does
not
show
evident
premeditation.
First
requisite:
On
a
certain
date,
Manalinde
9. Existence
of
ill-‐feeling
or
grudge
alone
is
accepted
the
proposition
that
he
would
turn
not
proof
of
evident
premeditation.
hurmentado
and
kill
the
first
two
persons
he
would
10. Three
hours
or
less
considered
sufficient
meet
in
the
market
place.
On
said
date,
the
offender
lapse
of
time.
is
said
to
have
determined
the
crime.
11. Why
sufficient
time
is
required.
The
offender
must
have
an
opportunity
to
coolly
Second
requisite:
He
undertook
the
journey
to
and
serenely
think
and
deliberate
on
the
comply
therewith
and
provided
himself
with
a
meaning
and
the
consequences
of
what
he
weapon.
The
journey
and
the
carrying
of
the
planned
to
do,
an
interval
long
enough
for
weapon
are
acts
manifestly
indicating
that
the
his
conscience
and
better
judgment
to
offender
clung
to
his
determination
to
commit
the
overcome
his
evil
desires
and
scheme.
crime.
(People
vs.
Mendoza,
91
Phil.
58,
64)
12. There
must
be
sufficient
time
between
Third
requisite:
After
the
journey
for
a
day
and
a
the
outward
acts
and
the
actual
night,
he
killed
the
victims.
One
day
and
one
night
commission
of
the
crime.
constitute
a
sufficient
lapse
of
time
for
the
offender
13. Conspiracy
generally
presupposes
to
realize
the
consequences
of
his
contemplated
act.
premeditation.
14. Evident
premeditation
and
price
or
Treachery
reward
can
co-‐exist.
Reyes:
15. When
victim
is
different
from
that
1. Basis:
Reference
to
the
means
and
ways
intended,
premeditation
not
aggravating.
employed
in
the
commission
of
the
crime.
16. It
is
not
necessary
that
there
is
a
plan
to
2. Meaning
of
treachery.
There
is
treachery
kill
a
particular
person.
For
premeditation
when
the
offender
commits
any
of
the
to
exist,
it
is
not
necessary
that
the
accused
crimes
against
the
person,
employing
plan
to
kill
a
particular
person.
means,
methods
or
forms
in
the
execution
thereof
which
tend
directly
and
specially
to
United
States
v.
Manalinde,
14
Phil.
77
(1909)
insure
its
execution,
without
risk
to
himself
Rañeses
135
arising
from
the
defense
which
the
offended
2. When
the
assault
was
not
continuous,
in
party
might
make.
that
there
was
an
interruption,
it
is
3. Rules.
sufficient
that
treachery
was
present
at
1. Applicable
only
to
crimes
against
the
the
moment
the
fatal
blow
was
given.
person.
10. Treachery
is
not
to
be
considered
as
to
2. Means,
methods
or
forms
need
not
the
principal
by
induction
when
it
is
not
insure
accomplishment
of
crime.
shown
that
the
principal
by
induction
3. The
mode
of
attack
must
be
consciously
directed
or
induced
the
killer
of
the
adopted.
deceased
to
adopt
the
means
or
methods
4. Treachery
cannot
be
presumed.
The
actually
used
by
the
latter
in
suddenness
of
the
attack
does
not,
of
itself,
accomplishing
the
crime.
suffice
to
support
a
finding
of
alevosia,
even
11. Treachery,
abuse
of
superior
strength,
if
the
purpose
was
to
kill,
so
long
as
the
and
means
employed
to
weaken
the
decision
was
made
all
of
a
sudden
and
the
defense,
distinguished.
victim’s
helpless
position
was
accidental.
1. Treachery
–
means,
methods
or
forms
The
qualifying
circumstance
of
treachery
of
attack
are
employed
by
the
offender
may
not
be
simply
deduced
from
to
make
it
impossible
or
hard
for
the
presumption
as
it
is
necessary
that
the
offended
party
to
put
up
any
sort
of
existence
of
this
qualifying
or
aggravating
resistance.
circumstance
should
be
proven
as
fully
as
2. Abuse
of
superior
strength
–
the
the
crime
itself
in
order
to
aggravate
the
offender
does
not
employ
means,
liability
or
penalty
incurred
by
the
culprit.
methods
or
forms
of
attack;
he
only
5. The
mode
of
attack
must
be
consciously
takes
advantage
of
his
superior
strength.
adopted.
3. Means
employed
to
weaken
the
1. The
accused
must
make
some
defense
–
employs
means
but
the
preparation
to
kill
the
deceased
in
such
means
employed
only
materially
a
manner
as
to
insure
the
execution
of
weakens
the
resisting
power
of
the
the
crime
or
to
make
it
impossible
or
offended
party.
hard
for
the
person
attacked
to
defend
12. When
there
is
conspiracy,
treachery
is
himself
or
retaliate.
considered
against
all
the
offenders.
2. The
mode
of
attack
must
be
thought
of
13. The
mastermind
should
have
knowledge
by
the
offender,
and
must
not
spring
of
the
employment
of
treachery
if
he
was
from
the
unexpected
turn
of
events.
not
present
when
the
crime
as
6. Treachery
cannot
be
appreciated
where
committed.
there
is
nothing
in
the
record
to
show
14. If
the
intervention
of
other
persons
did
that
the
accused
had
pondered
upon
the
not
directly
and
especially
insure
the
mode
or
method
to
insure
the
killing
of
execution
of
the
crime
without
risk
to
the
the
deceased
or
remove
or
diminish
any
accused
there
is
no
treachery.
risk
to
himself
that
might
arise
from
the
15. Treachery,
evident
premeditation
and
defense
that
the
deceased
might
make.
use
of
superior
strength
are
absorbed
in
7. Requisites:
in
treason
by
killings.
1. That
at
the
time
of
the
attack,
the
victim
16. Treachery
absorbs
abuse
of
superior
was
not
in
a
position
to
defend
himself;
strength,
aid
of
armed
men,
by
a
band
and
and
means
to
weaken
the
defense.
2. That
the
offender
consciously
adopted
17. Nighttime
inherent
in
treachery.
the
particular
means,
method
or
form
of
18. Craft
is
included
in
and
absorbed
by
attack
employed
by
him.
treachery.
8. Treachery
must
be
proven
by
clear
and
19. Age
and
sex
are
included
in
treachery.
convincing
evidence.
20. Treachery
cannot
co-‐exist
with
passion
9. Guiding
principles.
or
obfuscation.
1. When
the
aggression
is
continuous,
treachery
must
be
present
in
the
People
v.
Sangalang,
58
SCRA
737
(1974)
beginning
of
the
assault.
Facts:
June
9,
1968,
6
a.m.:
Ricardo
Cortez
left
his
nipa
hut
in
Silang,
Cavite
to
gather
tuba
from
a
Rañeses
136
nearby
coconut
tree.
His
wife
Flora
Sarno
was
left
didn’t
give
any
immediate
provocation.
inside
the
hut.
While
on
top
of
the
tree,
Cortez
was
Deliberate
&
surprise
attack
insured
struck
by
a
valley
of
shots.
He
later
on
fell
to
the
victim’s
killing
w/o
any
risk
to
the
offenders
ground
at
the
base
of
the
coconut
tree.
Flora
went
arising
from
any
defense
w/c
the
victim
outside
&
was
supposed
to
help
his
husband
but
the
could
have
made.
Thus,
offense
is
murder.
five
persons
each
armed
w/a
long
firearm
fired
at
• Treachery
absorbs
the
AC
of
band.
her
too.
She
went
back
to
the
hut
for
cover
but
she
• Evident
premeditation,
though
alleged,
was
able
to
recognize
the
5
as
Conrado
Gonzales,
was
not
proven.
Irineo
Canuel,
Perino
Canuel,
Eleuterio
Cuyom
&
Laureano
Sangalang.
The
latter
was
known
to
Flora
Ignominy
&
her
bro
Ricardo
since
childhood.
The
five
left
after
Reyes:
about
5mins
&
when
she
returned
to
her
husband,
1. Ignominy
is
a
circumstance
pertaining
to
he
was
already
dead.
L
the
moral
order,
which
adds
disgrace
and
obloquy
to
the
material
injury
Ricardo
Sarno,
Flora’s
bro
who
lived
nearby,
heard
caused
by
the
crime.
the
gunshots
too.
He
went
out
&
saw
Sangalang
2. Applicable
to
crimes
against
chastity,
shooting
Cortez
w/a
Garand
carbine.
He
was
less
serious
physical
injuries,
light
or
supposed
to
help
Cortez
but
he
was
fired
upon
by
grave
coercion,
and
murder.
the
men
too.
Sarno
&
Flora
executed
sworn
statements
&
based
People
v.
Torrefiel,
45
OG
803
on
these,
a
complaint
against
the
5
offenders
was
Facts:
The
accused
and
his
companion
were
filed.
Only
Sangalang
was
arrested.
CFI
convicted
guerillas
of
the
USAFFE.
him
of
murder
&
was
sentenced
to
RP.
On
their
way
to
their
headquarters,
they
stopped
at
the
house
of
the
offended
party
and
asked
her
Defense:
Sangalang
claims
that
during
that
time,
he
husband
for
khaki
clothes.
was
in
Sampaloc,
Manila
to
borrow
money
from
a
certain
Gatdula
for
the
tuition
fees
of
his
children.
The
offended
party
accused
them
of
being
looters.
He
likewise
impugns
the
credibility
of
Mrs.
Cortez
&
They
then
decided
to
bring
the
spouses
to
their
Ricardo.
headquarters
supposedly
to
investigate
the
accusations.
Issues:
1. WON
Sangalang’s
alibi
is
admissible
The
accused
was
initially
assigned
to
accompany
2. WON
the
qualifying
AC
of
treachery
the
husband
and
his
companion
the
wife.
However,
(alevosia)
should
be
appreciated.
the
accused
was
lost
on
their
way,
which
led
to
the
escape
of
the
husband.
Held:
1. No.
Discrepancies
in
the
testimonies
of
He
eventually
kept
up
with
his
companion,
who,
Sarno
&
Mrs.
Cortez
are
not
glaring
and
after
realizing
that
the
husband
escaped,
left
the
instead
these
strengthen
their
credibility
&
wife
with
the
accused
to
look
for
said
husband.
show
that
they
did
not
rehearse
their
testimonies.
The
wife
then
testified
that
the
accused,
after
• Cortez
&
Sarno
clearly
&
consistently
winding
cogon
grass
around
his
genital
organ,
testified
that
Sangalang
was
among
raped
her.
those
who
shot
Ricardo.
Their
unwavering
identification
negates
Issue:
WON
the
aggravating
circumstance
of
Sangalang’s
alibi.
ignominy
can
be
appreciated.
• Although
motive
for
killing
was
not
proven,
it
was
not
shown
either
that
Held:
Yes.
The
court
appreciated
the
aggravating
Cortez
&
Sarno
were
impelled
by
circumstance
stating
that
the
manner
of
malicious
desires
to
falsely
incriminate
commission
augmented
the
wrong
done
by
Sangalang.
increasing
the
pain
and
adding
ignominy
thereto.
2. Yes.
When
the
crime
happened,
victim
was
on
top
of
a
coconut
tree.
He
was
unarmed
&
People
v.
Alfanta,
320
SCRA
357
(1999)
defenseless.
The
assault
was
unexpected.
He
Rañeses
137
Facts:
The
offended
party
testified
that,
while
• Spouse,
sleeping
in
the
living
room
of
a
friend,
was
suddenly
• Ascendant,
pulled
and
boxed
by
the
accused,
and
then
covered
• Descendant,
her
mouth
with
his
hand.
• Legitimate,
natural,
or
adopted
brother
or
sister,
or,
With
a
bolo,
the
accused
allegedly
ordered
her
to
go
• Relative
by
affinity
in
the
same
degree
of
out,
climb
up
the
fence
to
the
next
house.
the
offender.
5. Same.
Same.
When
mitigating
and
when
The
accused
then
ordered
her
to
undress
and
to
aggravating.
separate
her
legs.
She
was
then
raped.
• As
a
rule,
relationship
is
mitigating
in
crimes
against
property,
by
analogy
to
Allegedly,
the
accused
also
inserted
his
genital
the
provisions
of
Art.
332.
organ
in
her
genital
organ.
• It
is
aggravating
in
crimes
against
The
accused
defense
was
that
they
were
persons
in
cases
where
the
offended
sweethearts.
party
is
a
relative
of
a
higher
degree
than
the
offender
or
when
the
offender
The
court
rejected
this
theory,
it
being
belied
by
the
and
the
offended
party
are
relatives
of
offended
party
stabbing
him,
after
which
she
the
same
level.
reported
the
incident
to
the
police.
6. Same.
Same.
If
the
crime
against
persons
is
any
of
the
serious
physical
injuries,
the
The
court
also
appreciated
two
aggravating
fact
that
the
offended
party
is
a
circumstances.
descendant
of
the
offender
is
not
mitigating.
But
when
the
offense
Issue:
committed
is
less
serious
physical
injuries
1. WON
the
aggravating
circumstance
of
(Art.
265);
or
slight
physical
injuries
(Art.
nighttime
can
be
appreciated.
266),
relationship
is
a
mitigating
2. WON
the
aggravating
circumstance
of
circumstance,
if
the
offended
party
is
a
relative
of
a
lower
degree
of
the
offender;
Held:
and
an
aggravating
circumstance,
if
the
1. Yes.
Nighttime:
The
accused
took
advantage
offended
party
is
a
relative
of
a
higher
of
the
time
in
order
to
facilitate
the
crime
degree
of
the
offender.
without
being
recognized.
7. Same.
Same.
Relationship
is
neither
2. Yes.
Ignominy:
While
the
accused
claimed
mitigating
nor
aggravating,
when
that
the
manner
in
which
the
rape
was
done
relationship
is
an
element
of
the
offense.
was
normal
for
lovers,
the
court
did
not
8. Same.
Same.
In
crimes
against
chastity,
think
so.
relationship
is
always
aggravating.
9. Same.
Intoxication.
