Criminal Law 1 Case Digests

CASE DIGESTS (CRIM LAW 1) 1. PEOPLE V. CARLOS, 78 Phil 535 KEYWORD: DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION People ( Plaintiff Appellee) vs. Apolonio Carlos (defendant appellant) Decided: June 30, 1947 FACTS: The appellant Apolonio Carlos was found guilty of treason by the People’s Court, sentence to reclusion perpetua (lifetime/permanent imprisonment) and to pay a fine of P 7000. The lower court wsa able to find one day of July or August 1944 at around 2 or 3 in the morning a truck pulled up in front of a house in Constancia St., Sampaloc Manila where a certain Martin Mateo lived. Carlos together with Japanese military alighted together broke into Martin Mateo’s house then later to Fermin Javier’s house. Martin mateo, Ladislao Mateo and Fermin Javier were captured by biding hands, they were put inside the truck and were brought to Fort Santiago, tortured and released after 6 days. Reason: they refused to talk about the whereabouts of Marcelino Mateo, a guerrilla that was able to escape the Japanese Fermin Javier on the other hand was also arrested because he was a suspected/ confirmed by Carlos as a guerrilla. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: MERE QUESTION OF THE LAW. - why PCA is unconstitutional: 4 errors 1. The lower Court cannot convicted of treason because there is a settled principle in international law when a territory is under the governance of an enemy, all political laws of the previous government are suspended. Thus our laws at that time have no binding effect because crime of treason is a political complexion. Likewise Philippine laws are inconsistent and suspended, without force and effect. Allegiance (legal obligation) distinguishable from loyalty. Thus, decision should be reversed because the law that created it is unconstitutional. -law created PCA is non-binding Japanese law is in force therefore making it unconstitutional -PCA contains provisions entirely foreign to the subject matter -Second provision: retaining the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (it should try and decide cases against threats to national security) -Section 14: Disqualification of SC Justices and procedure of their substitution 1. PCA deprives persons similarly situated of equal protection of the laws 2. Political offenders accused by PC are denied of preliminary investigation while others are entitled to. 3. PO accused by PC have a limited right to appeal while the accused charged by courts of first instance have an absolute right to appeal. 4. Appeals involving person who held public office under Phil. Exec. Comm and Phil. Rep or any branch are to be heard and decided by a substantially different SC thus lacking uniformity in rulings over the same subject matter. 5. provision change the existing rules of Court on the subject of bail 6. Art 125 of RPC: Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authority (shall be allowed upon request to communicate confer any time with his attorney or counsel) ISSUE: Crime of treason should be reversed because PCA is unconstitutional.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE: 1. PC is a special court with restricted jurisdiction created under the stress of an emergency and national security, operate on limited period only imposed by economic necessity and other factors of public policy. Main concern is the trial and disposition of the cases over 6000 held by US military to be turned over to Commonwealth government. 2. In view of the great numbers of offenders with limited time, amount of labor will take time if all of which are allowed to have P.I considering there’s an urgency in disposing the cases. P.I is n9t a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. 3. PC is a collegiate court while CFI is of single judge. Appeal is not constitutional but a statutory right. Admitted fact already saves court the provision of being objected from being unconstitutional. 4. No merit on contention since it is beyond the subject of constitutional guarantee. -The disqualification of some or majority of SC to the PC and their substitution by people from CA, not a new court in the eyes of the law. -A court possesses a separate personality from the men who compose them -lack of uniformity: constitution does not ensure uniformity of judicial decisions neither does it assure immunity from judicial error. 5. granting bail to political offenders detained by US army and released to the commonwealth but not to other political offenders 6. suspended to those political detainees CRIME: treason Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos. RECLUSION TEMPORAL: Max- 17 yrs, 4 mos and 1 day to 20 years Medium: 14 yrs, 8 mos and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months Minimum: 12 yrs, 1 day to 14 yrs and 8 months DECISION: SC AFFIRMED DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT

2. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) Freedom of Expression No. 90-26 Argued Jan. 8, 1991 Decided June 21, 1991 FACTS: Respondents Glen Theatre Inc and Kitty Kat Lounge South Bend Carolina operated entertainment establishment with totally nude dancers. -Kitty Kat was a club that sold alcoholic beverages in addition to employing live female exotic dancers to entertain its patrons - Glen Theatre was primarily in the business of selling adult entertainment materials, such as magazines and videos, and had an enclosed "bookstore" area where customers could insert coins into a machine which would allow them to view live female exotic dancers. Respondents, wishing to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment and individual dancers employed at those establishments, brought suit in the District Court to enjoin enforcement of the state public indecency law -- which requires respondent dancers to

wear pasties and a G-string -- asserting that the law's prohibition against total nudity in public places violates the First Amendment. The court held that the nude dancing involved here was not expressive conduct. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that non-obscene nude dancing performed for entertainment is protected expression, and that the statute was an improper infringement of that activity because its purpose was to prevent the message of eroticism and sexuality conveyed by the dancers. CONTENTION OF THE STATE: 1. Public indecency law to prevent total nude dancing does not violate First Amendment, guarantee of Freedom of Expression 2. Nude dancing expressing conduct outside perimeters of First Amendment but marginally. 3. 4 part test: Public Indecency" "Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place:" "(1) engages in sexual intercourse;" "(2) engages in deviate sexual conduct;" "(3) appears in a state of nudity; or" "(4) fondles the genitals of himself or another person; symbolic speech, moral public indecency laws moral disapproval of people appearing in nude among strangers in public places Nudity' means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state -"Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct." Crime: indecency and nudity Does a state prohibition against complete nudity in public places violate the First Amendment’s freedom of Expression? Held: The judgment is reversed. (For Barnes) 3. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 US 872 Argued Nov. 6, 1989 Decided April 17, 1990 FACTS: The Oregon State denied unemployment benefits to a person fired by violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the drug was part of a religious ritual. Alfred Smith and Galen Black members of Native American Church and counselors, employees at a private drug rehabilitation clinic were fired because they ingested peyote as part of their religious ceremony. The Court a quo decided to deny claim of the employees as the reason for dismissal is work related “misconduct”. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of denying the unemployment benefits for their religious use of peyote violated their right to exercise religion as stated on Free Exercise Clause. The US SC returned the case to Oregon SC. Oregon drug law prohibits consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious purpose, it violated the free exercise clause. STATE’S CONTENTION: Appealed to SC again arguing that denying the unemployment benefits was proper because using peyote was a crime

2. Petitioner argued that the denial of benefits was permissible because respondents' consumption of peyote was a crime under Oregon law. It relied on the fact that peyote use was a crime but on the fact that the state’s justification for withholding their benefits, preserving the ‘financial integrity’ of the worker’s compensation fund, outweighed by the burden imposed on 2 employees exercising religious freedom. ACCUSED CONTENTION: Compelling interest test, narrow focused on the interest. Broader: fighting critical war on drugs, reducing it to plan of generality tends to distort. Peyote use not for recreational use but for religious use. Cannabis have lawful laws. No drug trafficking in peyote use. Impact of a state’s restriction on the adherence of a minority religion. Crime: Drunkenness/drug taking / misconduct the employee being intoxicated (alcohol or drugs, other than prescribed drugs) at work;

The meaning of the term ‘serious misconduct’ to include an employee being intoxicated at work. An employee is taken to be intoxicated if the employee’s faculties are, by reason of the employee being under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug (except a drug administered by, or in accordance with directions of, a person lawfully authorised to administer the drug), so impaired that the employee is unfit to be entrusted with the employee’s duties or with any duty that the employee may be called upon to perform. The taking at the workplace (or immediately before coming to work or during a break from work) may well justify dismissal. Where the particular employee is required to drive or to operate dangerous machinery then summary dismissal may well be justified (in this case the employer should have a policy stating that use of drugs or alcohol before or during work will result in summary dismissal). In relation to other types of employees, progressing through a series of warnings would be more appropriate. Held: The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Does not allow a person to use for religious motivation. Ban is made, no room for individualized consideration of the reasons a person might want to use peyote. 4. ESTRADA VS. ESCRITOR- Aug. 4, 2003 P-02-1651 Facts: Sworn letter of complaint filed by Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Caoibes Jr., requesting for an investigation of rumors dated July 27, 2000. Soledad Escritor is a court interpreter is living with a man not her husband. They have an allege son 18-20 yo. Estrada is not related to Escritor he is from Bacoor Cavite. Why?: Because it tarnishes the image of the court, committing an immoral act and it would appear that the court condones her act. Accdg. To Escritor she filed an administrative complaint against him in the Office of the Court Administrator) 1999- entered Court, Branch 253 of Las Pinas RTC as a widow, her husband died in 1998. She admitted that she is living with Luciano Quilapio Jr. without the benefit of marriage for 20 years they had a son. -member of jehova’s witness, Watch Tower and Bible tract Society. Conjugal arraignment in conformity with their religious belief. -after 10 years of living together. July 28, 1991 Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness. Mate in marital relationship, under the religious sect JW, tried to obtain legal recognition by the proper public authorities signed same pledge, by his Luciano. 3 witnesses, Atimona, Quezon. Situation: Married at that time but separated at fact.

