Crim 2 Digests Title 1-7

TITLE ONE: Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations People vs. Lol-lo (43 Phil 19, February 27, 1922) Facts: On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left matuta. In one of the boats was an individual; on the other are eleven men, women and children. After a number of days of navigation, the second boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid. There the boats were surrounded by six vintas manned by 24 armed Moros. They attacked some of the men and violated the women. They then placed two of the women to be submerged when they arrived at Maruro. The two women were able to escape. Lol-lo and Saraw, two of the Moros returned to Tawi-tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. They were arrested and were charged with the crime of Piracy. Issue: Whether or Not defendants are guilty of the crime of Piracy. Held: Yes. The crime is punished under Art. 122 and 123 of the Revised Penal Code. Piracy are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all of mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits. People vs. Roger Tulin (364 SCRA 10, August 30, 2001) Facts: On March21, 1991, “M/T Tabangao” loaded with kerosene, gasoline and diesel was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island. The vessel was suddenly boarded by the defendants, 7 armed pirates. They detained the crew and took control of the vessel and painted it with “Galilee”, registered at San Lorenzo, Honduras. The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, sending misleading radio messages to PNDC. PNDC, after losing the radio contact with the vessel, reported the disappearance to the Philippine Coast Guard with the assistance of the Air Force and Navy, but the search rescue yielded negative results. The vessel arrived in the vicinity of Singapore while waiting for another vessel which failed to arrive. The pirates were forced to return to the Philippines at Calatagan Batangas. On March 28, 1991, the vessel again sailed to Singapore’s shoreline where another vessel “Navi Pride” anchored beside it. Changco, one of the defendants, ordered the transfer of the vessel’s cargo. Issue: a. Whether or not the defendants were guilty of the crime Qualified Piracy

b. Can defendant Cheong be convicted as accomplice when he was not charged as such and when the act allegedly committed by him were executed outside Philippine waters and territory.

Held: a. Yes. Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Art. 123 of the RPC provides for the requisites of Qualified Piracy Qualified Piracy exists if any of the following circumstances is present: 1. Whenever the offenders have seized the vessel by boarding or firing upon the same; 2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; 3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape. b. Yes. Art. 122 of the RPC provides that any person who, on the high seas or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement or passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passenger shall be convicted of the crime of piracy. People vs. Catantan ( 278 SCRA 761, September 5, 1997) Facts: On June 27, 1993, the Pilapil brothers were fishing in the sea 3km away from the shores of Tabongan Cebu. Their pumpboat was boarded by the defendants and was seized. As they passed the shoreline of Nipa, they saw another boat and the defendants seized the same. The defendant ordered the operator Juanito to take them to Mungaz. As Ursal, co-accused with defendants was transferring to the “new” pumpboat, he was caught in an accident that threw Eugene into the sea. Juan Pilapil untied his brother’s legs and found themselves safely ashore. An information for the crime of Piracy was filed against the defendant. Issue: Whether or not defendant is guilty of the crime of Piracy. Held:

Yes. Sec 2, par. (d), of PD 532, defines Piracy as “any attack upon the seizure of the any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of the complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters shall be considered as Piracy”. And a vessel is considered in Sec. 2, par (6) of the same decree as “any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through Philippine waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessel or boats used in fishing”.

TITLE TWO: Crimes Against The Fundamental Laws Of The State Astorga vs. People (412 SCRA 51, October 1, 2003) Facts: On September 1, 1997, Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of DENR Office No. 8, Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in line with the government’s campaign against illegal logging. The team was escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco Jr. and SPO1 Rupo Capoguian. The team then spotted two yacht-like boats at Brgy. Bagacay but then left knowing the owner was not around. En route to Brgy. Manungca in Sta. Rita they spotted two more boats prompting them to stop and investigate. Maniscan and Militante, members of the team disembarked from DENR pumpboat and proceeded to the site of boat construction. There they met Mayor Astorga. The team was harassed by the mayor and 2 armed men. They were brought to the house of the mayor where they had dinner and were not allowed to leave until 2 am. The team then filed a complaint of Arbitrary Detention. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime Arbitrary Detention. Held: Yes. Arbitrary Detention is punished under Art. 124 of the RPC and its elements are: a) That the offender is a public officer or employee b) That he detains a person c) That the detention is without legal grounds. 1. Public officers are the policemen and other agents of the law, the judges or mayors, barangay captain and a municipal councillor.

2. Detention is defined as the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure, or in any manner of detaining and depriving him of his liberty.  The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victim’s liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim’s person. If the acts and actuations produce fear and be compelled to limit his own actions and movements’ he is detained against his will. 3. Legal grounds for the detention of any person a. The commission of a crime b. Violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital.  Mayor Astorga admitted that his acts were motivated by his “instinct for self preservation” and the feeling that he was being “singled out” thus, without legal grounds.

Cayao vs. Del Mundo (226 SCRA 492, September 15, 1993) Facts: On or about October 22, 1992, while traversing Indang Cavite, Cayao, a bus driver overtook another bus. As a consequence, the bus driven by Cayao almost collided with an oncoming owner-type jeepney owned by Del Mundo and was driven by his son Rommel. That afternoon, he was picked up by Indang police and was brought to the sala of the judge and was compelled to choose from 3 punishments (a) to face a charge of multiple attempted homicide, (b) revocation of driver’s license or (c) be put in jail for 3 days. Cayao chose the third. He was forced to sign a “waver of detention” and remained in the premises of the municipal jail for 3 days and was then released on the 3rd day. Issue: Whether or not defendants is guilty of Arbitrary Detention. Held: Yes. Even if Cayao was not put behind bars as respondent intended, however, Cayao was not allowed to leave the premises of the jail house. Confinement not only means incarceration, but also restraining a man, either morally or physically of his personal liberty. The judge, as a public officer, ordered the arrest and detention of Cayao without legal grounds.

Milo vs. Salanga (152 SCRA 113, July 20, 1987) Facts:

On April 21, 1973, Juan Tuvera Sr., a barrio captain, with the aid of some other private persons maltreated Armando Valdez by hitting with butts of their guns and fist blows. He was then locked inside the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for 11 hours. Issue: Whether or not Tuvera Sr., a barrio captain is a public officer who can be liable for Abitrary Detention. Held: Yes. Public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Such public officers are the policemen or other agents of the law, the judges or mayors. However, even before PD 299 was signed into law, barrio lieutenants (barrio captains/barangay captains) were recognized as persons in authority. Under RA 3590, the Revised Barrio Charter provides powers and duties of a barrio captain including maintenance of public order and law enforcement. He is a peace officer in the barrio considered under the law as a person in authority. He may make arrest and detain persons within legal limits. Barrio captains’ powers and functions are similar with mayors. Thus, he can be liable for Arbitrary Detention.

People vs. Garcia (313 SCRA 279, August 30, 1999) Facts: On November 28, 1994, two police officers boarded a jeepney en route to Baguio City. Garcia boarded the same jeepney carrying a plastic bag. After a while, the policemen smelled marijuana which emanate from the bag of the accused. They followed him unti the caught him red-handed with 5 bricks of dried marijuana leaves. The police officers then arrested him and seized the bag. Garcia was turned over to CIS for further investigation. The next day, the policemen transferred the accused to the Baguio City jail. Issue: Whether or not policemen are liable for Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authority. Held: No. Art. 215 of the RPC penalizes a public officer who shall detain another for some legal ground and fail to deliver him to the proper authorities and in cases of crimes punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, in 36 hours. Possession of 5 kg. of marijuana is a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Garcia was detained for further investigation and delivered by the

arresting officers to the court in the afternoon of the next day. Clearly it did not exceed the duration that the law proved, i.e. 36 hrs. from the time of his arrest.