E. Alternative
Circumstances
• Mitigating
–
(1)
if
intoxication
is
not
Reyes:
habitual,
or
(2)
if
intoxication
is
not
1. Alternative
circumstances
are
those
subsequent
to
the
plan
to
commit
a
which
must
be
taken
into
consideration
felony.
as
aggravating
or
mitigating
according
to
• Aggravating
–
(1)
if
intoxication
is
the
nature
and
effects
of
the
crime
and
habitual;
or
(2)
if
it
is
intentional
the
other
conditions
attending
its
(subsequent
to
the
plan
to
commit
a
commission.
felony).
2. Basis:
nature
and
effects
of
the
crime
and
10. Same.
Same.
The
accused’s
state
of
the
other
conditions
attending
its
intoxication
must
be
proved.
commission.
11. Same.
Same.
Drunkenness
must
affect
3. The
alternative
circumstances
are:
mental
faculties.
1. Relationship;
12. Same.
Even
if
intoxication
is
not
habitual,
2. Intoxication;
and
it
is
aggravating
when
subsequent
to
the
3. Degree
of
instruction
and
education
of
plan
to
commit
the
crime.
the
offender.
13. Same.
Same.
Presumption
is
that
4. Same.
Relationship.
intoxication
is
accidental.
Rañeses
138
14. Same.
Same.
Non-‐habitual
intoxication,
of
intoxication,
if
the
same
is
not
habitual
or
lack
of
instruction
and
obfuscation
are
subsequent
to
the
plan
to
commit
said
felony;
but
not
be
taken
separately.
when
the
intoxication
is
habitual
or
intentional,
it
15. Same.
Degree
of
instruction
and
shall
be
considered
as
an
aggravating
circumstance.
education
of
the
offender.
Low
degree
of
instruction
and
education
or
lack
of
it
is
generally
mitigating..
High
degree
of
Intoxication
instruction
and
education
is
aggravating
when
the
offender
avails
himself
of
his
People
v.
Camano,
115
SCRA
688
(1982)
learning
in
committing
the
crime.
Facts:
• Lack
of
sufficient
intelligence
is
required
• Feb.
17,
1970
bet.
4
&
5
p.m.
in
Nato,
in
illiteracy.
Sagnay,
Camarines
Sur:
Camano,
after
• Lack
of
sufficient
instruction
is
not
drinking
liquor,
stabbed
Godofredo
Pascua
mitigating
when
the
offender
is
a
city
w/a
bolo
while
the
latter
was
walking
along
resident
who
knows
how
to
sign
his
the
barrio
street
almost
in
front
of
the
store
name.
of
one
Socorro
Buates.
Pascua
sustained
2
16. Same.
Same.
Lack
of
instruction
must
be
mortal
wounds
w/c
caused
his
death.
proved
by
the
defense.
It
must
be
Afterwards,
Camano
went
to
the
seashore
of
positively
and
directly
proved
and
cannot
the
barrio
where
he
found
Mariano
be
based
on
mere
deduction
or
inference.
Buenaflor
leaning
at
the
gate
of
the
fence
of
17. Same.
Same.
The
question
of
lack
of
his
house
in
a
kneeling
position
w/both
instruction
cannot
be
raised
for
the
first
arms
on
top
of
the
fence
&
his
head
stooping
time
in
appellate
court.
down.
Camano
then
hacked
Buenaflor
18. Same.
Same.
Ordinarily,
low
degree
or
w/the
same
bolo
sustaining
8
wounds
w/c
lack
of
instruction
is
mitigating
in
all
caused
latter’s
death.
No
proof
of
any
crimes.
altercation
between
the
accused
&
victims
19. Same.
Same.
High
degree
of
instruction
as
prior
to
the
incidents.
aggravating.
• 3
yrs
before
the
incident,
the
victims
had
a
• Degree
of
instruction
is
aggravating
misunderstanding
w/the
accused.
Camano
when
the
offender
availed
himself
or
asked
for
Pascua
to
tow
his
fishing
boat
took
advantage
of
it
in
committing
the
w/the
motorboat
owned
by
Buenaflor
but
crime.
the
two
refused
to
do
so.
Camano
resented
such
refusal.
Even
if
they
were
seen
RPC,
Art.
15
drinking
together
later
on,
the
friendly
attitude
was
more
artificial
than
real.
Their
concept.
-‐
Alternative
circumstances
are
those
Camano
refused
to
associate
w/the
2
&
a
which
must
be
taken
into
consideration
as
neighbor’s
attempt
to
reconcile
the
3
was
aggravating
or
mitigating
according
to
the
nature
repeatedly
refused.
And
in
instances
when
and
effects
of
the
crime
and
the
other
conditions
Camano
was
drunk,
he’d
even
challenge
attending
its
commission.
They
are
the
relationship,
Buenaflor
to
a
fight
&
announce
his
evil
intoxication
and
the
degree
of
instruction
and
intention
to
kill
them.
education
of
the
offender.
• Prosecution:
Camano
surrendered
upon
demand
of
the
peace
officers.
He
admitted
The
alternative
circumstance
of
relationship
shall
that
he
owned
the
bolo
used
in
the
killing
&
be
taken
into
consideration
when
the
offended
such
was
hidden
under
the
table
of
his
party
is
the
spouse,
ascendant,
descendant,
house.
Patrolman
Baluyot
found
the
bolo
at
legitimate,
natural,
or
adopted
brother
or
sister,
or
the
place
indicated
by
Camano.
The
bolo
relative
by
affinity
in
the
same
degrees
of
the
was
still
stained
w/human
blood.
He
offender.
likewise
admitted
that
killed
Pascua
&
Buenaflor
in
self-‐defense
but
he
refused
to
The
intoxication
of
the
offender
shall
be
taken
into
sign
his
statement.
He
was
charged
consideration
as
a
mitigating
circumstance
when
w/murder
attended
by
evident
the
offender
has
committed
a
felony
in
a
state
premeditation
&
treachery.
Rañeses
139
• Defense:
Camano
claims
that
he
went
3. WON
the
alternative
circumstance
of
fishing
early
morning
of
Feb.
17.
Buenaflor,
intoxication
should
be
appreciated
as
an
upon
seeing
that
he
had
a
big
catch,
aggravating
circumstance.
demanded
a
percentage
for
the
fishery
4. WON
death
is
a
cruel
&
unusual
penalty
&
commission.
Camano
refused
to
pay
&
saw
not
proper
in
the
case
at
bar.
Buenaflor
called
him
hard
headed.
He
went
home
afterwards.
After
dinner,
he
prepared
Held:
to
go
out
to
sea
again.
While
standing
in
the
1. No.
Evident
Premeditation
is
present
when
yard
of
his
house,
he
saw
Buenaflor
&
the
offender
had
carefully
planned
the
Pascua
having
a
drinking
session
w/a
group
killing.
of
men
at
the
score
of
Socorro
Buates.
He
a. Requisites:
a)
time
when
offender
claims
that
the
Buenaflor’s
group
determined
to
commit
the
crime;
b)
approached
him
&
w/o
any
provocation,
act
manifestly
indicating
that
the
Pascua
boxed
him.
Buenaflor
punched
him
culprit
had
clung
to
his
also.
He
claims
that
when
Pascua
was
about
determination;
c)
sufficient
lapse
of
to
bolo
him,
he
was
able
to
grab
the
bolo
time
bet
the
determination
&
from
Pascua.
Pascua
then
fell
on
the
ground
execution
of
the
crime
to
allow
him
&
the
rest
of
the
group
ran
away
except
for
to
reflect
upon
the
consequences
of
Buenaflor
who
approached
him.
Buenaflor
his
act
&
to
allow
his
conscience
to
was
also
armed
w/a
bolo
w/c
prompted
overcome
the
resolution
of
his
will.
Camano
to
bolo
him.
Buenaflor
ran
away
b. No
proof
of
the
requisites
in
this
once
he
was
wounded
but
Camano
ran
after
case.
Trial
court
merely
concluded
him
claiming
that
former
had
a
gun
at
home
that
crime
was
premeditated
due
to
w/c
he
might
use
to
shoot
Camano
later
on.
the
incident
w/c
occurred
3
yrs
ago.
Thus,
he
hacked
Buenaflor
to
death.
He
But
such
did
not
establish
the
time
denies
killing
Pascua
&
claims
that
the
fight
when
Camano
decided
to
commit
was
due
to
a
heated
argument
&
their
the
crime.
It
can
only
establish
his
drunkenness.
motive
for
killing
the
victims.
• CFI
Camrines
Sur:
sentenced
Camano
to
Previous
incidents
wherein
Camano
death.
Claims
of
Camano
are
w/o
challenged
Buenaflor
to
a
fight
did
evidentiary
support
&
are
mere
fictions.
His
not
reveal
a
persistence
of
criminal
cousin
&
lone
witness,
Nemesio
Camano
is
design
since
there’s
no
proof
that
he
not
credible
either.
His
testimonies
had
a
lot
was
making
plans
in
between
those
of
inconsistencies.
Besides,
if
Camano
were
threats
&
the
consummation
of
the
really
innocent,
he
should
have
produced
crime.
more
witnesses
considering
that
the
crime
was
committed
in
broad
daylight
w/many
2. Yes.
Amado
Payago,
one
of
the
men
drinking
people
witnessing
it.
But
only
Nemesio
was
w/Pascua
&
Buenaflor
during
the
incident,
presented.
Nemesio
&
Camano’s
testimonies
testified
that
Camano
attacked
Pascua
from
were
changed
many
times
too.
Evidence
behind.
Such
is
a
measure
w/c
ensures
the
show
that
he
is
guilty
of
murder
beyond
accomplishment
of
criminal
act
w/o
any
reasonable
doubt
w/evident
premeditation,
risk
to
the
perpetrator
arising
from
the
treachery,
abuse
of
superior
strength
&
defense
that
his
victim
may
put
up
intoxication.
characterizing
treachery.
Payago’s
• Appeal:
Camano’s
counsel
claims
that
the
testimony
is
further
strengthened
by
the
accused
is
only
guilty
of
homicide
&
not
nature
&
location
of
the
wounds
sustained
murder.
by
Pascua
w/c
show
that
the
point
of
entry
of
the
stab
wounds
were
at
the
back
&
point
Issues:
of
exit
were
in
front.
1. WON
evident
premeditation
should
be
appreciated.
Buenaflor
was
hacked
while
he
was
in
a
2. WON
treachery
should
be
appreciated
kneeling
position.
The
attack
was
sudden,
unexpected
&
lethal
such
as
to
disable
&
Rañeses
140
incapacitate
him
from
putting
up
any
barbarous,
something
more
that
the
defense.
mere
extinguishments
of
life.
3. No.
IT’S
MITIGATING.
Camano’s
counsel
Aquino
dissenting:
Premeditation
is
aggravating
claims
that
there
was
no
proof
of
accused’s
thus
accused
should
be
sentenced
to
2
RPs.
intoxication
at
the
time
of
the
killing
other
than
Payago’s
testimony
that
he
saw
Makasiar
concurring:
Voluntary
surrender
will
Camano
drinking
in
his
house
about
30
also
mitigate
guilt
of
the
accused.
He
had
a
choice
to
meters
away.
No
police
report/doctor’s
surrender
or
not
when
demanded
by
the
policemen
certification
was
presented
either.
who
didn’t
place
him
under
arrest
nor
did
they
have
Furthermore,
there’s
no
proof
that
accused
any
arrest
warrant.
purposefully
got
drunk
to
facilitate
the
commission
of
the
offense.
If
intoxication
should
be
appreciated
it
should
be
used
as
mitigating
circumstance
since
it
diminished
his
capacity
to
know
the
injustice
of
his
acts
&
comprehend
fully
the
consequence
of
his
acts.
• Mitigating
if
accidental,
not
habitual
or
intentional
&
not
subsequent
to
the
plan
to
commit
the
crime.
It
must
be
indubitably
proven.
• Aggravating
if
habitual
or
intentional.
Habitual
drunkard
is
one
given
to
intoxication
by
excessive
use
of
intoxicating
drinks.
Habit
should
be
actual
&
confirmed.
Not
necessarily
a
daily
occurrence
but
it
must
lessen
the
individual’s
resistance
to
evil
thought
&
undermine
will
power
making
its
victim
a
potential
evildoer.
• No
proof
that
Camano
was
a
habitual
drinker
although
he
used
to
get
drunk
every
now
&
then.
Even
Pagayo’s
testimony
does
not
establish
the
habitual
drinking
of
Camano.
The
intoxication
not
being
habitual
&
since
accused
was
in
a
state
of
intoxication
at
the
time
of
the
commission
of
the
crime,
intoxication
should
be
appreciated
as
a
mitigating
circumstance.
4. No.
Camano’s
counsel
claims
that
the
penalty
violates
Art.
IV,
Sec.
21
of
the
Consti
w/c
provides
that
excessive
fines
shall
not
be
imposed
nor
cruel
or
unusual
punishment
inflicted.
• Harden
vs.
Dir
of
Prisons:
DP
is
not
cruel,
unjust
or
excessive.
Punishments
are
cruel
when
they
involve
torture
or
a
lingering
death
but
the
punishment
of
death
is
not
cruel
w/in
the
meaning
of
that
word
as
used
in
the
Consti.
It
implies
something
inhuman
&
Rañeses
141
Persons
Criminally
Liable
3. An
artificial
or
juridical
person
cannot
act
with
malice
or
negligence.
A. In
Grave
and
Less
Grave
Felonies
4. Other
penalties
consisting
in
imprisonment
and
other
deprivation
RPC,
Art.
16.
of
liberty,
like
destierro,
can
be
executed
only
against
individuals.
Who
are
criminally
liable.
-‐
The
following
are
(Albert)
criminally
liable
for
grave
and
less
grave
felonies:
4. Officers,
not
corporation,
are
criminally
liable.
1.
Principals.
5. Juridical
persons
are
criminally
liable
under
certain
special
laws.
2.
Accomplices.
6. Only
the
officers
of
the
corporation
who
participated
either
as
principals
3.
Accessories.
by
direct
participation
or
principals
by
induction
or
by
cooperation,
or
as
The
following
are
criminally
liable
for
light
felonies:
accomplices
in
the
commission
of
an
1.
Principals
act
punishable
by
law
are
liable.
7. Passive
subject
of
crime.
The
holder
of
2.
Accomplices.
the
injured
rights:
the
man,
the
juristic
person,
the
group
and
the
State.
Reyes:
Principals
1. Treble
division
of
persons
criminally
liable.