Escritor: husband still alive but living with another woman. Reiterated that religious congregation approved of conjugal arraignment of Quilapio JW: pledge is binding in all congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed. STATE CONTENTION: effect of relationship to Escritor’s administrative liability must be likewise determined. Supremacy of binding authorities over JW. -Cannot override the rules norm and conduct required by the law for government employees, those cannot legalize live in relationship can simply join JW. Use religion as a defense against legal liability. ACCUSED CONTENTION: It was brought to Judge Caoibes chambers claims petitioner to malign her. ISSUE: whether or not the respondent’s right to religious freedom should come out exception on jurisprudence on illicit relations. whether Escritor is administratively liable for her conduct? CRIME: gross and immoral conduct under Book V, Chapter VI Sec 46 (b) (5) of RPC (free exercise) HELD: Escritor cannot be penalized. Court adheres to benevolent neutrality approach gives room to accommodate religious exercise provided it does not compel state interests. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to highest priority and the protection of human rights relationship of man to his creator. 5. PEOPLE VS. DELA CRUZ NATURE: EXCESSIVE FINES, CRUEL DEGRADING PUNISHMENT FACTS: This case is about an crime committed by Pablo Dela Cruz, the defendant appellant who was found guilty of overpricing of a commodity, Carnation milk which is regulated at a price of 20 centavos and which he sold for 30 centavos, a violation of Executive Order 331 issued by the authority of Republic Act No. 509. In the morning of October 14, 1950 Eduardo Bernardo Jr. went to his store in Sampaloc Manila and purchased Carnation with such amount of 30 centavos, overpriced 10 centavos. That certain purchase was made for Ruperto Austria who was not in good terms with Pablo Dela Cruz it reached the City Fiscal’s office and resulted in this criminal prosecution. STATE’S CONTENTION: He was found guilty by the court of first instance in Manila in violating the RA 509 and was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, pays a fine of 5000 pesos plus costs and was also barred from engaging in wholesale and retail business for 5 years. ACCUSED CONTENTION: The trial judge erred in imposing a punishment disproportionate to the offense. The imprisonment and fine is cruel and unusual for the violation incurred. ISSUE: The decision rendered, penalties are too much for the offense committed. CRIME: OVERPRICING, VIOLATION AGAINST RA 509 HELD: The court decreased the penalty, reducing the imprisonment of 6 months and a fine of 2 thousand pesos but affirmed all other appealed decision in all other respects. 6. PEOPLE VS. ECHEGARAY NATURE: EXCESSIVE FINES, CRUEL DEGRADING PUNISHMENT

FACTS: The case is about the decision rendered by the SC in the case of Leo Echegaray affirming his conviction for the crime of raping his 1-yr old daughter. The crime was committed in April 1994, which is the time during RA No. 7659 commonly known as Death Penalty Law, was already in effect and inevitably meted out the penalty of death. ACCUSED CONTENTION: He filed for Motion for reconsideration raising 3 issues: (1) mixed factual and legal matter regarding trial proceedings and findings (2) alleged incompetence of Leo’s (accused-appellant’s) former legal counsel (3) purely legal question on the constitutionality of RA 7659. STATE’S CONTENTION: Rape is a heinous by its very nature, it completely dehumanizes a person causing irreparable injury to both the victim and society and repetition of such acts would pose actual threats to the safety of the individual and survival of the government. Thus, they must be prevented from doing so. ISSUE: Death penalty is unconstitutional (RA 7659) CRIME: RAPE HELD: The motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration are dismissed due to lack of merit. 7. HARDEN VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS NATURE: EXCESSIVE FINES, CRUEL DEGRADING PUNISHMENT FACTS: On July 12, 1941, Fred Harden was involved in a civil case with Mrs. Harden concerning conjugal ownership, alimony and accounting. A preliminary injunction was issued restraining Mr. Harden from transferring all assets in the partnership with Mrs. Harden. However, during 1946 he transferred cash and drafts in his overseas accounts. In a span of 2 years, he received orders from SC to return the amounts but Mr. Harden kept on filing for extensions. But on March 24, 1948 he was jailed because of contempt (failure to comply with the court’s orders of producing the amounts). He was held until such time he can produce the said amounts. ACCUSED CONTENTION: Imprisonment is excessive and the properties are already beyond the Philippine jurisdiction. STATE’S CONTENTION: Mr. Harden has ‘the keys to his prison’ and his detainment is something he himself an end at any time ISSUE: Imprisonment sentence is excessive punishment or not? The property moved into foreign jurisdiction is still covered by Philippine jurisdiction. CRIME: contempt and issue of jurisdiction HELD: Petition is denied. Sec 7 Rule 64 of the Rules of Court says that the contempt consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in power of the accused to perform. He may be imprisoned by order of a superior court until he performs it. While the court cannot give its receiver authority to act in another state without the assistance of the courts thereof yet it may act directly upon the parties before it with respect to the property beyond the limits of its territorial jurisdiction and hold them in contempt if they resist the court’s orders with reference to its custody or disposition. 8. PEOPLE VS FERRER NATURE: BILL OF ATTAINDER FACTS: On March 10, 1970 a prima facie case was filed against Feliciano Co of First Instance in Tarlac concerning the Anti Subversion Act of 1957. He was accused of being an officer or ranked leader of the CPP. On May 25, 1970, Nilo Tayag and 5 others were also charged in the same court with subversion. STATE’S CONTENTION: Government appealed to SC as a civil action for certiorari. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: Co claimed that the ASA of 1957 was a Bill of Attainder and that it is overbroad, vague as well. ISSUE: ASA of 1957 is a Bill of Attainder and defendants were denied due process of the law.