Agbay vs. Dep. Ombudsman (309 SCRA 726, July 2, 1999)

Facts: On September 7, 1997, petitioner, together with Jugalbot was arrested and detained at the Liloan Police Station for an alleged violation of RA 7160, “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”. The following day a complaint was filed. On September 10, 1997, counsel for petitioner wrote Chief of Police of Liloan demanding the release of petitioner for failure of delivery to the proper judicial authority for 36 hours. On September 12, MTC of Liloan, Cebu issued the commitment of petitioner to the jail warden of Cebu. Petitioner was released on post bond. On September 26, petitioner filed a complaint for Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authority. Issue: Whether or not the filing of the complaint with the MTC constitutes delivery to a “proper judicial authority” as contemplated by Art. 215 of the RPC. Held: Yes. As contemplated in Art. 125 of the RPC, “Judicial Authority” means “the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a public offense, that is, ‘the Supreme Court and other such inferior courts as may be established by law’. Upon filing of complaint to MTC, the intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied. By such act, the detained person is informed of the crime imputed against him and upon his application with the court, he may be released on bail.

TITLE THREE: Crimes Against Public Order

Ladlad vs. Velasco (GR No. 172070, June 21, 2007) Facts: Petitioners are private individuals and members of the House of Representatives representing various party list groups, all face charges of rebellion

in relation to Art. 135 of the RPC in two criminal cases pending with the RTC Manila during the issuance of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a “State of National Emergency” for “allegedly conspiring and confederating with each other...” Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the crime of rebellion. Held: No. The prosecution failed to prove probable cause to indict Beltran for rebellion. Rebellion under Art. 135 of RPC is committed – By rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purposes of removing from the allegiance to said government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other armed forces or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislative, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.

People vs. Silongan Facts: On March 16, 1996, businessman Alexander Saldaña went to Sultan Kudarat with three companions to meet with Macapagal Silongan concerning the gold nuggets being sold by the latter. During the meeting, Macapagal told them that a relative died and that he has to pick up his brother in Cotabato. After fetching the brother, while they were on their way back, 15 men appeared and held Alexander and his companions captive. They were taken to a mountain hideout in Maguindanao and demanded P 15M from Alexander. Letters were sent to Alexander’s Family for negotiations of the ransom. He was detained for 5 months and was released to the military in exchange of a relative who was caught delivering a ransom note. Only 8 of the accused were brought to trial. Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping with ransom and not Rebellion. Held: Yes. Positive identification prevails over the simple denial of the accused. A positive identification of the accused, when categorical, consistent and straightforward, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over this defence.

Art. 267 of the RPC defined and penalized the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. It is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with proof beyond reasonable doubt of intent of the accused to effect the same: Elements:

 



1. The offender is a private individual 2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty 3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal 4. The commission of the offense, any of the 4 circumstances enumerated in Art. 267 be present But if the kidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting ransom, the fourth element is no longer necessary For the crime to be committed, at least one overt act of demanding ransom must be made. It is not necessary that here be actual payment of ransom because what the law requires is merely the existence of the purpose of demanding ransom. Charge should be rebellion and not kidnapping argument: o As regards the argument that the crime was politically motivated, the charge should be rebellion is without merit o The political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion o Merely because it is alleged that the accused were members of MILF or of MNLF, does not necessarily mean that he crime of kidnapping was committed in furtherance of rebellion.

The accused were convicted of the crime of kidnapping for ransom with serious illegal detention. People vs. Olivia (349 SCRA 435, January 18, 2001) Facts: On May 26, 1986, Jacinto Magbojos Jr. was taken by the group of the accused. Two witnesses were warned not to report to the police authorities or they will be killed. Sometime in 1989, Renato Magbojos, elder brother of Jacinto MAgbojos Jr. met Levelito Tubieron while on board a ship and told him the location of the burial site of his brother. On March 1, 1989, Jacinto’s remains were exhumed. Issue: Whether or not the defendant is guity of rebellion and not murder. Held: No. One can be convicted only of rebellion when the murders, robberies and kidnapping were committed as a means to or furtherance of rebellion. Offenses which were not committed in furtherance of rebellion, but for personal reasons or

other motives, are to be punished separately even if committed simultaneously with the rebellious acts. In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that the killing of Jacinto was in connection with or in furtherance of their rebellious act.

People vs. Lovedioro (250 SCRA 359, November 29, 1995) Facts: Off-duty policemen SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St. when the defendant fired a gun at the deceased’s right ear. Nestor Armenta identified the defendant since it is his nephew. Issue: Whether or not defendant is guilty of rebellion and not murder. Held: No. It is not a sufficient evidence that defendant is a member of NPA. Solicitor General avers that the crime committed by defendant may be considered as rebellion only if the defense itself had conclusively proven that the motive or intent for the killing of the policemen was for “political and subversive ends”. Political crimes are directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is intent or motive Overt acts of rebellion are not enough. Both purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime. Common crimes should be committed with political motivation to be absorbed by rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motives relates to the act and not only membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion.

People vs. Hernandez (99 Phil 515, July 18, 1956) Facts: On or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and continuously thereafter until the present time, 31 defendants and others whose whereabouts and identities were still unknown, accused and their co-conspirators, officers and members of or associated with Congress of Labor Organization (CLO), an active agency, organ and instrumentality of the Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP) cooperates and synchronizes its activities with the rebellious

activities of Hukbong Mapagpalayag Bayan (HMB) to thereby assure, facilitate and effect the complete and permanent success of the armed rebellion against the Republic of the Philippines. Hukbalahaps have risen publicly and taken arms to remove the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance of the government. Making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians. In furtherance, committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to create and spread chaos, disorder, terror and fear. Issue: Whether or not defendants are guilty of the crime Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Rebellion or Insurrection. Held: Yes. The court found Hernandez to have close connections with the Secretariat of the Communist Party. In the testimonies shown in court, it appears that Taruc and other CPP leaders used to send notes to Hernandez, who in turn issued press releases in the local papers. His acts belong to the category of propaganda, to which he appears to have limited his actions to communism. The advocacy of communism is not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted authority and seize the reins of government itself. Only when the communist advocates action and actual uprising, war or otherwise, becomes guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.

People vs. Dasig (GR No. 100231, April 28, 1993) Facts: On August 4, 1987, Pfc. Manatad, Pfc. Tizon and Pfc. Catamora were assisting in canning the traffic at M.N. Briones and Bonifacio Streets in Mandaue City. At about 4 pm, Pfc. Catamora noticed 8 persons, one of whom is Edwin Nuñez, acting suspiciously. They ended up in an gun battle that resulted to the death of Pfc. Manatad. The defendants were able to escape but were apprehended after 12 days. Dasig confessed that he and the group of Nuñez, acting killed Pfc. Manatad, but contends that he should be convicted of simple rebellion and not murder with direct assault. Issue: Whether or not defendant is guilty of rebellion and not murder with direct assault.

Held: Yes. Art. 135 of the RPC defines rebellion as a crime of taking up arms against the government. In this case, Dasig not only confessed voluntarily his membership with the sparrows unit but also his participation and that of his group in the killing of Pfc. Manatad while manning the traffic. The sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the NPA with the objective of overthrowing the duly constituted government. The killing of Pfc. Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA. The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are absorbed in one crime of rebellion. The killing of a police officer is included as an act done in furtherance of rebellion.