This
division
rests
upon
the
very
RPC,
Art.
17.
nature
of
their
participation
in
the
commission
of
the
crime.
Principals.
-‐
The
following
are
considered
principals:
When
a
crime
is
committed
y
many,
without
being
equally
shared
by
all,
a
different
1.
Those
who
take
a
direct
part
in
the
execution
of
degree
of
responsibility
is
imposed
upon
the
act;
each
and
every
one
of
them.
In
that
case,
they
are
criminally
liable
either
as
2.
Those
who
directly
force
or
induce
others
to
principals,
accomplices
or
accessories.
commit
it;
2. Active
subject
and
passive
subject
of
crime.
In
all
crimes
there
are
always
two
3.
Those
who
cooperate
in
the
commission
of
the
parties,
namely;
the
active
subject
(the
offense
by
another
act
without
which
it
would
not
criminal)
and
the
passive
subject
(the
have
been
accomplished.
injured
party).
Art.
16
enumerates
the
active
subjects.
3. Only
natural
persons
can
be
active
Reyes:
subjects
of
crime.
Only
natural
persons
can
1. Difference
between
a
principal
under
be
the
active
subject
of
crime
because
of
the
any
of
the
three
categories
enumerated
highly
personal
nature
of
the
criminal
in
Art.
17
and
a
co-‐conspirator.
The
responsibility.
difference
between
an
accused
who
is
a
1. The
RPC
requires
that
the
culprit
principal
under
any
of
the
three
categories
should
have
acted
with
personal
enumerated
in
Art.
17
of
the
RPC
and
a
co-‐
malice
or
negligence.
An
artificial
or
conspirator
who
is
also
a
principal
is
that
juridical
person
cannot
act
with
while
the
former’s
criminal
liability
is
malice
or
negligence.
limited
to
his
own
acts,
as
a
general
rule,
the
2. A
juridical
person,
like
a
latter’s
responsibility
includes
the
acts
of
his
corportation,
cannot
commit
a
crime
fellow
conspirators.
in
which
a
willful
purpose
or
a
malicious
intent
is
required.
Principals
by
direct
participation
Rañeses
142
Reyes:
8. When
there
is
no
conspiracy,
each
of
the
1. Two
or
more
persons
may
take
direct
offenders
is
liable
only
for
the
act
part
in
the
execution
of
the
act,
in
which
performed
by
him.
case
they
may
be
principals
by
direct
9. Conspiracy
is
implied
when
the
accused
participation.
had
a
common
purpose
and
were
united
2. Requisites:
in
its
execution.
a. That
they
participated
in
the
10. Unity
of
purpose
ad
intention
in
the
criminal
resolution;
commission
of
the
crime.
b. That
they
carried
out
their
plan
and
a. Spontaneous
agreement
at
the
personally
took
part
in
its
execution
moment
of
the
commission
of
the
by
acts
which
directly
tended
to
the
crime
is
sufficient
to
create
just
same
end.
responsibility.
3. Conspiracy.
A
conspiracy
exists
when
two
b. Active
cooperation
by
all
the
or
more
persons
come
to
an
agreement
offenders
in
the
perpetration
of
the
concerning
the
commission
of
a
felony
and
crime
will
also
create
joint
decide
to
commit
it.
(Art.
8,
par.
2)
responsibility.
a. To
be
a
party
to
a
conspiracy,
one
c. Contributing
by
positive
acts
to
the
must
have
the
intention
to
realization
of
a
common
criminal
participate
in
the
transaction
with
a
intent
also
creates
joint
view
to
the
furtherance
of
the
responsibility.
common
design
and
purpose.
d. Presence
during
the
commission
of
4. Silence
does
not
make
one
a
conspirator.
the
crime
by
a
band
and
lending
5. Conspiracy
transcends
companionship.
moral
support
thereto,
also
create
6. Existence
of
conspiracy.
The
existence
of
joint
responsibility
with
the
material
conspiracy
does
not
require
necessarily
an
executors.
agreement
for
an
appreciable
length
prior
to
e. Where
one
of
the
accused
knew
of
the
execution
of
the
purpose,
since
from
the
the
plan
of
the
others
to
commit
a
legal
viewpoint,
conspiracy
exists
if,
at
the
crime
and
accepted
the
role
time
of
the
commission
of
the
offense,
the
assigned
to
him
and
he
actually
accused
had
the
same
purpose
and
were
performed
the
role.
united
in
its
execution.
(People
v.
Binasing,
11. There
may
be
conspiracy
even
if
et
al.,
98
Phil.
908)
there
is
no
evident
premeditation
on
7. Proof
of
conspiracy.
the
part
of
the
accused.
a. In
the
absence
of
collusion
among
12. Where
there
is
conspiracy,
the
act
of
the
declarants,
their
confessions
one
is
the
act
of
all.
may
form
a
complete
picture
of
the
13. A
conspirator
is
not
liable
for
whole
situation
and
may
be
another’s
crime
which
is
not
an
considered
collectively
as
object
to
the
conspiracy
or
which
is
corroborative
and/or
confirmatory
not
a
necessary
and
logical
of
the
evidence
independent
consequence
thereof.
therefrom.
14. A
person
in
conspiracy
with
others,
b. It
is
not
essential
that
there
be
who
had
desisted
before
the
crime
proofs
as
to
the
previous
agreement
was
committed
by
the
others,
is
not
and
decision
to
commit
the
crime,
it
criminally
liable.
being
sufficient
that
the
malefactors
15. When
there
is
conspiracy,
it
is
not
shall
have
acted
in
concert
pursuant
necessary
to
ascertain
the
specific
act
to
the
same
objective.
of
each
conspirator.
c. Formal
agreement
or
previous
16. When
there
is
conspiracy,
the
fact
acquaintance
among
several
that
an
element
of
the
offense
is
not
persons
not
necessary
in
conspiracy.
present
as
regards
one
of
the
d. Conspiracy
must
be
established
by
conspirators
is
immaterial.
positive
and
conclusive
evidence.
17. There
could
be
no
conspiracy
to
commit
an
offense
through
negligence.
Rañeses
143
18. In
cases
of
criminal
negligence
or
Siaga,
who
remained
below
in
the
tienda
and
crimes
punishable
by
special
law,
engaged
the
woman
in
conversation
while
the
other
allowing
or
failing
to
prevent
an
act
defendants
went
up
into
the
house,
should
only
be
to
be
performed
by
another,
makes
held
as
a
accomplice
(accessary
before
the
fact)
as
one
a
co-‐principal.
defined
in
the
Penal
Code,
and
not
as
a
principal.
19. The
principals
by
direct
participation
must
be
at
the
scene
of
the
crime,
Issue:
WON
defendant
Eustaquio
Siaga
should
only
personally
taking
part
in
the
be
held
liable
as
accomplice?
execution.
20. When
the
second
requisite
is
lacking
Held:
No.
The
defendant
Siaga
acted
concurrently
(culprits
personally
took
part),
there
with
the
other
defendants,
and
must
be
held
to
have
is
only
conspiracy.
been
present
with
them
aiding
and
abetting
them
in
21. There
is
collective
criminal
the
commission
of
the
crime
by
remaining
below
responsibility
when
the
offenders
are
and
talking
with
the
woman
in
order
to
distract
her
criminally
liable
in
the
same
manner
attention
from
what
was
going
on
upstairs.
In
doing
and
to
the
same
extent.
The
penalty
to
so
he
was
evidently
serving
as
a
guard
to
warn
his
be
imposed
must
be
the
same
for
all.
companions
in
case
there
should
arise
any
necessity
22. In
the
absence
of
previous
for
giving
an
alarm.
When
the
other
defendants
conspiracy,
unity
of
criminal
purpose
came
down
out
of
the
house
he
went
away
with
and
intention
immediately
before
the
them.
commission
of
the
crime,
or
community
of
criminal
design,
the
This
court
has
repeatedly
held
that
one
who
shares
criminal
responsibility
arising
from
the
guilty
purpose
and
aids
and
abets
the
different
acts
directed
against
one
commission
of
a
crime
by
his
presence
at
the
time
and
the
same
person
is
individual
of
its
perpetration,
even
though
he
may
not
have
and
not
collective,
and
each
of
the
taken
an
active
part
in
its
material
execution,
is
participants
is
liable
only
for
the
act
guilty
as
a
principal.
We
have
also
held
that
one
committed
by
him.
who
stands
as
guard
near
the
place
where
a
crime
is
committed
to
keep
others
away
or
to
warn
his
United
States
v.
Diris,
26
Phil.
133
(1918)
companions
and
fellow
conspirators
of
danger
of
Fact:
Fulgencio
Seal,
who
lived
in
the
pueblo
of
discovery,
takes
a
direct
part
in
the
commission
of
Calauag,
Province
of
Tayabas,
received
from
the
the
crime
and
is
therefore
guilty
as
a
principal
railroad
company,
more
than
P400
in
payment
of
under
article
13
of
the
Penal
Code.
certain
land
expropriated
by
that
company,
and
that
the
defendant
Tomas
Olea,
a
nephew
of
Fugencio
Principals
by
inducement
Seal,
was
present
when
the
money
was
counted
and
Reyes:
paid
over
to
his
uncle.
Thereafter,
after
Fulgencio
1. The
principal
by
induction
becomes
Seal
left
the
house
leaving
his
wife
in
charge
of
their
liable
only
when
the
principal
by
direct
tienda,
the
three
defendants
appeared
at
the
tienda
participation
committed
and
Eustaquio
Siaga
engaged
the
woman
in
2. Two
ways
of
becoming
principal
by
conversation
while
the
other
two
defendants
went
induction.
upstairs,
broke
open
the
trunk,
and
took
the
money,
a.
by
directly
forcing
another
to
commit
amounting
to
P353,
and
a
receipt
for
P100.
After
the
a
crime,
and
discovery
of
the
commission
of
the
crime,
The
• By
using
irresistible
force.
nephew
when
found
admitted
the
theft
of
the
• By
causing
uncontrollable
money
and
promised
that
if
the
uncle
would
not
fear.
make
any
trouble
about
it
he
would
try
and
recover
b.
by
directly
inducing
another
to
it
from
the
other
defendants.
commit
a
crime.
• By
giving
price,
or
offering
At
the
trial
the
defendants
denied
that
they
were
reward
or
promise.
the
authors
of
the
crime;
Olea
and
Diris
denied
that
• By
using
words
of
command.
they
were
present
at
the
house
on
the
morning
in
3. Requisites
question.
However,
they
were
convicted
for
the
crime
of
robbery.
On
appeal,
defendant
Eustaquio
Rañeses
144
a.
That
the
inducement
be
made
directly
7. Ascendancy
or
influence
as
to
amount
to
with
the
intention
of
procuring
the
moral
coercion
is
not
necessary
when
commission
of
the
crime;
and
there
is
conspiracy.
b.
That
such
inducement
be
the
8. One
who
planned
the
crime
committed
determining
cause
of
the
commission
by
another
is
a
principal
by
inducement.
of
the
crime
by
the
material
executor.
9. If
the
crime
committed
is
not
• It
is
necessary
that
contemplated
in
the
order
given,
the
inducement
be
the
inducement
is
not
material
and
not
the
determining
cause
of
the
determining
cause
thereof.
commission
of
the
crime
by
10. Distinguish
principal
by
inducement
the
principal
by
direct
from
the
offender
who
made
proposal
to
participation,
that
is,
without
commit
a
felony.
such
inducement
the
crime
a. In
both,
there
is
an
inducement
to
would
not
have
been
commit
a
crime.
committed.
b. In
the
first,
the
principal
by
inducement
• The
indicement
must
becomes
liable
only
when
the
crime
is
precede
the
act
induced
and
committed
by
the
principal
by
direct
must
be
so
influential
in
participation;
in
the
second
the
mere
producing
the
criminal
act
proposal
to
commit
a
felony
is
that
without
it,
the
act
would
punishable
in
treason
or
rebellion.
The
not
have
been
performed.
person
to
whom
the
proposal
is
made
should
not
commit
the
crime;
otherwise,
To
constitute
inducement,
there
must
the
proponent
becomes
a
principal
by
exist
on
the
part
of
the
inducer
the
inducement.
most
positive
resolution
and
the
most
c. In
the
first,
the
inducement
involves
any
persistent
effort
to
secure
the
crime;
in
the
second,
the
proposal
to
be
commission
of
the
crime,
together
punishable
must
involve
only
treason
or
with
the
presentation
to
the
person
rebellion.
induced
by
the
very
strongest
kind
of
11. Effects
of
acquittal
of
principal
by
direct
temptation
to
commit
the
crime.
participation
upon
the
liability
of
4. A
thoughtless
expression
without
principal
by
inducement.
intention
to
produce
the
result
is
not
an
a. Conspiracy
is
negatived
(sic)
by
the
inducement
to
commit
a
crime.
acquittal
of
the
co-‐defendant.
5. The
words
of
advice
or
the
influence
b. One
cannot
be
held
guilty
of
having
must
have
actually
moved
the
hands
of
instigated
the
commission
ofa
crime
the
principal
by
direct
participation.
without
first
being
shown
that
the
crime
6. In
order
that
a
person
using
words
of
has
been
actually
committed
by
another.
command
may
be
held
liable
as
principal
under
paragraph
no.
2
of
Art.
17,
the
People
v.
Ong
Chiat
Lay,
60
Phil.
788
(1934)
following
five
requisites
must
all
be
Facts:
Appellant
and
two
others,
Ong
Ban
Hua
and
present:
Kua
Sing,
were
jointly
informed
against
by
the
a. That
the
one
uttering
the
words
of
provincial
fiscal
of
Zamboanga,
charging
them
with
command
must
have
the
intention
of
having
feloniously
burned
a
building
in
which
was
procuring
the
commission
of
the
crime.
located
a
store
belonging
to
the
appellant.
Upon
a
b. That
the
one
who
made
the
command
plea
of
"not
guilty,"
appellant
and
his
codefendants
must
have
an
ascendancy
or
influence
were
tried
jointly
upon
said
information;
and,
after
over
the
person
who
acted.
trial,
while
Ong
Ban
Hua
and
Kua
Sing
were
c. That
the
words
used
must
be
so
direct,
acquitted,
appellant
was
found
guilty
of
the
crime
of
so
efficacious,
so
powerful
as
to
amount
arson
to
physical
or
moral
coercion.
d. The
words
of
command
must
be
uttered
Issue:
WON
the
appellant
is
criminally
liable
as
prior
to
the
commission
of
the
crime.
principal
by
direct
participation.
e. The
material
executor
of
the
crime
has
no
personal
reason
to
commit
the
crime.