CRIME: subversion. HELD: ASA of 1957 is not a Bill of attainder. Though CCP is a political Party but it aims to overthrow the government by means of force, violence, illegal means. Overthrow is not vague. However, the questioned resolution was set aside. No judgement. 9. US VS. DIAZ-CONDE NATURE: EX POST FACTO LAW FACTS: Complainants Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco entered into a contract on December 30, 1915 with the defendants Vicente and Apolinaria Diaz-Conde concerning a debt of 300 pesos. They were obligated to pay 5% interest per month within the first 10 days every month. Defendants were charged violating the Usury Law in the Court of First Instance of City of Manila on May 6, 1921. The Usury Law only took effect on May 1, 1916. STATE’S CONTENTION: They were found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine of 120 pesos and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of law. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: They took it to SC to plead ISSUE: The Usury Law has a retroactive effect in this case. The law impaired the contract. CRIME: Usurious transaction. Violation of usury transaction HELD: The Usury Law, a penal law cannot become retroactive unless it is favourable to the person accused. The contract is legal at its inception; it cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation. 10. PESIGAN VS. ANGELES NATURE: EX POST FACTO LAW FACTS: Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan transported 26 carabaos and calf from Camarines Sur to Batangas in the evening of April 2, 1982. They were provided with 3 certificates: health certificate from the provincial veterinarian, permit to transfer/transport from the provincial commander and 3 certificate of inspection. In spite of the papers, the carabaos were confiscated by the provincial veterinarian and the town’s police station commander while passing through Camarines Norte which is based on EO no 626-A prohibiting transportation of carabaos and carabeef from one province to another. STATE’S CONTENTION: EO 626-A has already effected the state has the right to confiscate according enforced law. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: They have the necessary papers/ permits they should get through. ISSUE: Is EO 626-A providing for the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of carabaos transported from one province to another dated October 25, 1980 enforceable before its publication in the official Gazette on June 14, 1982? CRIME: violation of EO 626-A. HELD: Order of dismissal. Confiscation and dispersal of the carabaos reversed and set aside. Confiscation and dispersal of carabaos set aside. Respondents restore carabaos to petitioners for their own disposal in Camarines Sur. No cost. Publication is necessary to apprise the public of e contents of the regulations and make the said penalties on the persons affected thereby. Justice and fairness dictates that the public must be informed first thru publication on the Gazette. 11. TANADA VS. TUVERA NATURE: EX POST FACTO LAW, Petition to review the decision of the Executive Assistant to the President