People vs. Cabrera (43 Phil. 84, March 4, 1922) Facts: On December 13, 1920, Manila policemen arrested a woman who was a relative of a constabulary soldier stationed at the Sta. Lucia Barracks. The arrest of the woman was considered by some of the constabulary soldiers as an outrage committed by the policemen. It gave rise to friction between members of the Manila police department and members of the Philippine constabulary. The next day there was an encounter between policeman Mojica and constabulary soldiers that resulted to the shooting of private Masinag that eventually died. A day after this incident, a rumor spread among the constabulary that Mojica was back to his original duties. On the night of December 15 some members of the constabulary escaped their barracks through a window by sawing it. They had rifles and ammunitions and were organized under the command of their sergeants and corporals. They attacked some Manila policemen in three instances. 1. On Calle Real, Intramuros, a group of constabulary soldier shot and killed an American policeman and his companion. 2. The constabulary indiscriminately shot at a passerby, causing death and wounding of most of the passengers. 3. While rifing a motorcycle, a policeman Saplala and Capt. William E. Wichman (Asst. Chief of Police) were shot and killed. Issue: 1. Whether or not conspiracy existed in the commission of the crime. 2. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the rime of treason and sedition.

Held: 1. Yes. It is primary rule that if two or more persons combine to perform a criminal act, each is responsible for al the acts of the others done in the furtherance of the common design; and “the result is the same if the act is divided into parts and each person proceeds with this part unaided”. Conspiracy is generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part and another part of the same, so as to complete it, with view of attainment of the same object, one will be justified to the conclusion that they were engaged in conspiracy to effect that object. 2. Yes. Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. It punishes all persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force of outside of legal methods any of five objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any official or agent of the government (national/provincial/municipal). It is not necessary that the offender is a private individual and that the offended party is a public officer. What is important is that there is a public uprising to incite or inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any official or agent of the government. 

The defendants were also convicted of multiple murders with grave injuries a=without the defense of double jeopardy. Two information for sedition and murder are perfectly distinct in point of law.

People vs. Umali (96 Phil 185, November 29, 1954) Facts: In the evening of November 14, 1951, a raid was staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezonby the defendants which resulted in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan, Valentin Robles and Mortega; the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicent Soriano and Leocadio Untalan and; the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five civilians. Some of the raiders also engaged in the looting and robbing of one house and two Chinese stores. The political situation in Tiaong dates back in 1947 when Umali and Punzalan were friends but became enemies due to the jealousy of Umali. Then 1951 elections came where Punzalan ran for re-election and Umali campaigned for his leader, Epifanio Pasumbal. Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery.

Held: No. The accused are guilty of Sedition, Multiple Murder, Frustrated Murder, Arson and Physical Injuries. The purpose of the raid and the act of raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the government and for doing the purpose defined under Art. 134 of the RPC. Rather, the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc. One object was to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official, Mayor Marcial Punzalan of Tiaong, acts that constitute Sedition punished under Art. 139 of the same code.

People vs. Nabong (57 Phil. 455, November 3, 1932) Facts: The defendant is an attorney who had been retained to defend one Juan Feleo against a charge of Sedition. Feleo was related by marriage to the defendant, and was a recognized leader of the communist in Nueva Ecija. Sometime in January 1931, An Antonio Ora, head of the communists in the Philippines dies and a necrological service in his memory was prepared. Major Silvino Gallardo, in charge of the Philippine Constabulary was informed that a red flag would be displayed in the meeting as an emblem of the communists. An opinion from a fiscal regarding the display of the flag was that it was said to be unlawful. He gave a copy to Nabong but the latter said that he do not agree with the opinion and he refuse to accompany the constabulary officers and the fiscal to the said meeting. The constabulary officers and fiscal went to Sta. Rosa, on their way, they met Juan Feleo and requested to refrain from displaying the red flag, Feleo promised to compy. At the meeting, the red flag was displayed which caused the arrest and removal of Feleo that resulted in disorder. After Feleo was taken, the meeting continued and few members delivered a speech, including Nabong. The officers were attentive in the course of the speech and found the said seditious. Issue: Whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime Sedition. Held: Yes. It was the purpose of the defendant in his speech to incite his hearers to overthrow the government by unlawful means. The words used manifestly tended to induce the people to resist and use violence against the agents of the constabulary and to instigate the poor cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes. They also suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies, thereby tending to stir up the people against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace. It is not necessary, in order to be seditious that the words used resulted in public uprising. The law punishes utterances which may endanger public order.

Gelig vs. People (GR No. 173150, July 28, 2010) Facts: Lydia and private complainant Gemma Micarsos were public school teachers at the Nailon Elementary School. Lydia’s son was a student of Gemma. On July 17, 1981, Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from his son, Roseller that Gemma is calling him names while in class. Lydia slapped Gemma and pushed her, causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. She suffered contusion. However, Gemma continued to experience abdominal pains and started bleeding. On August 28, 1981, she was diagnosed to have suffered incomplete abortion. Issue: Whether or not petitioner can be convicted of slight physical injuries under the information charging her for direct assault with unintentional abortion. (RTC) Held: No. The petitioner is guilty of Direct Assault under the second mode (Art. 148). Elements: a) That the offender (1) makes an attack, (2) employs force, (3) makes a serious intimidation, or (4) makes a serious resistance b) That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent. c) That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent a. Is engaged in the actual performance of official duties b. He is assaulted by reason of past performance of duties d) That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties. e) There is no public uprising  Art 152 – Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority  No evidence that the slapping is the proximate cause of the unintentional abortion  Petitioner is convicted of the crime Direct Assault

Rivera vs. People (462 SCRA 350, June 30, 2005) Facts: On March 20, 1993, Police Inspector Edward Leygo and SPO1 Joseph Basquial were conducting routine patrol on board a police car when they came upon a truck unloading sacks of chicken dung at the stall of the accused Rivera at Halsema Highway, Shilan La Trinidad, Benguet. Inspector Leygo advised the driver for violation of Ordinance No. I-91 which the driver complied with the directive. The policemen escorted the truck back to Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet. Not long after, another 2 policemen stopped the same truck at Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet. The accused arrived at the scene and told the driver to obey him and not the

policemen. Inspector Leygo arrived and was able to chase the truck. Leygo and Rivera had a confrontation that lead to the utterance of insulting words and punching the Inspector. The accused was arrested and taken to police headquarters. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime Direct Assault. Held: Yes. Rivera’s case falls under the second mode of Art 148 of the RPC.  Well-settled rule that the testimony of a single witness, if straightforward and categorical is sufficient to convict.  Aggravated when: (a) the assault is committed with a weapon; (b) when the offender is a public officer or employee; (c) when the offender lays hand upon persons in authority.

People vs. Abalos (258 SCRA 523, July 9, 1996) Facts: On March 20, 1983, during a barangay fiesta Police Major Cecilia Abalos and the defendant Tiburcio Abalos, his son had a heated argument. The victim, Pfc. Sofronio Labine arrived at the scene to stop the fight. He was struck in the head with a piece of wood by the defendant. He immediately fled from the scene. Issue: Whether or not the defendant is guilty of complex crime of Direct Assault with Murder. Held: Yes. He is guilty of the second mode of Art. 148 of the RPC. All of the elements of Direct Assault were present in this case. When the assault results in the killing of that agent or of a person in authority, there arises the complex crime of Direct Assault with Murder or Homicide. The killing inthe instant case constituted the felony of murder qualified by alevosia through treacherous means. Pfc. Labine was struck from behind. Labine was a duly appointed member of INP in Catbalogan, Samar and thus, was an agent of a person in authority pursuant to Art. 152 of the RPC. He was also in the actual performance of his duties when assaulted by defendant, and was wearing his uniform.

People vs. Dural (223 SCRA 523, June 8, 1993)

Facts: On January 31, 1988, at around 12:00 pm, prosecution witnesses were at the Macaneneng St. Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City when they heard successive gunshots and hid themselves in a concrete fence. At a distance, they saw 3 armed men firing upon 2 Capcom Soldiers. They also noticed 2 other men at the scene, one was accused Bernardo Itucal who was left to take care of the scene. The witness then went to Capcom headquarters for their testimony.