Rañeses
145
Held:
No.
In
order
to
convict
a
defendant
as
• One
is
induced
directly
to
commit
a
crime
principal
in
the
commission
of
a
crime,
it
must
be
either
by
command,
or
for
a
consideration,
shown
either
(1)
that
he
took
a
direct
part
in
the
or
by
any
other
similar
act
w/c
constitutes
execution
of
the
criminal
act;
(2)
that
he
directly
the
real
&
moving
cause
of
the
crime
&
w/c
forced
or
induced
another
or
others
to
commit
it;
or
was
done
for
the
purpose
of
inducing
such
(3)
that
he
cooperated
in
the
commission
of
the
criminal
act
&
was
sufficient
for
that
offense
by
an
act
without
which
it
would
not
have
purpose.
We’ve
already
seen
in
our
been
accomplished.
(Revised
Penal
Code,
article
commentary
on
par.
12
of
A8
that
the
1
who
17.)
They
take
direct
part
in
the
execution
of
a
physically
commits
the
crime
may
escape
criminal
act
who,
participating
in
the
criminal
criminal
responsibility
by
showing
that
he
design,
proceed
to
carry
out
their
plan
and
acted
w/
due
obedience
to
an
order;
in
such
personally
take
part
in
its
execution
by
acts
which
case
the
criminal
responsibility
falls
entirely
directly
tend
to
the
same
end.
(Viada,
Codigo
Penal,
upon
the
1
who
orders,
i.e.,
upon
him
who
5th
ed.,
vol.
1,
p.
341;
Albert's
Revised
Penal
Code
by
his
commands
has
directly
induced
the
Ann.,
144.)
other
to
commit
the
act.
But
in
case
the
obedience
of
the
inferior
isn’t
due
to
the
In
the
instant
case,
it
is
not
claimed
that
appellant
superior
&
thus
not
necessary,
&
doesn’t,
had
taken
a
direct
part
in
the
burning
of
the
thus,
exempt
him
from
criminal
building.
In
fact,
the
prosecution
lays
stress
on
responsibility
as
the
physical
author
of
the
appellant's
absence
from
the
scene
of
the
fire
as
one
crime,
he
who
thus,
by
his
command,
of
the
suspicious
circumstances
indicating
his
guilt.
directly
induced
him
to
the
criminal
act
is
considered
by
the
law
also
as
principal
in
United
States
v.
Indanan,
24
Phil.
203
(1913)
the
crime.
Facts:
Panglima
Indanan,
accussed
is
the
headman
• The
pacto
by
virtue
of
w/c
1
purchases
for
a
of
Parang.
consideration
the
hand
w/c
commits
the
• On
Mar.
24,
1912,
Indanan
ordered
the
crime
makes
him
who
gives,
promises,
or
killing
of
Sariol
to
his
men
Akiran,
Kalyakan
offers
the
consideration
the
principal
in
the
&
Suhuri
in
the
Chinese
Cemetary
asserting
crime
by
direct
inducement,
because
w/o
that
Indanan
had
an
order
to
that
effect
such
offer
or
promise
the
criminal
act
would
from
the
governor.
never
have
been
committed.
But
this
doesn’t
• The
CFI
found
Indanan
guilty
of
the
crime
of
mean
that
the
1
who
actually
commits
the
murder
&
sentencing
him
to
be
hanged.
crime
by
reason
of
such
promise,
remuneration
or
reward
is
exempted
from
Issues:
WON
Indanan
is
guilty
of
murder
by
criminal
responsibility;
on
the
contrary,
inducement.
such
circumstance
constitutes
an
aggravation
of
his
crime.
Held:
Yes.
A13(2),
of
the
Penal
Code
declares
those
• We
have
heretofore
said
that
in
addition
to
to
be
principals
in
a
crime
"who
directly
force
or
the
precepto
&
the
pacto
there
are
similar
induce
others
to
commit
it."
means
by
w/c
another
may
be
induced
to
• Commenting
upon
this
paragraph,
Viada
commit
a
crime
w/c
also
make
the
1
who
says:
offers
the
inducement
the
principal
in
the
• They
force
another
to
commit
a
crime
who
crime
by
virtue
of
the
provisions
of
A13(2).
physically
by
actual
force
or
grave
fear,
for
But
it
must
be
borne
in
mind
that
these
acts
example,
with
a
pistol
in
hand
or
by
any
of
inducement
do
not
consist
in
simple
other
threatening
means,
oblige
another
to
advice
or
counsel
given
before
the
act
is
commit
the
crime.
In
our
commentary
on
committed,
or
in
simple
words
uttered
at
par.
9
of
A8
(page
28),
we
have
already
said
the
time
the
act
was
committed.
Such
advice
that
he
who
suffers
violence
acts
w/o
will
&
&
such
words
constitute
undoubtedly
an
against
his
will,
is
no
more
than
an
evil
act,
an
inducement
condemned
by
the
instrument,
&
therefore
is
guilty
of
no
moral
law;
but
in
order
that,
under
the
wrong.
The
real
culprits
in
such
case,
the
provisions
of
the
Code,
such
act
can
be
only
guilty
persons,
are
those
who
use
the
considered
direct
inducement,
it
is
violence,
those
who
force
the
other
to
necessary
that
such
advice
or
such
words
commit
the
crime.
have
a
great
dominance
&
great
influence
Rañeses
146
over
the
person
who
acts;
it
is
necessary
powerful
as
physical
or
moral
coercion
or
as
that
they
be
as
direct,
as
efficacious,
as
violence
itself.
powerful
as
physical
or
moral
coercion
or
as
violence
itself.
Hence,
the
3
co-‐defendants
of
Autor
are
not
responsible
for
the
injury
inflicted
by
him
on
Angel
People
v.
Kiicihi
Omine,
61
Phil.
609
(1935)
Pulido.
Judging
from
the
nature
of
the
wound,
w/c
Facts:
Defendants
appeal
from
a
decision
of
the
CFI
was
abt
11
inches
in
length,
it
is
probable
that
it
finding
them
guilty
of
frustrated
homicide,
w/
the
was
caused
by
the
point
of
the
bolo
on
a
downward
AC
that
advantage
was
taken
of
their
superior
stroke.
It
was
not
a
stab
wound,
and
was
probably
strength,
&
sentencing
them
each
to
suffer
an
IS
given
during
a
commotion
and
w/o
being
aimed
at
from
6
yrs
of
prision
correccional
to
12
yrs
of
any
particular
part
of
the
body.
Moreover,
as
Autor
prision
mayor.
struck
the
offended
only
once,
it
is
indicative
that
it
was
not
his
intention
to
take
the
offended
party’s
Defendants
Eduardo
Autor,
Luis
Ladion
and
Agapito
life.
Cortesano
were
working
under
co-‐defendant
Kiichi
Omine,
the
overseer
or
manager
of
the
hemp
Wherefore,
Eduardo
Autor
is
guilty
of
lesiones
plantation
owned
by
Angel
Pulido.
The
4
graves
w/
a
sentence
of
1yr
8
mos
&
21
days
of
defendants
lived
together
in
a
house
on
the
prision
correccional,
since
the
offended
party
was
plantation.
Kiichi
Omine
asked
Angel
Pulido
incapacitated
for
the
performance
of
his
usual
work
permission
to
open
a
new
road
through
the
for
a
period
of
more
than
90
days,
and
not
of
plantation.
Acdg
to
Omine,
Pulido
did
give
his
frustrated
homicide.
The
rest
of
the
co-‐defendants
permission
that’s
why
he
began
working
on
the
new
are
acquitted.
road.
But
acdg
to
Pulido,
he
refused
to
grant
this
request
because
there
was
already
an
unfinished
Principals
by
indispensable
cooperation
road.
Reyes:
1. To
cooperate
means
to
desire
or
wish
in
As
Pulido
and
his
son
along
w/
2
others
were
common
a
thing.
But
that
common
will
or
returning
home
from
a
cockpit,
they
noticed
that
a
purpose
does
not
necessarily
mean
considerable
number
of
hemp
plants
were
previous
understanding,
for
it
can
be
destroyed
by
the
construction
of
the
new
road.
explained
or
inferred
from
the
Angered
by
this,
they
went
to
the
defendants’
house
circumstances
of
each
case.
(People
vs.
and
there
happened
a
violent
altercation
resulting
Apelgido,
56
Phil.
571,
576)
to
the
owner
Pulido’s
death
from
a
wound
by
a
bolo
2. Requisites:
struck
in
his
breast.
a. Participating
in
the
criminal
resolution,
that
is,
there
is
either
Issue:
WON
Kiiche
Omine
is
a
principal
by
anterior
conspiracy
or
unity
of
induction.
criminal
purpose
and
intention
immediately
before
the
commission
Held:
No.
Although
it
is
alleged
that
Kiichi
Omine
of
the
crime
charged;
and
uttered
words
of
inducement
to
Eduardo
Autor,
it
b. Cooperation
in
the
commission
of
would
be
insufficient
to
make
him
a
principal
by
the
offense
by
performing
another
induction.
Eduardo
Autor
though
working
under
act,
without
which
it
would
not
have
the
direction
of
Omine
was
still
being
paid
by
been
accomplished.
Pulido.
Moreover,
it
is
necessary
that
inducement
be
made
directly
w/
the
intention
of
procuring
the
People
v.
Montealegre,
161
SCRA
700
(1988)
commission
of
the
crime
and
that
such
inducement
Facts:
be
the
determining
cause
of
the
commission
of
the
• Edmundo
Abadilla
was
eating
in
a
resto
crime.
It
must
be
precede
the
act
induced
and
must
when
he
detected
the
smell
of
marijuana
be
so
influential
in
producing
the
criminal
act
that
smoke
coming
from
a
nearby
table.
w/o
it
the
act
wouldn’t
have
been
performed.
• Intending
to
call
a
policeman,
he
quietly
Moreover,
as
words
of
direct
inducement,
it
is
went
outside
and
saw
Pfc.
Renato
essential
that
such
advice
or
words
have
great
Camantigue.
Camantigue
joined
Abadilla
in
dominance
and
great
influence
over
the
person
who
the
resto
and
they
both
smelled
the
acts,
that
they
be
as
direct,
as
efficacious,
as
Rañeses
147
marijuana
smoke
from
the
table
of
Vicente
• Montealegre
was
correctly
convicted
of
the
Capalad
and
Napoleon
Montealegre.
complex
crime
of
murder,
qualified
by
• Camantigue
collared
the
2
&
said
treachery,
w/
assault
upon
a
person
of
“Nagmamarijuana
kayo,
ano?”
He
forced
authority.
them
up,
holding
1
in
each
hand
but
Capalad
pulled
out
a
knife
&
started
stabbing
People
v.
Simbra,
117
SCRA
242
(1982)
Camantigue
at
the
back.
Camantigue
let
go
Facts:
Sergio
Tolibas
was
charged
and
found
guilty
of
Montealegre
to
get
his
gun
but
of
the
crime
of
rape
of
one
Gresilda
Gonzales,
a
16-‐
Montealegre
restrained
Camantigue’s
hand
yr
old
girl.
to
prevent
the
latter
from
defending
himself.
• They
grappled
&
fell
on
the
floor.
Capalac
Prosecution’s
version:
One
night,
Gonzales
left
her
fled
and
Camantigue
pursued
him
firing
house
to
fetch
water
from
the
artesian
well.
In
the
some
shots.
Then
he
stopped
and
asked
to
public
market.
About
36
meters
away
from
her
be
brought
to
a
hospital.
Capalac
was
found
house,
along
an
unlighted
portion
of
the
road,
slumped
in
the
street,
with
a
bullet
to
his
appellant
Tolibas
and
one
Simbra,
both
smelling
of
chest.
Both
he
and
Camantigue
died
the
next
‘tuba’,
accused
her.
Simbra
grabbed
her
by
the
arms
day.
Montealegre
on
the
other
hand,
while
Tolibas
quickly
covered
her
mouth
with
a
escaped
through
the
confusion.
He
was
later
handkerchief.
Helping
each
other,
they
dragged
the
apprehended.
girl
to
a
serin,
where
the
bad
deed
happened.
During
the
first
commission
of
rape,
Simbra
was
the
Issue:
WON
Montealegre
was
rightly
considered
a
one
who
succeeded
having
carnal
knowledge
while
co-‐principal
for
having
corroborated
with
Capalad
Tolibas
held
the
girl’s
arms
and
covered
her
mouth.
in
the
killing
of
the
police
officer.
Simbra
succeeded
twice.
Afterwards,
it
was
Tolibas
who
had
carnal
knowledge
of
the
girl
3
times
while
Simbra
was
holding
the
complainant.
After
the
Held:
YES.
The
two
acted
in
concert,
with
Capalad
commission
of
the
crime,
the
two
brought
the
girl
to
actually
stabbing
Camantigue
7
times
and
the
house
of
Tolibas’
sister,
where
she
was
fetched
Montealegre
holding
on
to
victim’s
hands
to
prevent
by
her
aunt.
Police
interrogation
followed.
him
from
drawing
the
pistol
and
defending
himseld,
as
Abadilla
had
testified.
Defense’s
version:
Gonzales
was
Simbra’s
• While
it
is
true
that
Montealegre
did
not
sweetheart
and
what
happened
in
the
serin
was
himself
commit
the
act
of
stabbing,
he
was
done
with
the
consent
of
the
girl.
nonetheless
equally
guilty
thereof
for
having
prevented
Camantigue
for
resisting
Issue:
WON
Simbra
was
a
principal
by
the
attack
against
him.
indispensable
cooperation.
• Montealegre
was
a
principal
by
indispensable
cooperation
under
A17(3),
Held:
Yes.
Appellant’s
version
is
hard
to
believe.
RPC.
The
requisites
of
this
provision
Tolibas
committed
the
crime
of
rape
through
direct
• Participating
in
the
criminal
resolution,
i.e.,
participation
when
he
himself
had
carnal
there’s
either
anterior
conspiracy
or
unity
of
knowledge
of
the
girl.