FACTS: Invoking the people’s right o be informed on matters of public concern, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public official to publish and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette, of PDs, LOIs, GOs, Proclamations, Eos and AOs STATE’S CONTENTION: Petitioner’s maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel public duty they need to show any specific interest. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: Respondents would have this case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to bring this petition. They further contend that publication in OG is not a sine qua non (an essential requirement) requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. ISSUE: Publication in the OG is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of laws where laws provide themselves effectivity dates. CRIME: Non-publication of laws on matters concerning public concern. HELD: Laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the OG. Respondents ordered to publish in OG all unpublished laws. The law will never work without notice. Publication is indispensable. 12. DE JOYA VS. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY NATURE: Prescribe punishment FACTS: Norma de Joya filed for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for her release from Batangas City Jail on the claim that her detention was illegal. Norma de Joya was charged separately with violations of BP 22 before MTC of Batangas City. She issued a check from Solid Bank Batangas Branch to Flor Catapang de Tenorio amounting to 150,000 pesos despite her knowledge that she does not have fund under the said account. After 90 days, FCT presented the check to the drawee bank but was dishonoured due to ‘ACCOUNT CLOSED’. The same thing happened to Resurrecion Castillo was also issued a check amounting to 225,000 peso, dishonoured by the drawee bank due to account closed. Despite notice of dishonour and demands to make proper arrangement or pay her obligation directly to Flor and Resurrecion she failed and refused to do so. She was arraigned in both cases, assisted by a legal counsel pleaded not guilty. While trial was ongoing she jumped for bail. Nevertheless, no evidence was hereby adduced in her defense for the 2 cases. Come December 14, 1995 the trial court promulgated its decision in absentia, the petitioner failed to appear despite due notice. The court found Norma de Joya guilty of violating BP 22, sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year indemnify the offender Flor (150k) and Resurrecion of (225K) of damages. The petitioner remained at large for 5 years, no appeal was filed but was finally arrested while she was applying for an NBI clearance, was held in Batangas City Jail. STATE’S CONTENTION: The public prosecutor opposed the motion on 3 grounds: the decisions convicting her in violating BP 22 has long become final and executor hence no longer can it be amended, SC circular should be applied prospectively and SC Circular did not amend BP 22, a substantive law but merely encourages trial court judges to have a uniform imposition of fine. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The petitioner filed for an urgent motion with the MTC of Batangas City to apply retroactively SC Admin Circular No. 12-2000 pursuant to Article 22 (retroactive effect of penal laws) of RPC and release from detention. ISSUE: Whether SC Admin Circular NO 12-2000 can be effected retroactively and therefore she be released from detention. CRIME: violation of BP 22, AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

HELD: Petition was dismissed for lack of merit. 2 judgments of conviction had long attained finality and could no longer be modified, she did not offer any evidence during trial, judgment became executor upon her failure to appeal and appear. The SC Circular did not delete the penalty of imprisonment in BP 22 cases. 13. PEOPLE VS. GATCHALIAN NATURE: Liberality in favour of the accused FACTS: Alfonso Gatchalian was charged before the court of First Instance of Zamboanga with a violation of Section 3 Republic Act 602 AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM WAGE LAW, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. From August 4, 1951 to December 31 1953, the accused who is the owner of New Life Drug Store only paid a salary which is less than that provided by law to Expedito Fernandez a salesman in the said business establishment. (Monthly salary of 60-90, unpaid salary is 1016.14 for the period mentioned.) He pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned last June 19, 1956. Filed motion to dismiss, the court after hearing all the arguments issued an order dismissing the information with costs de oficio (court cost will be paid by the state) and cancelling the bail bond by the accused. The Court ordered Regional Representative of Department of Labor to immediately institute a civil action against the erring employer. Motion for reconsideration was denied so the government took the said appeal. STATE’S CONTENTION: Law which was violated by the accused carries it with both civil and criminal liability. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The violation charged does not constitute a criminal offense but carries only a civil liability and if it does the law alleged violated does not carry a penalty penalizing it. Law is ambiguous ISSUE: Minimum wage Law, Section 3 does not provide clear cut criminal punishment, broad and ambiguous CRIME: Violation of Minimum Wage Law HELD: SC concluded that the court a quo erred in dismissing the information filed against the appellee and, consequently, its order of December 3, 1956, subject of this appeal should be set aside. NO decision but ordered that the cases be remanded to the court a quo for further proceeding, with costs against appellee. The intention of the law is clear, to slap not just of criminal liability but also of civil liability he may commit as a result of underpayment. The law is all-embracing, any violations of the ‘provisions of this act’ embodies the very fundamental purpose for which the law has been adopted. Order for review of court a quo. 14. PEOPLE VS. SULTAN NATURE: LIBERALITY IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED FACTS: Fernando Sultan Y Lato appeals from the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to return jewelry otherwise cash of 5180 pesos if restitution is not already possible and 50000 pesos for moral damages. Sole witness of the case and the victim is Judith Bautista. According to her when she was on her way home after a visit to her cousin residing in Novaliches City, she passed by a dark alley and was accosted by someone holding a pointed sharp instrument at her neck declaring hold-up. The accused took her jewelry, watch, pair of earrings ring and necklace and a cash of 130 pesos. After taking those valuables he started kissing her on the lips and because of fear to loss her life she acceded on the appellant’s order. Using an ice pick to intimidate the victim, succeeded in raping her. It lasted for 15 minutes then after which went out to smoke then came back after 10-15 minutes and once again with threat and intimidation another round of sexual abuse happened. The accused told him that he love her and he would marry her. They talked until noon the following day without sleeping. In Juditha’s effort to save herself, she agreed to ‘elope’ with him. The accused convinced he allowed her to go home at noon to get her things and even accompanied her to get a ride home. When she arrived home, she saw her sister Antonette in the house who only went there for a visit but Juditha did not waste a time in narrating her harrowing experience. Antonette called their brother SPO1 Fernando Bautista from Bulacan asked for help in staging an arrest while they (Juditha and Fernando) go as planned on their elopement. They were able to box the suspect while both are aboard the bus.