Issue: 1. Whether or not the accused (Dural) is guilty of the complex crime Murder with Direct Assault 2. Whether or not the accused (Itucal) is liable for conspiracy Held: 1. Yes. Witnesses clearly identified him as one of the gunmen. Dural and the 2 gunmen knew that the victims, T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Manglingot, were members of the Phil. Constabulary detailed with the Capcom as they were in uniform and riding an official Capcom car. The victims were agents of persons in authority and were in the performance of official duty as peace officers and law enforcers. Dural committed Direct Assault under Art. 148 of the RPC. For killing the victims, he is found guilty of two counts of complex crimes of murder with Direct Assault. 2. No. Itucal did not possess any weapon and that he arrived at the scene of the crime when the assailants left. TITLE FOUR: Crimes Against Public Interest Tecson vs. CA (370 SCRA 181, November 22, 2001) Facts: A civilian informer notified the Cash Department of the Central Bank of the Philippines that a certain Mang Andy was involved in a syndicate engaged in the business of counterfeit US Dollar Notes. On April 26, 1990, a test-buy operation was ordered which resulted in the purchase of one counterfeit US dollar note for the price of P200. Atty. Pio Chan Jr., Chief of Investigation Staff of CBP formed ateam to conduct a buy-bust operation. On April 28, the operation was held at Jollibee Sta. Cruz, Manila, where Mang Andy whom later identified as Alejandro Tecson was apprehended in possession of 70 pcs. of US dollar notes, with intent to sell the same to the undercover agent. Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime illegal possession and use of false treasury or banknotes and other instruments of credit. Held: Yes. He is liable under Art. 168 of the RPC of the crime illegal possession and use of false treasury or banknotes and other instruments of credit. Elements: 1. That any treasury or banknote or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person. 2. That the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or falsified. 3. That he either used or possessed with intent to use any of any of such forged or falsified documents.  The evidence is admissible because the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto by the prosecution witness during the buy-bust operation  It is a case of a legally valid warrantless and seizure of the evidence of the crime. Clemente vs. People (652 SCRA 382, June 15, 2011) Facts: Petitioner is a detainee at Manila City Jail. On August 7, 2007, informantinmate Francis Dela Cruz informed the jail officers of a counterfeit P500 from Clemente with order to buy a drink from the City Jail bakery. The jail guard then entered the cell of Clemente and confiscated a wallet from his back pocket that contained 23 pieces of suspected counterfeit P500. The 24 bills were turned over for BSP analysis and found that they were counterfeit. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. Held: No. Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone, without anything more, is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute a criminal offense under Art. 168 of the RPC, the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or banknotes. In this case, prosecution failed to show that Clemente used or intended to use such counterfeit money. The informant, Francis Dela Cruz was not presented to the court. Thus, their account is hearsay and not based on personal knowledge. Since he was the only one who has knowledge of the act which manifested Clemente’s intent to use for there must be an overt act to manifest such intent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guillergan vs. People (641 SCRA 511, February 2, 2011) Facts:

Sometime in 1987, petitioner Guillergan, a Lieutenant Colonel in the AFP, directed Master Sergeant Edna Seclon, Chief Clerk of the Controller’s Office, to cause the preparation of the payrolls of their civilian intelligence agents with supporting time record and book. Each time the processing unit returned the payrolls for lack of signature of the payees, Guillergan would direct Technical Sergeant Nemesio Butcon, the Budget and Fiscal Non-commissioned Officer, to affix his initial to complete the requirements and facilitate the processing of the payrolls. Also on Guillergan’s instruction, the CIA’s payrolls in Region 6 were covered by cash advances payable to Capt. Roland Maclang. When ready, Guillergan received the cash and checks and turned over to Brigadier Rio. At the end of 1987, Rio further received huge amount of administrative funds and requested that it be re-aligned to intelligence funds to facilitate clearing. On April 14, 1989, the AFP Anti-Graft Board filed a complaint against Rio, Butcon., Maclang, Seclon and Guillergan for violating Articles of War 94 in relation to Art. 217 of the RPC. Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the case but recommended the filing of charges of illegal use of public funds. The Sandiganbayan filed a case of estafa under Art. 315 (2a) in relation to Art. 171 of the RPC. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime punished under Art. 172 (estafa) in relation to Art. 171. Held: Yes. What is punished in falsification of a public document is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed in it. Art. 171 elements: 1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public. 2. He takes advantage of his public position 3. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is done Art. 172 (1) elements: 1. The offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his public position 2. The offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 3. The falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document. All the elements are present in this case 1. Guillergan’s position as a comptroller did not include the preparation of the appointments and payrolls of CIA. Nor did he have official custody of the pertinent documents. His official function was limited to keeping the records of the resources that the command received from Camp Crame. Thus, he did not take advantage of his public position. 2. He induced/ordered Butcon to sign the payrolls as payee to make it appear that persons participated in an act of proceeding (in this case, the payroll document) when they di not in fact so participate.

3. Falsification was committed on the time of record, book, and payrolls which were public documents.  Guillergan is guilty of violation of Art. 172 of the RPC. Galeos vs. People (642 SCRA 485 G.R.174730 – 37 February 9, 2011) FACTS: Ong was appointed OIC-Mayor of Naga, Cebu and was elected eventually. On June 1, 1994, Ong permanently appointed Galeas and Rivera for positions in the municipal engineer, which were casual employees before the appointment. On their SALNs, they did not fill up the questions if they have relatives in the government. Ong’s signature appear on the person who administered oath. Criminal charges against Ong, Galeas and Rivera was filed per falsification of public documents, in connection with the certification and false statements in the SALN. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the crime of falsification of public documents HELD: Yes. Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code enumerated the acts punished of the crime of falsification of public documents: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubic; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. >>elements. a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts. b) he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false * In addition, it must be proven that the public officer has taken advantage of his official position in the falsification. >>elements to consider that he has taken advantage of his official position 1) he has duty to make or prepare otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the document 2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. *Intent to gain or intent to injure a 3rd person is not essential. What is punished is the violation of public faith and destruction of truth. In this case, the elements are proven. Nepotism is not allowed in the Civil Service.

BIENVENIDO GONZULADO vs People (481 SCRA 569 G.R. No. 150910 February 6, 2006) Facts: On January 11, 1978, Ulysses Villaflor, member of Bacolod City Police Office married Anita Manlangit. They stayed at Ulyses’s mother’s home. Ulyses was then assigned to Pagadian City while his wife moved to Samar. He was then re-assigned to Bacolod City where he bought a house and had a mistress Rosemarie Gelogo. He transformed the small house to a 2-storey structure. Ulyses died and Gelogo sold the house to petitioner, who introduced to his relative, spouses Canlas who bought the house. On January 20, 1993, Gelogo and Greg Canlas executed a deed of sale, as witnessed by petitioner. Anita Manlangit then filed charging Rosemarie Gelogo, Gonzulado and spouses Canlas with the crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents, when Gelogo affixed and signed her name as Rosemarie Villaflor knowing that there is a legal wife in the deed of sale ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime of falsification of public documents. HELD: Yes. The accused are guilty under Act 4 Art. 171 of the RPC 4) Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts Rosemarie Gelogo signing as “Rosemarie Villaflor” instead of her real namae in order to sell the house to spouses Canlas. Likewise proved that Gonzulado acted in conspiracy with Gelogo. AVELLA GARCIA vs. Court of Appeals (471 SCRA 427 G.R. No. 128213 December 13, 2005) FACTS: Early in October 1990, a verbal agreement was entered into between Alberto Quijada and Garcia for the sale of Quijada’s house and lot at Mandaluyong. Payments were executed in several instances. Two receipts were reproduced. The relationship of the buyer and seller turned sour. Garcia filed a complaint of estafa against Quijada for his failure to execute a deed of sale and deliver the subject property. Among the evidence she submitted was the copy of receipt which appeared to be attend from 15,000 – 155,000. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of falsification HELD:

Yes. The elements of the crime of falsification under Art. 171(6) of the RPC are: 1) That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document 2) That it was made on a genuine document 3) That the alteration or or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document 4) That the changes made the document speak something false. When this are committed by a private individual on a private document the violation would fall under par.2, Art. 172 of the same code. In addition, to the elements, independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to the third person. Given the admissions of Garcia to the alteration, and without convincing evidence that the alteration was with the consent of Quijada, the Court holds that the 4 elements were proven to convict the petitioner. LEOPOLDO OANI vs People G.R. No. 139984 March 31, 2005 FACTS: During the SY 1988-1989, the Panabo High School, headed by Principal Leopoldo Oani implemented the free secondary school program of the government. The school received P648,532.00 from the Department of Education, culture and Sports (DECS) for Maintenance and other operating Expenses (MOOE). On March 1, 1990, DECS Secretary received a letter from the PTA of Panabo HS regarding the investigation of Principal Oani and Bonifacio Roa, auditor for the alleged overpricing of 12 fire extinguishers. In the investigation of MOEE team, they found that Oani approved the purchase of the overpriced extinguishers, stereo set and office supplies. Information was filed to Oani and Roa for violations of Rep. Act. 3019 ISSUE: Whether or not the petioner violated R.A. 3019 HELD: Yes. Petitioner did not conduct a public bidding in the purchase of the materials. He argues that he was justified in dispensing with a public bidding and to purchase on a negotiated basis with the private company. He is wrong. COA Circular No. 78-84 provides that negotiated contracts may be entered into where any of the following conditions exists: 1. Whenever the supplies are urgently needed to meet a emergency which may involved the loss of or danger to life and/or property; 2. whenever the supplies to be used in connection with a project or activity which cannot be delayed without causing detriment to the public service; 3. whenever the materials are sold by an exclusive distributor or manufacturer who does not have subdealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be obtained elsewhere at more advantageous terms to the government;

4. whenever the supplies under procurement have been unsuccessfully placed on bid for at least two consecutive times, either due to lack of bidders of the offers received in each instance equipment, the purchase of (9) units fire extinguishes were exhorbirant or non-confirming to specifications: 5. In cases where it is apparent that the requisition of the needed supplies through negotiated purchase is most advantageous to the government as determined by the head of agency; 6. whenever the purchase is made from an agency of the government. 7. whenever the purchase is made from a foreign government. * None of the conditions existed when the petitioner purchased the fire extinguishers on a negotiated basis. Number 3 and 5 is not proven by evidence. He also submitted falsified certification to remedy his contentions. * It is therefore proven that the accused and committee failed to conduct any canvass and public bidding as mandated by law. *Oani undermined the process, “ to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantage thru open competition”. He did not only act in a wanton careless manner but also in an unspeakable “breath of duty in a flagrant and palpable” way. In full contemplation of the law, his acts constitute gross inexcusable negligence. * In a public bidding, there must be competition that is legitimate, fair and honest. The three principles of a public bidding are the offer to the public; An opportunity for competition; and a basis for exact comparison of bids. *A contract granted without the competitive bidding is void and the party to whom it is awarded cannot benefit from it. *In the present case, the petitioner purchased the materials without the benefit of a public bidding, in gross and evident bad faith, resulting in the considerable overpricing, to the gross prejudice of the government. PEOPLE VS ROLDAN MORALES G.R. NO. 172873 MARCH 19, 2010 FACTS: On January 2, 2003, prosecution witness PO1 Eduardo Roy was on duty when he made the pre-operation report on the buy-bust operation to be conducted. He then proceeded to Jollibee Nrgy. San Vicente, Quezon City with PO3 Amando Rivera and informant who were introduced as buyer of “piso” worth of “shabu”, respondent Morales immediately produced a sachet containing the alleged drug. Morales received the marked money and was immediately arrested. Upon conducting the body search, he found another sachet of shabu and two aluminium foils. The items seized were brought to crime lab and tested positive for Methylampheromine Hydrochloride. ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Drug Act of 2002. HELD: No. Absence of the element of corpus delicti. Elements of Illegal sale of dangerous drugs: 1) Proof that the transaction or sale took place 2) Presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. Elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs 1) The accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug 2) Such possession is not authorized by law 3) The accused is freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug *In this case the evidence of corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Sec. 21 of RA 9165 provides: Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of conflication, seized and for surrender Dangerous Drugs, Plant sources of Dangerous Drugs, Plant sources of Dangerous Drugs, controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Investments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment – The POEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. *In this case, the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs as mandated in Sec. 21 of RA 9165, were not observed. The procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized items collectively raised doubts as to whether the items presented in court were the exact same items that were confiscated from appellant when he was apprehended. *The court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for as long as the integrity and the evidenciary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. *The identity of the corpus delicti was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There aws a braek in the chain of custody which proves fatal to the case.

PEOPLE VS ELMER”MEMENG” PERALTA G.R. NO. 17347 FEBRUARY 26, 2010 FACTS: District Drug Enforment Group (DDEG), Southern Police Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila, received reports of accused Elmer Peralta’s drug pushing activities at Makati City. On July 21, 2002, the DDEG staged a buy-bust operation with SPO1 Alberto Sangalang as poseur-buyer. The informant introduced Sangalong to Peralta as DI then gave Peralta a marked P500.00 bill for a sachet of shabu at a signal. Sangalong told his informant to buy cigarettes. The police back-up team entered the house and arrested Peralta. The sachet of shabu was marked as “1-210702” and taken to PNP Crime Lab and was tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated RA 9165 HELD: No. Absence of an element to the violation: Elements of sale of illegal drugs a)identities of the buyer and seller b)transaction or sale of the illegal drug c)existence of the corpus delicti *Prosecution failed to show the chain of custody. The integrity of the seized drugs was not preserved *Prosecution failed to proved the 3rd elements: existence of corpus delicti. *Respondent is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE VS NICOLAS GUTIERREZ G.R. NO. 179213 SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 FACTS: On June 16, 2003, while on duty at the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Psay City Police Force, prosecution witness SPO3 Matias received information via telephone from a concerned citizen that a certain alias “Nick” , later identified as the respondent, was peddling shabu along San Agustin St., Pasig City. Police officers proceeded and survelieled the area and confirmed the information. SPO3 formed a buy-bust team with PO1 Espares as poseur-buyer and PO1 Mapula and PO1 Familiara as members. They then went to the location and met with an asset. PO1 Espares approached the respondent and gave the marked money for the payment of a “piso” pack of shabu. Respondent then dress from his back pocket a black plastic case and took one sachet of the crystalline substance. The team on signal apprehended the respondent and confiscated the case. ISSUE:

HELD: No. Absence of the third element. Existence of corpus delicti Elements of sale of illegal drugs a)identities of the buyer and seller b)transaction or sale of the illegal drug c)existence of the corpus delicti *In prosecution involving narcotics, the narcotics substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubts demands that unwaiving exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The “chain of custody” rule performed this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of evidence are removed. *Sec. 1(b) of the Dangerous Drug Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 which implements RA 9165 defines “chain of custody” as follows: b.“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plants source of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at each stage. From the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and destruction. Such record of movements and custody of the seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the dates and times when such transfers of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. *Movement of seized evidence be maintained: As a movement of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the movement the item was pick up to the time it is offered into evidence. In such way that the event person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then described the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. *Prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody. Question if the evidence examined and presented in court is the same. *Failure to comply with Sec. 21 par.1 of Article II of RA9165 with respect to custody and disposition of the evidence. There was no physical inventory and photograph. PEOPLE VS QUE MING KHA G.R. NO. 133265 MAY 29, 2002