And,
when
he
aided
Simbra,
criminal
purpose
&
intention
immediately
he
committed
another
crime
of
rape
through
before
the
commission
of
the
crime
charged;
indispensable
cooperation.
He
is
hereby
guilty
of
&
two
crimes
of
consummated
rape.
• Cooperation
in
the
commission
of
the
offense
by
performing
another
act
w/o
w/c
Accomplices
it
would
not
have
been
accomplished.
• But
although
there
was
no
evidence
of
prior
RPC,
Art.
18.
agreement
between
Capalad
&
Montealegre,
their
subsequent
acts
should
prove
the
Accomplices.
-‐
Accomplices
are
those
persons
who,
presence
of
such
conspiracy.
The
Court
has
not
being
included
in
article
17,
cooperate
in
the
consistently
upheld
such
view
in
previous
execution
of
the
offense
by
previous
or
cases
(People
v.
Laganson,
People
v.
simultaneous
acts.
Cercano,
People
v.
Garcia
Cabarse,
Dacanay
v.
People)
Reyes:
Rañeses
148
1. Quasi-‐collective
criminal
responsibility.
2. When
the
accomplice
Between
collective
criminal
responsibility
saw
the
criminal
acts
and
individual
criminal
responsibility,
there
of
the
principal
is
the
so-‐called
quasi-‐collective
criminal
b. That
he
cooperates
in
the
execution
responsibility.
of
the
offense
by
previous
or
simultaneous
acts,
with
the
In
quasi-‐collective
criminal
responsibility,
intention
of
supplying
material
or
some
of
the
offenders
in
the
crime
are
moral
aid
in
the
execution
of
the
principals
and
the
others
are
accomplices.
crime
in
an
efficacious
way;
and
2. The
participation
of
an
accomplice
i. Moral
aid
may
be
through
presupposes
the
commission
of
the
advice,
encouragement
or
crime
by
the
principal
by
direct
agreement.
participation.
c. That
there
be
a
relation
between
the
3. In
case
of
doubt,
the
participation
of
the
acts
done
by
the
principal
and
those
offender
will
be
considered
that
of
an
attributed
to
the
person
charged
as
accomplice
rather
than
that
of
a
accomplice.
principal.
8. The
accomplice
intends
by
his
acts,
to
4. When
the
participation
of
an
accused
is
commit
or
take
part
in
the
execution
of
the
not
disclosed,
he
is
only
an
accomplice.
crime.
5. An
accomplice
does
not
have
previous
9. The
community
of
design
need
not
be
to
agreement
or
understanding
or
is
not
in
commit
the
crime
actually
committed.
It
is
conspiracy
with
the
principal
by
direct
sufficient
if
there
was
a
common
purpose
to
participation.
commit
a
particular
crime
and
that
the
6. Conspirators
and
accomplices
have
one
crime
actually
committed
was
a
natural
or
thing
in
common:
they
know
and
agree
probable
consequence
of
the
intended
with
criminal
design.
Conspirators,
crime.
however,
know
the
criminal
intention
10. Principal
in
general
and
accomplice,
because
they
themselves
have
decided
upon
distinguished.
An
accomplice
is
one
who
does
such
course
of
action.
Accomplices
come
to
not
take
a
direct
part
in
the
commission
of
the
know
about
it
after
the
principals
have
act,
who
does
not
force
or
induce
others
to
reached
the
decision,
and
only
then
do
they
commit
it,
or
who
does
not
cooperate
in
the
agree
to
cooperate
in
its
execution.
commission
of
the
crime
by
another
act
without
Conspirators
decide
that
a
crime
should
be
it
would
not
have
been
accomplished,
yet
committed;
they
merely
assent
to
the
plan
cooperates
in
the
execution
of
the
act
by
and
cooperate
in
its
accomplishment.
previous
or
simultaneous
actions.
Conspirators
are
the
authors
of
a
crime;
11. Principal
by
cooperation
and
accomplice,
accomplices
are
merely
instruments
who
distinguished.
Participation
of
an
accomplice
is
perform
acts
not
essential
to
the
not
indispensable
as
in
the
case
of
a
co-‐principal
perpetration
of
the
offense.
by
cooperation.
7. Requisites:
12. Principal
by
direct
cooperation
and
a. That
there
be
community
of
design;
accomplice,
distinguished.
that
is,
knowing
the
criminal
design
a. In
both,
there
is
community
of
of
the
principal
by
direct
criminal
design.
participation,
he
concurs
with
the
b. No
clear-‐cut
distinction
between
the
latter
in
his
purpose;
acts
of
the
accomplice
and
those
of
i. Principal
originates
the
the
principal
by
direct
participation.
original
design.
In
case
of
doubt,
it
shall
be
resolved
ii. Accomplice
merely
concurs.
in
favor
of
lesser
responsibility.
iii. Knowledge
acquired:
c. Between
or
among
principals,
there
1. When
the
principal
must
be
conspiracy;
but
between
the
informs
or
tells
the
principals
and
the
accomplices,
accomplice
of
the
there
is
no
conspiracy.
former’s
criminal
purposes.
People
v.
Nierra,
96
Phiil.
1
(1980)
Rañeses
149
Facts:
Juliana
Gadugdug-‐Nierra
and
Pagano
Nierra,
accomplices.
It
is
true,
strictly
speaking,
that
as
co-‐
her
brother-‐inlaw,
were
competitors
in
the
conspirators
they
should
be
punished
as
co-‐
businesses
of
launch
transportation
and
the
sale
of
principals.
However,
since
their
participation
was
soft
drinks
in
Barrio
Tinago,
General
Santos
City.
not
absolutely
indispensable
to
the
consummation
of
the
murder,
the
rule
that
the
court
should
favor
In
order
to
monopolize
those
businesses
in
the
the
milder
form
of
liability
may
be
applied
to
them
locality,
Paciano
Nierra
conceived
the
Idea
of
(People
vs.
Tamayo,
44
Phil.
38
and
other
cases).
liquidating
his
competitor,
Juliana.
For
that
purpose,
In
some
exceptional
situations,
having
community
Felicisimo
Doblen,
a
cousin-‐in-‐law
of
Paciano,
of
design
with
the
principal
does
not
prevent
a
accompanied
to
Paciano's
house
Gaspar
Misa,
a
malefactor
from
being
regarded
as
an
accomplice
if
convicted
murderer
who
had
escaped
from
the
his
role
in
the
perpetration
of
the
homicide
or
Davao
Penal
Colony
murder
was,
relatively
speaking,
of
a
minor
character
(See
People
vs.
Ubiña,
97
Phil.
515;
U.S.
Thereafter,
Doblen,
in
behalf
of
Pagano
Nierra,
vs.
Doming
1st,
37
Phil.
446;
People
vs.
Daligdig,
89
delivered
to
Misa
at
the
beach
a
package
containing
Phil.
598;
People
vs.
Largo,
99
Phil.
1061).
a
caliber
.38
pistol
with
five
bullets.
Misa
contacted
his
friend,
Vicente
Rojas,
and
apprised
him
that
he
People
v.
Doble,
114
SCRA
131
(1982)
(Misa)
had
been
hired
to
kill
Juliana.
Misa
asked
Facts:
Late
in
the
night
of
June
13,
1966,
10
men,
Rojas
to
act
as
lookout
when
the
killing
would
be
almost
all
heavily
armed
w/
pistols,
carbines
and
perpetrated.
thompsons,
left
the
shores
of
Manila
in
a
motor
banca
&
proceeded
to
Navotas,Rizal
to
rob
the
Thereafter,
the
unwary
Juliana
went
to
the
beach
beach-‐bank
Prudential
Bank
&
Trust
Co.
Said
bank
where
she
was
accustomed
to
void
and
when
she
wad
an
unusual
banking
hours,
open
from
midnight
squatted,
Misa
unexpectedly
appeared
behind
her,
till
8AM.
Once
docked
in
Navotas
and
taking
held
her
hair,
thus
tilting
her
face,
and
while
in
that
advantage
of
the
darkness
of
the
night,
8
men
posture,
he
inserted
into
her
mouth
the
muzzle
of
disembarked
from
the
banca
and
proceeded
to
their
the
pistol
and
fired
it.
Paciano
and
Gaudencia,
who
mission.
Once
inside,
they
started
firing
at
the
were
near
the
beach,
witnessed
the
actual
killing.
bank’s
ceiling,
walls
&
door
of
the
vault.
The
8
men
then
returned
to
the
waiting
motor
banca
w/
about
On
August
7,
1969,
Misa
was
interrogated
by
P10.5K
&
sped
away.
As
a
result
of
the
shooting,
Patrolman
A.B.
Vencer
Jr.
of
the
city
police
many
people
got
killed
&
injured.
Among
those
who
department.
He
signed
a
confession
admitting
the
got
killed
were
agents
of
the
law.
killing
of
Juliana
Nierra
and
implicating
the
other
Only
5
of
the
10
men
were
brought
to
trial,
the
rest
accused
therein.
,
Misa
testified
at
the
preliminary
still
remain
at
large.
2
of
the
5
accused
were
in-‐vestigation.
In
his
testimony,
he
admitted
again
acquitted.
It
is
only
Cresencio
Doble,
Simeon
Doble
the
killing
and
confirmed
his
confession
implicating
and
Antonio
Romaquin
appealing
in
the
charge
of
Paciano
Nierra,
his
wife
Gaudencia,
Doblen
and
bank
robbery
committed
in
band,
w/
multiple
Rojas
homicide,
multiple
frustrated
homicide
and
assault
upon
agents
of
persons
in
authority.
Thereafter,
Misa,
Doblen,
Rojas
and
the
Nierra
spouses,
as
co-‐conspirators,
were
charged
with
Issue:
WON
defendant
is
an
accomplice.
murder
aggravated
by
reward,
treachery,
evident
premeditation,
nocturnity,
ignominy
and
abuse
of
Held:
Yes.
First,
as
to
appellant
Simeon,
evidence
superiority
and,
as
to
Misa,
recidivism,
since
he
had
shows
that
the
malefactors
met
in
his
house
to
been
sentenced
to
reclusion
perpetua
for
the
discuss
the
plan
to
rob
the
bank.
This
circumstance
murder
of
Antonio
Abad
Tormis
in
Cebu
City.
alone
doesn’t
conclude
his
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
The
facts
do
not
show
that
he
performed
any
Issue:
WON
Dublin
and
Rojas
are
criminally
liable
act
tending
to
the
perpetration
of
the
robbery,
nor
as
accomplice.
that
he
took
a
direct
part
therein
or
induced
other
persons
to
commit,
or
that
he
cooperated
in
its
consummation
by
some
act
w/o
w/c
it
would
not
Held:
Yes.
After
a
conscientious
reflection
on
the
have
been
committed.
At
most,
his
act
amounted
to
complicity
of
Doblen
and
Rojas,
we
have
reached
joining
in
a
conspiracy
w/c
is
not
punishable.
the
conclusion
that
they
should
be
held
guilty
as
Simeon
then
was
not
a
principal
both
by
agreement
Rañeses
150
and
encouragement
for
his
non-‐participation
in
the
liable
as
mere
accomplices
may
appear
too
lenient
commission
of
the
crime.
Nor
was
it
clearly
proven
but
evidence
fails
to
establish
their
conspiracy
w/
that
he
had
received
any
part/fruits
of
the
looted
the
real
malefactors
who
actually
robbed
the
bank
money
as
to
make
him
an
accessory.
As
and
killed
several
people.
recommended
by
SolGen,
Simeon
Doble
is
entitled
to
acquittal
w/
no
sufficient
evidence
to
establish
Wherefore,
Doble
&
Romaquin
are
guilty
beyond
his
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
reasonable
doubt
as
accomplices
for
the
crime
of
robbery
in
band.
The
penalty
imposable
upon
Next,
as
regards
Romaquin
&
Doble,
the
malefactors
appellants
is
prision
mayor
min.
The
commission
of
who
waited
in
the
banca,
both
contend
that
their
the
crime
was
aggr
by
nighttime
&
the
use
of
a
extra-‐judicial
statements
upon
w/c
their
conviction
motorized
banca.
There
being
no
MC,
both
was
principally
made
to
rest,
are
inadmissible
for
appellants
should
be
sentenced
to
an
indeterminate
having
been
allegedly
obtained
by
force
and
penalty
of
prision
correccional
from
5
yrs,
4
mos,
21
intimidation,
torture
and
maltreatment,
and
in
days
to
8
yrs
of
prision
mayor
as
maximum.
violation
of
basic
consti’l
rts
to
counsel
and
against
self-‐incrimination.
However,
it
must
be
noted
that
People
v.
Doctolero,
193
SCRA
632
(1991)
they
didn’t
present
any
medical
cert
to
attest
to
the
Facts:
injuries
allegedly
inflicted.
More
so
that
their
• Ludovico,
Virgilio,
and
Conrado
were
testimonies
match
each
other’s.
And
it
should
also
stoning
the
house
of
Marcial.
be
noted
that
Celso
Aquino’s
testimony,
as
one
of
• After
the
two
women
inside
protested
their
the
accused,
admitted
that
no
violence
was
inflicted
acts,
the
three
went
up
the
house.
on
him
to
procure
his
statement.
This
is
evidence
• While
inside
the
house,
Ludovico
boloed
enough
that
the
appellants
could
not
have
been
both
women
inside,
as
well
as
a
child.
dealt
w/
differently
as
their
co-‐accused
Aquino
who
was
allowed
to
give
his
statement
freely.
Issue:
WON
defendants
are
liable
as
accomplices.
The
extra-‐judicial
statements
of
the
appellants
are
Held:
Yes.
convincing
to
show
that
their
liability
is
less
than
• It
is
reasonable
to
believe
that
Conrado
and
that
of
a
co-‐principal
by
conspiracy
or
by
actual
Virgilio
merely
stood
by
as
Ludovico
was
participation.
Cresencio
was
merely
in-‐charge
of
boloing
the
two
deceased
women.
Their
the
banca
and
had
no
knowledge
of
the
concrete
presence
gave
Ludovico
the
encouragement
plan
and
execution
of
the
crime.
The
mastermind
and
reliance
to
proceed
as
he
did.
obviously
did
not
extend
confidence
in
him
as
he
• This
is
similar
to
the
case
of
US
v.