FACTS: On May 16, 1997, Chief Inspector Gilbert dela Fuente, Head of the Intelligence and Investigation Division, station 6, Central Police District, received a phone call from an informant that a van which being used to transport shabu at Quezon City. Dela Fuerte dispatched 3 teams at 5pm, the team spotted the van and it hit a 7-year old boy but sped away. They followed the van and intercepted it at Commonwealth Avenue. They got out of their vehicle and approached the van. They noticed Several sacks at the back of the van that contained several plastic bags containing white crystalline substance. They arrested the driver Go and Que Ming Kha. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are guilty of violating RA 9165 HELD: Que Ming Kha (Alfonso Go) – guilty - All the elements are present being the driver of the van - He cannot claim that he was not aware of the existence of the contraband. The crime is malum prohibitum, lack of criminal intent and good faith do not excuse the accused from criminal liability. Mere possession and/or delivery of the regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under RA 9165. - Evidence is admissible even without warrant of arrest: (4) seizure of evidence in the plain view. - Kim Que Yu (Alfonso Que) – acquitted - Not present in the sane of the crime NAZARIO MARIFOSQUE VS PEOPLE GR NO. 156685 JULY 21, 2004 FACTS: On October 13, 1990, spouses Sy went to the office of Capt. Alberto Salvo , chief of the Intelligence and operating Division stationed at the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) to report the robbery of shellane tanks and the alleged extortion attempt by petitioner Police Sgt. Marifosque in exchange for the recovery of the lost items. Capt. Solvo set up a plan to entrap the petitioner. Petitioner Marifosque was arrested at the Golden Grace Department Store with the marked money given by Hian Hian Yu Sy. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery. HELD: Yes. The crime of direct bribery as defined in Art. 210 of the RPC consists of the following elements: 1)that the accused is a public officer; That he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise.

3)that such gift present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do 4)that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. *Definition of public authority is provided in Art. 210 RPC NASZARO MARIFOSQUE VS. PEOPLE G.R.No.156685 JULY 27,2014 FACTS: On October 13,1990, spouses sy went to the office of capt.Alberto Salvo,chief of the Intelligence and operating Division stationed at the criminal Investigation service (CIS) to Report the robbery of shellane tanks and the alleged extorsion attempt by petitioner Police Sgt.Marifosque in exchange for the recovery of the lost items.capt.Salvo set up a Plan to entrap the petitioner.Petitioner Marifosque was arrested at the golden grace Department Store with the marked mony given by Hian Hian yu sy. ISSUE: W/N petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery. HEILD: Yez.The crime of direct bribery as difine in Art.210 of of the RPC consist of the Following elements: 1) That the accused is a public officer; 2) That he receive directly or through another some gift or present ,offer or promise 3) That such gift ,present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime,or any act constituting a crime ,or to refrain frome doing something which it is his official duty to do 4) That the crime or act relates to the exercise of his fuctions as a public officer. 

Definition of public authority is provide in art .210 RPC.At the time of the incident, Petitioner was a police surgeant when he directly receive bribe money fome Yu so Pong And his daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the recovery of the stolen cylinder tanks,

An act constituting a crime under Art .210 of the RPC. 

The case falls under the second paragraph of Art.210 of the PRC *If the gift was accept by the officer in consideration of the execution of an Act which deos not constitute a crime,and the officer executed said act,he shall suffer the same penalty provide in the preceding paragraph.

NATHANIEL MANIPON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No.L58889 JULY 31,1996 FACTS: Petitioner is deputy sheriff of the court of first instance of Baguio and benguet and was assigned to enforce an order of the Minister of Labor to executive the decition of the labor arbiter in Langog Tabek,et al vs. Harry Dominguez,et al pursuant to that assignment Mnipon on Nov,9,1979 sent a notice the commercial bank and trust branch in baguio gamishing the bank accounts of Dominguez.On November 12,1979,Dominguez sought Manipon’s help in the withdrawal of the of he garnished account. On December 27,1979, when the two met again at the office of the national Intelligence and security Authority (NISA),Manipon told Dominguez that he can remedy the Withdrawal.Dominguez interpreted this to mnean that manipon would withdraw the garnished Amount for a consideration.They agreed to meet at the bank.Dominguez then when to NISA Substation commander Luisito Sanchez to entrap Manipon. On December 28,Manipon arrived in the bank and delivered a letter lifting the Garnishment .He handed the money to Dominguez and left.He was then arrested and Tested positive to fouresent powder from the marked money ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery. HEILD: Yes.All the elements provide in Art,210 of the RPC are present *Exceptions to the rule of valid search and seizure without warrant 1) search incidental to an arrest 2) search of moving vehicle 3) search of evidence in plan view

*The case fall under number 1 thus evidence is admissible in court. LAURO SORIANO JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN GR NO. L-65952 JULY 31, 1984 FACTS: Thomas Tan was accused of qualified theft was assigned for investigation to the petitioner who was an Assistant City Fiscal. Petitioner demanded 14,000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. . Tan reported the demand to NBI. The petitioner was entrapped and arrested for violation of sec.3 par (b) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner violated RA3019. HELD: No. Petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC Sec.3(b) of RA 3019 Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law. The following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public offices and are hereby declared to be unlawful. (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. 

The investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Neither was it a transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the team which precedes it. A transaction, like a contract, is one which involves come consideration as in credit transactions and this element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.

LEONOR FORMILLEZA VS SANDIGANBAYAN GR NO. 75160 March 18, 1988 FACTS: Estrella Mutia was an employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) for 12 years, her appointment was co-terminus with a project of the NIA. On December 31`,1983, her appointment was terminated. Mutia said that she took steps to obtain either permanent or atleast renewed appointment. She approached the regional director but was advised to sec the petition, being the personnel supervisor of the regional office of NIA in Tacloban. The petitioner refused to her appointment papers unless were given some money.

On February 21, 1984. Mutia reported her problem to the Philippine Constabulary an entrapment was set and on second attempt, the petitioner was arrested with the marked money. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of indirect bribery. HELD: No. Indirect bribery under Art. 211 of the RPC consists of the following elements: 1) The offender is a public officer 2) He accepts gifts 3) The said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office *The essential ingredient of indirect bribery is that the public officer concerned must have accepted the gift or material consideration. These must be clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and consider as his own property, such as putting away the gift for safekeeping or pocketing them. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient.

GREGORY POZAR VS. COURT OF APPEALS GR No. L-62439 October 23, 1984 FACTS: The petitioner was convicted of the crime of less physical injuries and the crime of oral defamation. On November 28, 1979, he filed for application for probation. He together with his lawyer Atty. Reynaldo Suarez went to the Probation Office to inquire about the requirements, but probation officer Danilo Ocampo was not around. On December 10, 1979, the petitioner has a meeting with Mr. Ocampo and was asked to submit a photocopy of his visa and 10 picture, being a foreigner. On December 17, the petitioner went back to the probation office but Mr. Ocampo was not around so he handed an envelope to Mr. Manalo to give the same to Mr. Ocampo on December 19, Mr. Ocampo handed it back to Mr. Mando to return it back to the petitioner. Mr. Ocampo filed an information to the judge regarding the money. The office of the City Fiscal immediately investigated the situation. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of corruption of public officials HELD:

No. Art.212 of the RPC provides for the elements of the crime of corruption of public officials and are as follows: 1) That the offender makes offers or promises or gifts or present to a public officer. 2) That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. *The giving of monery was done in good faith since the petitioner is a foreigner and unfamiliar with probation rules and regulations. He was confused or befuddled and his acts constitutes only an advance for the expenses for the documentation. RINA CHUA VS EDGARDO NUESTRO AM No. P-88-256 October 11, 1990 FACTS: On September 12, 1988, the court issued a writ of execution on a civil case. Petitioner, her husband and ounsel asked the respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo Nuestro to immediately enforce the writ and they agreed to give P1,000 to the respondent aside from expenses on the next day, the respondent asked for an additional amount of P500.00. He went to the property and broke the padlock. The counsel for defendent arrived with the receipt of payment of the superseades bond to suspend the execution of the writ. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of direct bribery. HELD: Yes. All the elements provided in Art. 210 of the RFC are present. The fee is received was distinct from the sheriff’s fee and expenses for execution and is not intended for that purpose. ROBERTO CHANG VS. PEOPLE 496 SCRA 321 GR No. 165111 July 21, 2006 FACTS: Makati Treasurer’s office examiners Vivian Yu and Lenila Azevedo conducted an examination of the books of accounts and other records of GDI to verify the amount of tax due from the business operations, and found a total amount of P494.60 tax deficiency for 1986 to 1990. The office of the Treasurer issued a notice to GDI for payment. The notices were received by Mario Magat, Chief Operating Officer of CDI. On May 15, 1991 Magat and San Mateo, assessor met at a sports Club, petitioner Roberto Chang later joined them. They agreed that if GDI could pay P125,000, the assessment will be resolved. On May 29, San Mateo went to GDI office for the check but refused to accept it when it was payable to the municipal treasurers. On June 6, Magat met San Mateo and Chang and was given two options

pay P494,60 to the municipality or P125,000 to them. GDI president then referred the matter to the NBI. On June 19, 1991, the payment was scheduled to be made and Magat informed the NBI for the entrapment. Magat, San Mateo, Chang and his driver had lunch at the sports club. Magat then handed the brown enveloped with the money in exchange of the certificate of examination that GDI had no more realibility. It was received by Chang and passed it to San Mateo. They were then arrested they were found positive for fluorescent poweder. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners Chang and San Mateo violated Sec. 3(6) of the RA 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. HELD: Yes. Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 provides: Sec. 3 Corrupt practices of public officers – in addition to acts or omissions of public pfficers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift present share percentage or benefit for himself or for any other person in connection with any contract ot transaction between the Government and any other party. Wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. Elements|: 1) The offender is a public officer 2) Who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage, or a benefit 3) On behalf of the offender or any other person 4) In connection with a contract or transaction with the government 5) In which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene *All the elements are present *It was an entrapment not an instigation. It was established that the criminal intent originated from the petitioners. ANUNCIO BUSTILLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 486 SCRA 545 GR No. 146217 April 7, 2006 FACTS: In 1995, the office of the Special Prosecutor charged petitioner, then incumbent mayor of Bunawan, Agusan Del Sur, and his daughter, in the Sandiganbayan with falsification of Public Documents under Art. 171 of the RFC. The accfused falsified 3 vouchers, making it appear that P30,000 of lumber was bought from Estigoy Lumber and not from Rowena Woodcraft, a single proprietorship owned by the daughter Rowena Bustillo. ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner’s suspension from office pendent lite finds basis in sec. 13 of RA 3019. HELD: Yes. Sec. 13 of RA 3019 provides: Suspension and loss of benefits – any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this act or under Title I, Book II of the RFC or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property, whether as a simple or as a complex offense and it whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgement, he shall lose all retirement or gratituity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him. *The case falls undr Title 4 Book II, but it involved fraud upon government or public funds or property. Fraud refers to an instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misinterprentation. FLORANTE SORIQUEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN 414 SCRA 222 GR No. 153526 October 25, 2005 FACTS: On February 29 to June 15, 1996 petitioner Progran Director of Mt. Pinatubo Rehabilitation Project Management Office (MPR-PMO) along with 9 other public officials of DPWH consented or permitted the contractor, atlantic erectons Inc. To deviate from the plans and specifications of a contract in constructing the Transverse section of the Pasig-Potrero River Diking System (Megadike) in violation of the material provision of said contract and allowed to called P38,289,708.61 and which breach of contract causing prejudice and damage to the government. ISSUE: Whether or not is guilty of violation of sec. 3(e) of RA 3016 HELD: Yes. All the elements provided in Sec. 3(e) of RA 3016 are present Sec. 3 Corrupt practices of public officers – in addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and hereby declared to be unlawful: (e) causing any undue injury to any party. Including the Government or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. Elements:

1) The accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions 2) 2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence 3) 3) his action has caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or has given any party any unwarranted benefit advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions *1) petitioner is a public officer being an official of DPWH (MPR-FMO) Program Director 2) petitioner recommended the defective design of megadike. He constituted evident bad faith or inexecusable negligence, as the design plan proved to be defective. 3) with the collapse of megadike, it cause undue injury. EDGAR TEVES VS SANDIGANBAYAN 447 SCRA 209 GR No. 154182 December 17, 2004 FACTS: On February 4, 1992, Edgar Teves, Mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental with wife Teresita Teves caused the issuance of the appropriate business permit/license to operate the Valencia Cockpit and Recreation Center for Daniel Teves. Petitioner and wife are the actual owners and operators of the said cockpit. An information for violation of Sec. 3 (h) of RA 3016 or the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners violated RA 3016 HELD: Yes. Sec. 3(h) of the Anti-graft law provides: Sec.3. Corrupt practices of the public officers – in addition to acts or omissions of public offices already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitue corrupt practices of any public officers and are hereby declared to the unlawful. (h) Directly and indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes ot takes part in his official capacity, or which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS: 1) The accused is a public officers 2) He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction 3) He other: a) Intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest

b) B) is prohibited from having such interest by the constitution or any law Sec.89 (2) of the Local Government Code Provides: Section 89. Prohibited Business and Pecuniary interest. (a) It shall be unlawful for any local government official or employee directly or indirectly to: (b) (2) hold such interests in any cockfit or other games licensed by a local government unit. *The Anti-Graft Law has to yield to the LGC an older statue and specific LGC prescribes a lighter penalty. *edgar Teves is convicted of violation of Sec.3(h) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and corrupt Practices act. For possession of pecuniary under Sec. 89 (2) of the local government code of 1991. PEOPLE VS JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA GR No. 148560 September 12, 2007 FACTS: On April 4, 2001, an information of plunder was filed against respondent Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and 2 others including his son Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada for the crime of plunder. The information stated that during the incumbency of the respondent, in connivance with other accused a mass, accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth with a totl value of P4,097,804,173.17 more or less at the expense of the Filipinos and the Philiippines through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts or similar schemes or means described as follows. a) Receive an amount from illegal gambling in the form of gift, share, percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit b) Misappropriating public funds for personal gain c) Compelling the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of stock of the Belle corporation for personal gain d) Unjustly enriching himself from gifts, shares, percentages, kickbacks or any form of pecuniary benefit. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of plunder HELD: Yes. RA 7080 provides for the elements of the crime: 1) That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of the family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates subordinates or other persons. 2) That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts described in Sec. 1(d) of RA 7080 as amended 3) That the aggragate amouth or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00

Section 1(d) reads: Ill-gotten wealth means any assets, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Sec 2 hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominies, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes: 1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury. 2) By receiving directly or indirectly, any commission, gifts, shares percentage, kickbacks or any form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position 3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivision, agencies or instrumentalities or GOCCs 4) By obtaining receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock equity or any other form of interest or participation including promises of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking. 5) By establishing agricultural industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementations of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular person or special interests; or 6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustify enrich himself or themselves at the expense and damage and prejudice of the Filipino and the Philippines. 