Balili
was
only
asked
to
provide
a
banca
just
a
few
hours
where
it
was
held
that
one
who
goes
with
before
the
commission
of
the
crime.
Nor
was
the
principals,
and
in
staying
outside
of
the
Romaquin
considered
a
principle
malefactor
as
house
while
the
others
went
inside
to
rob
there
was
a
gun
pointed
at
him
by
Cresencio
to
and
kill
the
victim,
effectively
supplies
the
prevent
him
from
fleeing
away
from
the
scene,
criminals
with
material
and
moral
aid,
evident
to
show
that
he
never
joined
in
the
criminal
making
him
guilty
as
an
accomplice.
purpose
and
that
his
acts
were
not
voluntary.
Accessories
An
accomplice
is
one
who,
not
being
principal
as
defined
in
Art
17
RPC,
cooperates
in
the
execution
of
the
offense
by
previous
or
simultaneous
acts.
RPC,
Art.
19
There
must
be
a
community
of
unlawful
purpose
Accessories.
-‐
Accessories
are
those
who,
having
between
the
principal
and
accomplice
and
knowledge
of
the
commission
of
the
crime,
and
assistance
knowingly
and
intentionally
given
to
supply
material
and
moral
aid
in
the
consummation
without
having
participated
therein,
either
as
of
the
offense.
In
this
case,
the
appellants’
principals
or
accomplices,
take
part
subsequent
to
cooperation
is
like
that
of
a
driver
of
a
car
used
for
its
commission
in
any
of
the
following
manners:
abduction
w/c
makes
the
driver
a
mere
accomplice.
1.
By
profiting
themselves
or
assisting
the
offender
But
it
isn’t
established
by
evidence
that
in
the
mtg
to
profit
by
the
effects
of
the
crime.
held
in
the
house
of
Simeon
that
they
all
agreed
to
kill
and
not
just
rob.
The
finding
that
appellants
are
Rañeses
151
2.
By
concealing
or
destroying
the
body
of
the
4. Two
classes
of
accessories
are
crime,
or
the
effects
or
instruments
thereof,
in
order
contemplated
in
paragraph
3
of
Article
to
prevent
its
discovery.
19.
1. Public
officers
who
harbor,
conceal
3.
By
harboring,
concealing,
or
assisting
in
the
or
assist
in
the
escape
of
the
escape
of
the
principal
of
the
crime,
provided
the
principal
of
any
crime
(not
light
accessory
acts
with
abuse
of
his
public
functions
or
felony)
with
abuse
of
his
public
whenever
the
author
of
the
crime
is
guilty
of
functions.
treason,
parricide,
murder,
or
an
attempt
to
take
the
i. Requisites
1. The
accessory
is
a
life
of
the
Chief
Executive,
or
is
known
to
be
public
officer
habitually
guilty
of
some
other
crime.
2. He
harbors,
conceals,
RPC,
Art.
20
or
assists
in
the
escape
of
the
Accessories
who
are
exempt
from
criminal
liability.
-‐
principal.
The
penalties
prescribed
for
accessories
shall
not
be
3. The
public
officer
imposed
upon
those
who
are
such
with
respect
to
acts
with
abuse
of
his
their
spouses,
ascendants,
descendants,
legitimate,
public
functions.
natural,
and
adopted
brothers
and
sisters,
or
4. The
crime
committed
relatives
by
affinity
within
the
same
degrees,
with
by
the
principal
is
the
single
exception
of
accessories
falling
within
the
any
crime,
provided
it
is
not
a
light
felony.
provisions
of
paragraph
1
of
the
next
preceding
2. Private
persons
who
harbor,
conceal
article.
or
assist
in
the
escape
of
the
author
of
the
crime
-‐
guilty
of
treason,
Reyes:
parricide,
murder,
or
an
attempt
to
1. An
accessory
does
not
participate
in
the
take
the
life
of
the
Chief
Executive,
criminal
design,
nor
cooperate
in
the
or
is
known
to
be
habitually
guilty
of
commission
of
the
felony,
but,
with
some
other
crime.
knowledge
of
the
commission
of
the
i. Requisites:
crime,
he
subsequently
takes
part
in
1. The
accessory
is
a
three
ways:
private
person
1. Profiting
from
the
effects
of
the
2. He
harbors,
conceals
crime
or
assists
in
the
2. Concealing
the
body,
effects
or
escape
of
the
author
instruments
of
the
crime
in
order
to
of
the
crime.
prevent
its
discover
3. The
crime
committed
3. Assisting
in
the
escape
or
by
the
principal
is
concealment
of
the
principal
of
the
either
(a)
treason,
crime,
provided
he
acts
with
abuse
(b)
parricide,
(c)
of
his
public
functions
or
the
murder,
(d)
an
principal
is
guilty
of
treason,
attempt
against
the
parricide,
murder,
or
an
attempt
to
life
of
the
President,
take
the
life
of
the
Chief
Executive,
or
€
that
the
or
is
known
to
be
habitually
guilty
of
principal
is
known
to
some
other
crime.
be
habitually
guilty
2. An
accessory
must
have
knowledgeof
the
of
some
other
crime.
commission
of
the
crime,
and
having
that
5. One
who
kept
silent
with
regard
to
the
crime
knowledge,
he
took
part
subsequent
to
he
witnessed
is
not
an
accessory.
its
commission.
6. Conviction
of
an
accessory
is
possible
3. Knowledge
may
be
established
by
notwithstanding
acquittal
of
principal
if
the
circumstantial
evidence.
crime
was
in
fact
committed,
but
the
principal
not
held
criminally
liable
because
of
an
exempting
circumstance.
Rañeses
152
7. Apprehension
and
conviction
of
principal
for
more
than
3
weeks.
It
was
suspected
that
Teresa
not
necessary
for
the
accessory
to
be
held
is
having
an
illicit
affair
with
Talingdan,
a
policeman
criminally
liable.
who
lives
nearby.
Two
days
before
the
crime,
8. Arraignment,
trial
and
conviction
of
Teresa
was
slapped
several
times
by
Bernardo
after
accessory
during
the
pendency
of
a
separate
a
violent
quarrel.
She
sought
the
help
of
Talingdan
case
against
the
principal
are
null
and
void.
who
challenged
Bernardo
to
come
down,
but
the
Accessory
may
be
prosecuted
and
convicted
latter
refused.
Then,
Talingdan
left
after
shouting
"If
when
principal
is
not
yet
apprehended.
I
will
find
you
someday,
I
will
kill
you."
Two
days
9. Principal,
accomplice
and
accessory,
before
the
commission
of
the
crime,
Corazon
distinguished.
overheard
her
mother’s
meeting
with
the
other
1. The
accessory
does
not
take
direct
accused-‐appellants
about
their
plot
to
kill
her
father
part
or
cooperate
in,
or
induce
the
as
one
of
them
said,
“Shall
he
elude
a
bullet?”
commission
of
the
crime.
Corazon
was
then
driven
away
by
her
mother
2. The
same
does
not
cooperate
in
the
saying,
“You
tell
your
father
that
we
will
kill
him.”
commission
of
the
offense
by
acts
On
the
night
of
the
murder,
Corazon
was
cooking
either
prior
thereto
or
simultaneous
food
for
supper
when
she
saw
her
mother
talking
therewith.
with
the
other
accused-‐appellants
in
their
“batalan”
3. The
participation
of
the
accessory
in
armed
with
long
guns.
After
a
while,
Teresa
went
all
cases
always
takes
place
after
the
inside
the
room
to
put
her
baby
to
sleep.
After
commission
of
the
crime.
eating
supper
alone,
Corazon
told
her
father
about
10. Exemptions
in
Art.
20.
Based
on
ties
of
blood
the
persons
outside
but
he
ignored
her.
He
went
to
and
the
preservation
of
the
cleanliness
of
one’s
the
kitchen
and
sat
on
the
floor
near
the
door
then
name,
which
compels
one
to
conceal
crimes
he
was
fired
at.
Talingdan
and
Tobias
fired
their
committed
by
relatives
so
near
as
those
guns
again.
Bides
threatened
to
kill
Corazon
if
she
mentioned
in
the
article.
would
ask
for
help.
Corazon
confessed
to
her
11. Principals
related
to
accessories
exempt
father’s
relatives
the
identities
of
the
murderers
from
criminal
liability.
during
his
burial.
The
trial
court
found
them
guilty
1. Spouse
of
the
offense
and
so
the
five
accused
appealed
to
2. Ascendant
their
conviction.
3. Descendant
4. Legitimate,
natural
or
adopted
Trial
Court:
Murder.
Life
imprisonment
with
brother,
sister
or
relative
by
affinity
indemnity
to
the
offended
party,
the
heirs
of
the
within
the
same
degree.
deceased
Bernardo
Bagabag,
in
the
amount
of
12. Accessory
is
not
exempt
from
criminal
P12,000
liability
even
if
the
principal
is
related
to
him,
if
such
accessory
(1)
profited
by
the
Contention
of
the
Accused:
Teresa
denied
having
an
effects
of
the
crime,
or
(2)
assisted
the
illicit
affair
with
Talingdan,
having
quarrels
with
or
offender
to
profit
by
the
effects
of
the
crime.
being
maltreated
by
the
victim,
and
leaving
home
for
so
long.
She
contends
that
her
in-‐laws
used
her
People
v.
Talingdan,
84
SCRA
19
(1978)
daughter
to
testify
against
her
because
they
don’t
Facts:
Bernardo
Bagabag
was
murdered
in
his
own
want
Teresa
from
the
start.
She
even
added
that
house
in
Abra
on
June
24,
1967
by
Talingdan,
Bernardo
had
some
enemies
during
his
lifetime.
Tobias,
Berras,
Bides
and
Teresa
Domogma,
his
Talingdan
said
that
he
escorted
the
Mayor
as
a
alleged
wife
[whom
cannot
be
charged
with
bodyguard,
while
the
other
three
accused
also
parricide
because
no
certificate
or
proof
of
claimed
that
they
were
at
a
certain
Mrs.
Bayongan’s
marriage
could
be
presented
by
the
prosecution].
house
during
the
night
of
the
murder.
The
murder
was
witnessed
by
Corazon
[12],
the
eldest
child
of
Bernardo
and
Teresa.
She
testified
to
Contention
of
the
People:
The
sworn
statement
of
the
crime
committed
by
the
accused-‐appellants.
the
13-‐year
old
Corazon
was
true.
She
knew
the
accused
because
they
live
nearby.
Besides,
the
Summary
of
Corazon’s
testimony:
Prior
to
the
accused-‐appellants
testimonies
are
indefensible
violent
incident,
Bernardo
and
Teresa
have
had
and
futile.
Moreover,
her
mother
claimed
to
have
no
several
conflicts
in
their
married
life.
She
would
suspect
in
mind
during
the
investigation
in
their
often
withdrew
from
their
house.
The
longest
even
Rañeses
153
house
although
she
was
in
conspiracy
with
the
Ordono
in
the
Municipal
Trial
Court
of
Balungao,
other
four
accused.
Pangasinan.
However,
on
March
22,
1985,
the
municipal
court
indorsed
the
case
of
Salazar
to
the
Issue:
WON
Teresa
is
an
accessory.
Judge
Advocate
General's
Office
(JAGO)
inasmuch
as
he
was
a
member
of
the
military,
while
the
case
Held:
Yes.
There
are
two
aggravating
against
Vino
was
given
due
course
by
the
issuance
circumstances
present,
treachery
and
evident
of
a
warrant
for
his
arrest.
Ultimately,
the
case
was
premeditation,
with
no
mitigating
circumstances
to
indorsed
to
the
fiscal's
office
who
then
filed
an
offset
the
accused-‐appellants.
Talingdan,
Tobias,
information
charging
Vino
of
the
crime
of
murder
in
Berras,
and
Bides
are
guilty
beyond
reasonable
the
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Rosales,
Pangasinan.
doubt
of
murder
and
are
sentenced
to
DEATH
to
be
executed
in
accordance
with
law.
Teresa
Domogma
Upon
arraignment,
the
accused
Vino
entered
a
plea
is
guilty
as
accessory
to
the
same
murder,
and
is
of
not
guilty.
Trial
then
commenced
with
the
hereby
sentenced
to
suffer
the
indeterminate
presentation
of
evidence
for
the
prosecution.
penalty
of
5
years
prision
correccional
as
minimum
Instead
of
presenting
evidence
in
his
own
behalf,
to
8
years
of
prision
mayor
as
maximum,
with
the
the
accused
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
for
accessory
penalties
of
the
law.
insufficiency
of
evidence
to
which
the
prosecutor
filed
an
answer.
On
January
21,
1986,
2
a
decision
Teresa
was
more
or
less
passive
in
her
attitude
was
rendered
by
the
trial
court
finding
Vino
guilty
regarding
her
co-‐appellants'
conspiracy,
known
to
as
an
accessory
to
the
crime
of
murder
and
her.
After
Bernardo
was
killed,
she
became
active
in
imposing
on
him
the
indeterminate
penalty
of
her
cooperation
with
them.
These
subsequent
acts
imprisonment
of
4
Years
and
2
months
of
prision
of
her
constitute
"concealing
or
assisting
in
the
correccional
as
minimum
to
8
years
of
prision
escape
of
the
principal
in
the
crime"
which
makes
mayor
as
maximum.
He
was
also
ordered
to
her
liable
as
an
accessory
-‐-‐-‐
par.
2
and
3
of
Article
indemnify
the
heirs
of
the
victim
in
the
sum
of
19,
RPC.
P10,000.00
being
a
mere
accessory
to
the
crime
and
to
pay
the
costs.
Vino
v.
People,
178
SCRA
626
(1989)
Facts:
At
about
7:00
o'clock
in
the
evening
of
March
Issue:
WON
Vino
is
an
accessory.
21,
1985,
Roberto
Tejada
left
their
house
at
Burgos
Street,
Poblacion,
Balungao,
Pangasinan
to
go
to
the
Held:
Yes.
Petitioner
was
charged
as
a
principal
in
house
of
Isidro
Salazar
to
watch
television.
At
the
commission
of
the
crime
of
murder.
Under
around
11:00
P.M.,
while
Ernesto,
the
father
of
Article
16
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code,
the
two
other
Roberto,
was
resting,
he
heard
two
gunshots.
categories
of
the
persons
responsible
for
the
Thereafter,
he
heard
Roberto
cry
out
in
a
loud
voice
commission
of
the
same
offense
are
the
accomplice
saying
that
he
had
been
shot.
He
saw
Roberto
ten
and
the
accessory.
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
crime
(10)
meters
away
so
he
switched
on
the
lights
of
of
murder
had
been
committed
and
that
the
their
house.
Aside
from
Ernesto
and
his
wife,
his
evidence
tended
to
show
that
Jessie
Salazar
was
the
children
Ermalyn
and
Julius
were
also
in
the
house.
assailant.
That
the
petitioner
was
present
during
its
They
went
down
to
meet
Roberto
who
was
crying
commission
or
must
have
known
its
commission
is
and
they
called
for
help
from
the
neighbors.
The
the
only
logical
conclusion
considering
that
neighbor
responded
by
turning
on
their
lights
and
immediately
thereafter,
he
was
seen
driving
a
the
street
lights
and
coming
down
from
their
bicycle
with
Salazar
holding
an
armalite,
and
they
houses.
After
meeting
Roberto,
Ernesto
and
Julius
were
together
when
they
left
shortly
thereafter.
At
saw
Lito
Vino
and
Jessie
Salazar
riding
a
bicycle
least
two
witnesses,
Ernesto
and
Julius
Tejada,
coming
from
the
south.
Vino
was
the
one
driving
attested
to
these
facts.
It
is
thus
clear
that
petitioner
the
bicycle
while
Salazar
was
carrying
an
armalite.
actively
assisted
Salazar
in
his
escape.
Petitioner's
Upon
reaching
Ernesto's
house,
they
stopped
to
liability
is
that
of
an
accessory.
watch
Roberto.
Salazar
pointed
his
armalite
at
Ernesto
and
his
companions.
Thereafter,
the
two
In
the
present
case,
the
commission
of
the
crime
of
left.
murder
and
the
responsibility
of
the
petitioner
as
an
accessory
was
established.
By
the
same
token
Lito
Vino
and
Sgt.
Jesus
Salazar
were
charged
with
there
is
no
doubt
that
the
commission
of
the
same
murder
in
a
complaint
filed
by
PC
Sgt.
Ernesto
N.
offense
had
been
proven
in
the
separate
case
Rañeses
154
against
Salazar
who
was
charged
as
principal.
(a)
The
penalty
of
prision
mayor,
if
the
value
of
the
However,
he
was
acquitted
on
the
ground
of
property
involved
is
more
than
12,000
pesos
but
not
reasonable
doubt
by
the
same
judge
who
convicted
exceeding
22,000
pesos;
if
the
value
of
such
property
Vino
as
an
accessory.
The
trial
court
held
that
the
exceeds
the
latter
sum,
the
penalty
provided
in
this
paragraph
shall
be
imposed
in
its
maximum
period,
identity
of
the
assailant
was
not
clearly
established.
adding
one
year
for
each
additional
10,000
pesos;
but
the
It
observed
that
only
Julius
Tejada
identified
Salazar
total
penalty
which
may
be
imposed
shall
not
exceed
carrying
a
rifle
while
riding
on
the
bicycle
driven
by
twenty
years.
In
such
cases,
the
penalty
shall
be
termed
Vino,
which
testimony
is
uncorroborated,
and
that
reclusion
temporal
and
the
accessory
penalty
pertaining
two
other
witnesses,
Ernesto
Tejada
and
Renato
thereto
provided
in
the
Revised
Penal
Code
shall
also
be
Parvian
who
were
listed
in
the
information,
who
imposed.
can
corroborate
the
testimony
of
Julius
Tejada,
were
not
presented
by
the
prosecution.
(b)
The
penalty
of
prision
correccional
in
its
medium
and
maximum
periods,
if
the
value
of
the
property
robbed
or
PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE
No.
1612
stolen
is
more
than
6,000
pesos
but
not
exceeding
12,000
pesos.
ANTI-‐FENCING
LAW
OF
1979
(c)
The
penalty
of
prision
correccional
in
its
minimum
WHEREAS,
reports
from
law
enforcement
agencies
and
medium
periods,
if
the
value
of
the
property
reveal
that
there
is
rampant
robbery
and
thievery
of
involved
is
more
than
200
pesos
but
not
exceeding
6,000
government
and
private
properties;
pesos.
WHEREAS,
such
robbery
and
thievery
have
become
(d)
The
penalty
of
arresto
mayor
in
its
medium
period
to
profitable
on
the
part
of
the
lawless
elements
because
of
prision
correccional
in
its
minimum
period,
if
the
value
the
existence
of
ready
buyers,
commonly
known
as
fence,
of
the
property
involved
is
over
50
pesos
but
not
of
stolen
properties;lawphil.net
exceeding
200
pesos.
WHEREAS,
under
existing
law,
a
fence
can
be
prosecuted
(e)
The
penalty
of
arresto
mayor
in
its
medium
period
if
only
as
an
accessory
after
the
fact
and
punished
lightly;
such
value
is
over
five
(5)
pesos
but
not
exceeding
50
pesos.
WHEREAS,
is
imperative
to
impose
heavy
penalties
on
persons
who
profit
by
the
effects
of
the
crimes
of
robbery
(f)
The
penalty
of
arresto
mayor
in
its
minimum
period
if
and
theft.
such
value
does
not
exceed
5
pesos.
NOW,
THEREFORE,
I,
FERDINAND
E.
MARCOS,
President
Section
4.
Liability
of
Officials
of
Juridical
Persons.
If
the
of
the
Philippines
by
virtue
of
the
powers
vested
in
me
fence
is
a
partnership,
firm,
corporation
or
association,
by
the
Constitution,
do
hereby
order
and
decree
as
part
the
president
or
the
manager
or
any
officer
thereof
who
of
the
law
of
the
land
the
following:
knows
or
should
have
known
the
commission
of
the
offense
shall
be
liable.
Section
1.
Title.
This
decree
shall
be
known
as
the
Anti-‐
Fencing
Law.
Section
5.
Presumption
of
Fencing.
Mere
possession
of
any
good,
article,
item,
object,
or
anything
of
value
which
Section
2.
Definition
of
Terms.
The
following
terms
shall
has
been
the
subject
of
robbery
or
thievery
shall
be
mean
as
follows:
prima
facie
evidence
of
fencing.
(a)
"Fencing"
is
the
act
of
any
person
who,
with
intent
to
Section
6.
Clearance/Permit
to
Sell/Used
Second
Hand
gain
for
himself
or
for
another,
shall
buy,
receive,
Articles.
For
purposes
of
this
Act,
all
stores,
possess,
keep,
acquire,
conceal,
sell
or
dispose
of,
or
shall
establishments
or
entities
dealing
in
the
buy
and
sell
of
buy
and
sell,
or
in
any
other
manner
deal
in
any
article,
any
good,
article
item,
object
of
anything
of
value
item,
object
or
anything
of
value
which
he
knows,
or
obtained
from
an
unlicensed
dealer
or
supplier
thereof,
should
be
known
to
him,
to
have
been
derived
from
the
shall
before
offering
the
same
for
sale
to
the
public,
proceeds
of
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft.
secure
the
necessary
clearance
or
permit
from
the
station
commander
of
the
Integrated
National
Police
in
(b)
"Fence"
includes
any
person,
firm,
association
the
town
or
city
where
such
store,
establishment
or
corporation
or
partnership
or
other
organization
entity
is
located.
The
Chief
of
Constabulary/Director
who/which
commits
the
act
of
fencing.
General,
Integrated
National
Police
shall
promulgate
such
rules
and
regulations
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
Section
3.
Penalties.
Any
person
guilty
of
fencing
shall
be
this
section.
Any
person
who
fails
to
secure
the
clearance
punished
as
hereunder
indicated:
or
permit
required
by
this
section
or
who
violates
any
of
the
provisions
of
the
rules
and
regulations
promulgated
Rañeses
155
thereunder
shall
upon
conviction
be
punished
as
a
fence.
lawphi1.net
2.
If
the
person
seeking
the
clearance
or
permit
is
a
partnership,
firm,
corporation,
or
association
or
group
of
Section
7.
Repealing
Clause.
All
laws
or
parts
thereof,
individuals,
the
clearance
or
permit
shall
be
obtained
by
which
are
inconsistent
with
the
provisions
of
this
Decree
or
in
the
name
of
the
president,
manager
or
other
are
hereby
repealed
or
modified
accordingly.
responsible
officer-‐in-‐charge
thereof.
Section
8.
Effectivity.
This
Decree
shall
take
effect
upon
3.
If
a
store,
firm,
corporation,
partnership,
association
or
approval.
other
establishment
or
entity
has
a
branch
or
subsidiary
and
the
used
secondhand
article
is
acquired
by
such
Done
in
the
City
of
Manila,
this
2nd
day
of
March,
in
the
branch
or
subsidiary
for
sale
to
the
public,
the
said
year
of
Our
Lord,
nineteen
hundred
and
seventy-‐nine.
branch
or
subsidiary
shall
secure
the
required
clearance
or
permit.
RULES
AND
REGULATIONS
TO
CARRY
OUT
THE
PROVISIONS
OF
SECTION
6
OF
PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE
4.
Any
goods,
article,
item,
or
object
or
anything
of
value
NO.
1612,
KNOWN
AS
THE
ANTI-‐FENCING
LAW.
acquired
from
any
source
for
which
no
receipt
or
equivalent
document
evidencing
the
legality
of
its
Pursuant
to
Section
6
of
Presidential
Decree
No.
1612,
acquisition
could
be
presented
by
the
present
possessor
known
as
the
Anti-‐Fencing
Law,
the
following
rules
and
or
holder
thereof,
or
the
covering
receipt,
or
equivalent
regulations
are
hereby
promulgated
to
govern
the
document,
of
which
is
fake,
falsified
or
irregularly
issuance
of
clearances/permits
to
sell
used
secondhand
obtained,
shall
be
presumed
as
having
been
acquired
articles
obtained
from
an
unlicensed
dealer
or
supplier
from
an
unlicensed
dealer
or
supplier
and
the
possessor
thereof:
or
holder
thereof
must
secure
the
required
clearance
or
permit
before
the
same
can
be
sold
or
offered
for
sale
to
I.
Definition
of
Terms
the
public.
1.
"Used
secondhand
article"
shall
refer
to
any
goods,
III.
Procedure
for
Procurement
of
Clearances
or
Permits
article,
item,
object
or
anything
of
value
obtained
from
an
unlicensed
dealer
or
supplier,
regardless
of
whether
the
1.
The
Station
Commanders
concerned
shall
require
the
same
has
actually
or
in
fact
been
used.
owner
of
a
store
or
the
president,
manager
or
responsible
officer-‐in-‐charge
of
a
firm,
establishment
or
2.
"Unlicensed
dealer/supplier"
shall
refer
to
any
other
entity
located
within
their
respective
jurisdictions
persons,
partnership,
firm,
corporation,
association
or
and
in
possession
of
or
having
in
stock
used
secondhand
any
other
entity
or
establishment
not
licensed
by
the
articles
as
defined
herein,
to
submit
an
initial
affidavit
government
to
engage
in
the
business
of
dealing
in
or
of
within
thirty
(30)
days
from
receipt
of
notice
for
the
supplying
the
articles
defined
in
the
preceding
purpose
thereof
and
subsequent
affidavits
once
every
paragraph.
fifteen
(15)
days
within
five
(5)
days
after
the
period
covered,
which
shall
contain:
3.
"Store",
"establishment"
or
"entity"
shall
be
construed
to
include
any
individual
dealing
in
the
buying
and
(a)
A
complete
inventory
of
such
articles
acquired
daily
selling
used
secondhand
articles,
as
defined
in
paragraph
from
whatever
source
and
the
names
and
addresses
of
hereof.
the
persons
from
whom
such
articles
were
acquired.
4.
"Buy
and
Sell"
refer
to
the
transaction
whereby
one
(b)
A
full
list
of
articles
to
be
sold
or
offered
for
sale
as
purchases
used
secondhand
articles
for
the
purpose
of
well
as
the
place
where
the
date
when
the
sale
or
offer
resale
to
third
persons.
for
sale
shall
commence.
5.
"Station
Commander"
shall
refer
to
the
Station
(c)
The
place
where
the
articles
are
presently
deposited
Commander
of
the
Integrated
National
Police
within
the
or
kept
in
stock.
territorial
limits
of
the
town
or
city
district
where
the
store,
establishment
or
entity
dealing
in
the
buying
and
The
Station
Commander
may,
at
his
discretion
when
the
selling
of
used
secondhand
articles
is
located.
circumstances
of
each
case
warrant,
require
that
the
affidavit
submitted
be
accompanied
by
other
documents
II.
Duty
to
Procure
Clearance
or
Permit
showing
proof
of
legitimacy
of
the
acquisition
of
the
articles.
1.
No
person
shall
sell
or
offer
to
sell
to
the
public
any
used
secondhand
article
as
defined
herein
without
first
2.
A
party
required
to
secure
a
clearance
or
permit
under
securing
a
clearance
or
permit
for
the
purpose
from
the
these
rules
and
regulations
shall
file
an
application
proper
Station
Commander
of
the
Integrated
National
therefor
with
the
Station
Commander
concerned.
The
Police.
application
shall
state:
Rañeses
156
the
Commission
on
Audit
of
the
case
and
comply
with
(a)
The
name,
address
and
other
pertinent
circumstances
such
procedure
as
may
be
proper
under
applicable
of
the
persons,
in
case
of
an
individual
or,
in
the
case
of
a
existing
laws,
rules
and
regulations.
firm,
corporation,
association,
partnership
or
other
entity,
the
name,
address
and
other
pertinent
4.
The
Station
Commander
concerned
shall,
within
circumstances
of
the
president,
manager
or
officer-‐in-‐ seventy-‐two
(72)
hours
from
receipt
of
the
application,
charge.
act
thereon
by
either
issuing
the
clearance/permit
requested
or
denying
the
same.
Denial
of
an
application
(b)
The
article
to
be
sold
or
offered
for
sale
to
the
public
shall
be
in
writing
and
shall
state
in
brief
the
reason/s
and
the
name
and
address
of
the
unlicensed
dealer
or
therefor.
supplier
from
whom
such
article
was
acquired.
5.