All the elements were present: (1) Respondent was then the President; (2) he acted in connivance with the Governor Chavit Singson and other persons in amassing, accumulating and acquiring ill-gotten wealth as follows: a)receiving bi-mothly collections from jueteng; and (b) ordering the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of stock of the Belle Corporation

VIOLETA BAHILIDAD VS. PEOPLE G.R No. 185195 MARCH 17,2010 FACTS: Petitioner with different public officials of saranggani province conspired Together in a scheme of giving Fictitious grants and donations using funcis of the provincial government. A special audit was conducted and found that almost 10M of government funds were illegally used. A complaint was filed by a concerned citizen. ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner acted in conspiracy with other accused in commiting the Complex crime of malversation of public funds though falsification of Public ducoments. HELD: NO. The petitioner is aquitted on reasonable guilt. Conspiracy exists when two or more person come to an agreement concerning the commision of a felony and decide to commit it.Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before,during and after the commission of the crime, which are indicative of joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design, indecated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime commited. *Petitioner participation in the crime not adequately proven with moral centainty. Petitioner, as a private individual, had no hand in the preparation, processing or disburesment of the check issued in her name. ROMEO Jr. VS. PEOPLE G.R.No145229 April 20,2006 FACTS: On january 14,1988, petitioner davalos, supply officer of the office of the Provincial Engineer of Marinduque receive a cash advance frome philippine national Bank (PNB) For the proccurent of working tools for a ceratain “NALGO” project. On may 5, 1988, he received a demand letter ton submit a liquidation of the of the P18,000 cash advance. The second demand was also unheeded. On August 16, 1970, the new Provincial Treasure informed the Provincial Prosecutor Of COA’s findings that the petitioner has an settled cash advance of P18,000 ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds. HELD: Yes. The crime of malversation of public funds is defined and penalized under Art. 217 of the RPC: Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or proprty-Presumptiom of malversation Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for Public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent , or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property , wholly or portially,

or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation pf malversation of such funds or property shall suffer: xxx The failure of a public officer to have duly fortcoming any public Funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly Authorized officer, shall, be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund or property to personal uses. Elements: 1.That the offender is a public officer. 2.That he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the dutiies of his office. 3. That the funds or proper are public funds or property for which He is accountable. 4. .That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. *All the elements are present *In the crime of malversation, all that necessary for conviction is sufficient Proof that the acountable officer had receive public funds, that he did not have in his possession when demand was made. And that he could not explain his failure to do so. *Presumption in Art. 217 that failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund or property to personal use. -The presumption is rebuhable -However, petitioner failed to overcome the prima facie evidence PAMILA CHAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R No.149613 AUGUST 9, 2005 FACTS: In november 1989, petitioner was hired as accounting clerk II at the regional Office of the NBI, functioning as cashier or collection officer. Petitionaer went on leave frome December 7 to 27,1995. On December 27, the Auditor frome COA conducted a routine audit examination and found that all accounts are accounted for. On January 26,1996, the same auditor conducted another audit examination and found a shortage of P290,228 in petitioner’s cash accountability. She also sent a memorandum to the regional dirictor requesting the petitioner to be relieved. Acting on the memorandum, petitoner was replaced by Gloria Alvarez. As SOP of COA to conduct auddit examination whenever an accountable Officer is replaced and found that petitioner had cumulative shortage of cash Accountability of P333,360.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds HELD: Yes. She is found guilty on the third mode of malversation : Shall consent or, Through abandonment or negligence, shall pirmit any person to take such public funds or property. *She was remiss in her supervision of the acting collectionofficer, bas and Failed to rebut the presumption. *She omit to report the shortages of bas to the proper authority upon her Discovery thereof and also assisted in the cover up. *She granted that the funds be barrowed by bas. However, the grant of loans through the “vale” system is clear case of an accountable officer consenting to the improper or unauthorize use of public funds by other persons, which is punishable by law. ELVIRA AGULLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No.132926 JULY 20. 2001 FACTS: Petitioner,disbursing office of ministry public workls and highways (MPUH) receive P26,404.26 of public funds. They found that such fund was missing when her acount was audited. She was sent a demand letter but contented that when she opt to answer, she had a stroke. Information of the crime of malversation of public funds was filed against her. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds HELD: NO. The presumption under Art.217 of the RPC was rebutted. The court state that when absence of funds not due to the personal use thereof by the accussed, the presumption is completely destroyed. *Records reveral that on October 22,1985. Petitioner had a stroke on the Streets of tacloban when the amount was lost. LUIS TABUENA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 103501.03 FEBUARY 17, 1997 FACTS:

Then Presedent Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the President’s office and in cash what the Manilla International Airport (MIA) owes the Philppine National Construction Corporation (PNCC). About a week leter, he receive a memo to comply with the verbal instruction. Tabuena compiled that coused the release of PSSM of MIAA funds. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds HELD: NO. petitioner acted in good faith in complying with chief Executives order. Thus, criminal intent is absent in the commision of the crime and that abandonent or negligence was not proved. “Conversation” as necessary element of offence of embezzlement, being froudulent appropriation to one’s own use of another’s proper.

AMANDO TETRANGCO VS. OMBUDSMAN G.R. No.156427 JANUARY 20, 2006 FACTS: On march 8, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint before the ombudsman Alleging that on jaunuary 26,2001 , private respondent Mayor Atienza gave financial assistance to the members of the brgy.105, zone 8, District 1, and refunded the same when such disburrsement was nit justified as lawful expence. Mayor Atienza denied the allegations and sought the dismisal of the case which was granted. Hence, petition to this court. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent is guilty of the crime of technical malversation or illegal use of public funds. HELD: No.Art.220 of the RPC provide: Art.220. illegal use of public funds or property – any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prison correcional in its

minimum period or a fine ranging frome one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason such misapplication, any damages or embarassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of special disqualification. If no damage or embarassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine form 5 to 50 percent of the sum misapplied. Elements: 1.The offender is an accountable public officer 2.He applies a public funds or property under his administration to some public use 3.The public use for which the public funds or property were applied is different Frome the purpose for which they were originally approriated by law or ordinance. *The third element is not present in this case. NORMA ABDULLA VS. PEOPLE G.R. No.150129 APRIL 6,2005 FACTS: Farmer presedent of sulo state college petitioner Norma Abdulla requested for the Convensation of 34 secondaary school teachers to Instructor I items and was approved By the department of budget and managemenent (DBM). Prior to the approval , the Fund was allotted to the partial funding of paying the differencials of the Said 34 teachers in the amount of P40.000.00. however , out of the 34, only 6 teachers were entitled and paid the salary differentials as they were already the same salary rate as Instructor I. ISSUE: Whether or not the prtitioner is guilty of the crime of illegal use of public funds HELD: No.Criminal intent is absent. Basic principle in criminal law, actus non facit recum, nisi mens it rea A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. To constitute a crime, the act must be accompied by criminal intent. Article 220 of the RPC provides for the elements: 1.The offender is a public officer. 2.That there is a public fund under his administration. 3.That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law nor ordinance 4.That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such

Fund or property has been approriated by law or ordinance. *Elements 2 and 3 are absent The fund is from the “lump sum appropriation” of RA 6688 OSCAR PARUNGAO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R No.96025 MAY 15, 1991 FACTS: The province of pampanga recievs an annual CRBI (Construction Rehabilitation, Bettement and Inprovement) Fund. In 1980, Brgy ,Jalung recieve the amount of P1485,250.00 And was released to the provincial teasurer Oscar Parungao where the project is to be implemented. However,the fund was use to defray the labor payrolls of the different barangays of porac. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime illega se of public funds. HELD: No. Elements 3 and 4 as provide by the ART.220 of the RPC are absent. Based on the testimony prosecution witness Lacsamana, the CRBI fund Is a general fund. The internal agreement between the DPWH and the Barangay Captain was not provided for by law or ordinance.