The
application,
clearance/permit
or
the
denial
In
support
of
the
application,
there
shall
be
attached
to
it
thereof,
including
such
other
documents
as
may
be
the
corresponding
receipt
or
other
equivalent
document
pertinent
in
the
implementation
of
Section
6
of
P.D.
No.
to
show
proof
of
the
legitimacy
of
acquisition
of
the
1612
shall
be
in
the
forms
prescribed
in
Annexes
"A",
"B",
article.
"C",
"D",
and
"E"
hereof,
which
are
made
integral
parts
of
these
rules
and
regulations.
3.
The
Station
Commander
shall
examine
the
documents
attached
to
the
application
and
may
require
the
6.
For
the
issuance
of
clearances/permit
required
under
presentation
of
other
additional
documents,
if
necessary,
Section
6
of
P.D.
No.
1612,
no
fee
shall
be
charged.
to
show
satisfactory
proof
of
the
legitimacy
of
acquisition
of
the
article,
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
IV.
Appeals
(a)
If
the
legitimacy
of
acquisition
of
any
article
from
an
Any
party
aggrieved
by
the
action
taken
by
the
Station
unlicensed
source
cannot
be
satisfactorily
established
by
Commander
may
elevate
the
decision
taken
in
the
case
to
the
documents
presented,
the
Station
Commander
shall,
the
proper
INP
District
Superintendent
and,
if
he
is
still
upon
approval
of
the
INP
Superintendent
in
the
district
dissatisfied
therewith
may
take
the
same
on
appeal
to
and
at
the
expense
of
the
party
seeking
the
the
INP
Director.
The
decision
of
the
INP
Director
may
clearance/permit,
cause
the
publication
of
a
notice
in
a
also
be
appealed
to
the
INP
Director-‐General
whose
newspaper
of
general
circulation
for
two
(2)
successive
decision
may
likewise
be
appealed
to
the
Minister
of
days
enumerating
therein
the
articles
acquired
from
an
National
Defense.
The
decision
of
the
Minister
of
unlicensed
dealer
or
supplier,
the
names
and
addresses
National
Defense
on
the
case
shall
be
final.
The
appeal
of
the
persons
from
whom
they
were
acquired
and
shall
against
the
decision
taken
by
a
Commander
lower
than
state
that
such
articles
are
to
be
sold
or
offered
for
sale
to
the
INP
Director-‐General
should
be
filed
to
the
next
the
public
at
the
address
of
the
store,
establishment
or
higher
Commander
within
ten
(10)
days
from
receipt
of
other
entity
seeking
the
clearance/permit.
In
places
notice
of
the
decision.
The
decision
of
the
INP
Director-‐
where
no
newspapers
are
in
general
circulation,
the
General
should
be
appealed
within
fifteen
(15)
days
from
party
seeking
the
clearance
or
permit
shall,
instead,
post
receipt
of
notice
of
the
decision.
a
notice
daily
for
one
week
on
the
bulletin
board
of
the
municipal
building
of
the
town
where
the
store,
firm,
V.
Penalties
establishment
or
entity
concerned
is
located
or,
in
the
case
of
an
individual,
where
the
articles
in
his
possession
1.
Any
person
who
fails
to
secure
the
clearance
or
permit
are
to
be
sold
or
offered
for
sale.
required
by
Section
6
of
P.D.
1612
or
who
violates
any
of
the
provisions
of
these
rules
and
regulations
shall
upon
(b)
If
after
15
days,
upon
expiration
of
the
period
of
conviction
be
punished
as
a
fence.
publication
or
of
the
notice
referred
to
in
the
preceding
paragraph,
no
claim
is
made
with
respect
to
any
of
the
2.
The
INP
Director-‐General
shall
recommend
to
the
articles
enumerated
in
the
notice,
the
Station
proper
authority
the
cancellation
of
the
business
license
Commander
shall
issue
the
clearance
or
permit
sought.
of
the
erring
individual,
store,
establishment
or
the
entity
concerned.
(c)
If,
before
expiration
of
the
same
period
for
publication
of
the
notice
or
its
posting,
it
shall
appear
3.
Articles
obtained
from
unlicensed
sources
for
sale
or
that
any
of
the
articles
in
question
is
stolen
property,
the
offered
for
sale
without
prior
compliance
with
the
Station
Commander
shall
hold
the
article
in
restraint
as
provisions
of
Section
6
of
P.D.
No.
1612
and
with
these
evidence
in
any
appropriate
case
to
be
filed.
Articles
held
rules
and
regulations
shall
be
held
in
restraint
until
in
restraint
shall
be
kept
and
disposed
of
as
the
satisfactory
evidence
or
legitimacy
of
acquisition
has
circumstances
of
each
case
permit,
taking
into
account
all
been
established.
considerations
of
right
and
justice
in
the
case.
In
any
case
where
any
article
is
held
in
restraint,
it
shall
be
the
duty
4.
Articles
for
which
no
satisfactory
evidence
of
of
the
Station
Commander
concerned
to
advise/notify
legitimacy
of
acquisition
is
established
and
which
are
Rañeses
157
found
to
be
stolen
property
shall
likewise
be
held
under
containing
a
consolidation
of
the
information
stated
in
restraint
and
shall,
furthermore,
be
subject
to
the
reports
of
Station
Commanders
in
his
jurisdiction.
confiscation
as
evidence
in
the
appropriate
case
to
be
filed.
If,
upon
termination
of
the
case,
the
same
is
not
3.
Reports
from
INP
District
Superintendent
shall
serve
claimed
by
their
legitimate
owners,
the
article/s
shall
be
as
basis
for
a
consolidated
report
to
be
submitted
semi-‐
forfeited
in
favor
of
the
government
and
made
subject
to
annually
by
INP
Directors
to
the
Director-‐General,
disposition
as
the
circumstances
warrant
in
accordance
Integrated
National
Police.
with
applicable
existing
laws,
rules
and
regulations.
The
Commission
on
Audit
shall,
in
all
cases,
be
notified.
4.
In
all
cases,
reports
emanating
from
the
different
levels
of
the
Integrated
National
Police
shall
be
accompanied
5.
Any
personnel
of
the
Integrated
National
Police
found
with
full
and
accurate
inventories
of
the
articles
acquired
violating
the
provisions
of
Section
6
of
P.D.
No.
1612
or
from
unlicensed
dealers
or
suppliers
and
proposed
to
be
any
of
its
implementing
rules
and
regulations
or
who,
in
sold
or
offered
for
sale
in
the
jurisdictions
covered
by
the
any
manner
whatsoever,
connives
with
or
through
his
report.
negligence
or
inaction
makes
possible
the
commission
of
such
violations
by
any
party
required
to
comply
with
the
These
implementing
rules
and
regulations,
having
been
law
and
its
implementing
rules
and
regulations,
shall
be
published
in
a
newspaper
of
national
circulation,
shall
prosecuted
criminally
without
prejudice
to
the
take
effect
on
June
15,
1979.
imposition
of
administrative
penalties.
FOR
THE
CHIEF
OF
CONSTABULARY
DIRECTOR-‐
VI.
Visitorial
Power
GENERAL,
INP:
It
shall
be
the
duty
of
the
owner
of
the
store
or
of
the
PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE
No.
1829
president,
manager
or
responsible
officer-‐in-‐charge
of
any
firm,
establishment
or
other
entity
or
of
an
PENALIZING
OBSTRUCTION
OF
APPREHENSION
AND
individual
having
in
his
premises
articles
to
be
sold
or
PROSECUTION
OF
CRIMINAL
OFFENDERS
offered
for
sale
to
the
public
to
allow
the
Station
Commander
or
his
authorized
representative
to
exercise
WHEREAS,
crime
and
violence
continue
to
proliferate
visitorial
powers.
For
this
purpose,
however,
the
power
despite
the
sustained
vigorous
efforts
of
the
government
to
conduct
visitations
shall
be
exercise
only
during
office
to
effectively
contain
them;
or
business
hours
and
upon
authority
in
writing
from
and
by
the
INP
Superintendent
in
the
district
and
for
the
WHEREAS,
to
discourage
public
indifference
or
apathy
sole
purpose
of
determining
whether
articles
are
kept
in
towards
the
apprehension
and
prosecution
of
criminal
possession
or
stock
contrary
to
the
intents
of
Section
6
of
offenders,
it
is
necessary
to
penalize
acts
which
obstruct
P.D.
No.
1612
and
of
these
rules
and
regulations.
or
frustrate
or
tend
to
obstruct
or
frustrate
the
successful
apprehension
and
prosecution
of
criminal
offenders;
VII.
Other
Duties
Imposed
Upon
Station
Commanders
and
INP
District
Superintendent
and
Directors
Following
NOW,
THEREFORE,
I,
FERDINAND,
E.
MARCOS,
President
Action
on
Applications
for
Clearances
or
Permits
of
the
Philippines,
by
virtue
of
the
powers
vested
in
me
by
law
do
hereby
decree
and
order
the
following:
1.
At
the
end
of
each
month,
it
shall
be
the
duty
of
the
Station
Commander
concerned
to:
Section
1.
The
penalty
of
prision
correccional
in
its
maximum
period,
or
a
fine
ranging
from
1,000
to
6,000
(a)
Make
and
maintain
a
file
in
his
office
of
all
pesos,
or
both,
shall
be
imposed
upon
any
person
who
clearances/permit
issued
by
him.
knowingly
or
willfully
obstructs,
impedes,
frustrates
or
delays
the
apprehension
of
suspects
and
the
(b)
Submit
a
full
report
to
the
INP
District
investigation
and
prosecution
of
criminal
cases
by
Superintendent
on
the
number
of
applications
for
committing
any
of
the
following
acts:
clearances
or
permits
processed
by
his
office,
indicating
therein
the
number
of
clearances/permits
issued
and
the
(a)
preventing
witnesses
from
testifying
in
any
criminal
number
of
applications
denied.
The
report
shall
state
the
proceeding
or
from
reporting
the
commission
of
any
reasons
for
denial
of
an
application
and
the
offense
or
the
identity
of
any
offender/s
by
means
of
corresponding
follow-‐up
actions
taken
and
shall
be
bribery,
misrepresentation,
deceit,
intimidation,
force
or
accompanied
by
an
inventory
of
the
articles
to
be
sold
or
threats;
offered
for
sale
in
his
jurisdiction.
(b)
altering,
destroying,
suppressing
or
concealing
any
2.
The
INP
District
Superintendent
shall,
on
the
basis
of
paper,
record,
document,
or
object,
with
intent
to
impair
the
reports
submitted
by
the
Station
Commander,
in
turn
its
verity,
authenticity,
legibility,
availability,
or
submit
quarterly
reports
to
the
appropriate
INP
Director
admissibility
as
evidence
in
any
investigation
of
or
official
proceedings
in,
criminal
cases,
or
to
be
used
in
Rañeses
158
the
investigation
of,
or
official
proceedings
in,
criminal
Done
in
the
City
of
Manila,
this
16th
day
of
January,
in
the
cases;
year
of
Our
Lord,
nineteen
hundred
and
eighty-‐one.
(c)
harboring
or
concealing,
or
facilitating
the
escape
of,
B. In
Light
Felonies
any
person
he
knows,
or
has
reasonable
ground
to
believe
or
suspect,
has
committed
any
offense
under
*Refer
to
p.
141
for
Art.
16.
existing
penal
laws
in
order
to
prevent
his
arrest
prosecution
and
conviction;
Reyes:
(d)
publicly
using
a
fictitious
name
for
the
purpose
of
1. Accessories
are
not
liable
for
light
concealing
a
crime,
evading
prosecution
or
the
execution
felonies.
of
a
judgment,
or
concealing
his
true
name
and
other
2. Rules
personal
circumstances
for
the
same
purpose
or
a. Light
felonies
are
punishable
only
purposes;
when
they
have
been
consummated.
(Art.
7)
(e)
delaying
the
prosecution
of
criminal
cases
by
b. But
when
light
felonies
are
obstructing
the
service
of
process
or
court
orders
or
committed
against
persons
or
prope
disturbing
proceedings
in
the
fiscal's
offices,
in
Tanodbayan,
or
in
the
courts;
c. rty,
they
are
punishable
even
if
they
are
only
in
the
attempted
or
(f)
making,
presenting
or
using
any
record,
document,
frustrated
stage
of
execution.
(Art.
paper
or
object
with
knowledge
of
its
falsity
and
with
7)
intent
to
affect
the
course
or
outcome
of
the
investigation
d. Only
principals
and
accomplices
are
of,
or
official
proceedings
in,
criminal
cases;
liable
for
light
felonies.
(Art.
16)
e. Accessories
are
not
liable
for
light
(g)
soliciting,
accepting,
or
agreeing
to
accept
any
benefit
felonies,
even
if
they
are
committed
in
consideration
of
abstaining
from,
discounting,
or
against
persons
or
property.
(Art.
impeding
the
prosecution
of
a
criminal
offender;
16)
(h)
threatening
directly
or
indirectly
another
with
the
infliction
of
any
wrong
upon
his
person,
honor
or
property
or
that
of
any
immediate
member
or
members
of
his
family
in
order
to
prevent
such
person
from
appearing
in
the
investigation
of,
or
official
proceedings
in,
criminal
cases,
or
imposing
a
condition,
whether
lawful
or
unlawful,
in
order
to
prevent
a
person
from
appearing
in
the
investigation
of
or
in
official
proceedings
in,
criminal
cases;
(i)
giving
of
false
or
fabricated
information
to
mislead
or
prevent
the
law
enforcement
agencies
from
apprehending
the
offender
or
from
protecting
the
life
or
property
of
the
victim;
or
fabricating
information
from
the
data
gathered
in
confidence
by
investigating
authorities
for
purposes
of
background
information
and
not
for
publication
and
publishing
or
disseminating
the
same
to
mislead
the
investigator
or
to
the
court.
If
any
of
the
acts
mentioned
herein
is
penalized
by
any
other
law
with
a
higher
penalty,
the
higher
penalty
shall
be
imposed.
Section
2.
If
any
of
the
foregoing
acts
is
committed
by
a
public
official
or
employee,
he
shall
in
addition
to
the
penalties
provided
thereunder,
suffer
perpetual
disqualification
from
holding
public
office.
Section
3.
This
Decree
shall
take
effect
immediately.