Juditha was able to identify her robber-rapist and underwent a medical check up to find signs of sexual abuse. There were deep lacerations on her hymen and was observed with moderate resistance based on the medical check up. STATE’S CONTENTION: Taking of her cash and valuables is evidence enough to sustain a conviction of robbery. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: He claimed that it was simply a sexual congress of two consenting adults. There was an agreement between them to elope. In the accused robbery, why did she not ask him for restitution of her valuables after the alleged threat had ceased. ISSUE: whether committed robbery is meritorious the fact that she did not ask for restitution of her valuables after the alleged threat had ceased. Will 2 counts of rape be an aggravating circumstance in this case? CRIME: complex robbery with rape HELD: According to Article 293 of RPC any person with intent to gain shall take any personal belonging to another by means of violence or intimidation of person or using force or anything shall be guilty of the crime of robbery. It becomes immaterial when the elements of crime of robbery are present. Art 63 of RPC. In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed then the lesser penalty shall be applied. Additional counts of rape is not considered an aggravating circumstance the gravity of penalty Affirmed the court a quo’s decision. Costs against the accused-appellant. 15. PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ NATURE: RETROACTIVE APPLICATION (IF FAVOURABLE TO THE ACCUSED) FACTS: The RTC of 2 of Anonas, Urdaneta decided in convicting Domingo Valdez Y Dulay guilty of 2 crimes: murder to suffer death penalty and illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866 sentenced to reclusion perpetua. On October 31, 1995 at Brgy. San Roque, San Manuel, Pangasinan murdered Labrador Valdez Y Madrid with evidence of treachery and premeditation. The victim died due to inflicted gunshot wounds. Treachery because the victim was shot at his back while lying on a carabaos sledge while conversing with his father in a sudden and unexpected manner giving him no opportunity to repel or defend himself against such attacks. Premiditated because there was an abuse of superior strength and deed was done on nighttime. STATE’S CONTENTION: Dying declaration of the victim, heard by witnesses admissible in court (impending death) ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: Murder was not really proven beyond reasonable doubt because of mere hearsay evidence. ISSUE: Is the illegal possession of firearms be used as an aggravating circumstance where the appellant is already liable for murder? CRIME: complex crime of murder and illegal possession of firearms ,death by lethal injection under RA 8177. HELD: Judgment is modified. RA 8294 came effective on July 6, 1997 fifteen days after its publication, since it is favourable to the appellant then it shall be given a retroactive effect. Under Art 63 of the RPC, where the law prescribes a penalty composed of 2 indivisible penalties such as reclusion perpetua to death, there being one aggravating circumstance the greater penalty (death) shall be applied. RA 7659 (Death penalty on heinous crimes) already took effect at the time the violation of PD 1866 (illegal possession of firearms) was allegedly committed took effect. There is nothing in EA 7659 re-imposing death penalty in PD 1866, shall remain suspended, therefore can only impose reclusion perpetua. The court imposed only a penalty of reclusion perpetua.

16. GO VS. DIMAGIBA NATURE: RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IF FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED) FACTS: Fernando Dimagiba of MTCC was found guilty in violating BP 22, sentenced for 3 months imprisonment, offered to pay the offended party of Susan Go the amount owed plus interest due to 13 checks that were issued but were all dishonoured by the drawee bank due to ‘account closed’. Dimagiba filed for Motion for reconsideration and motion and for the modification of the final decision. But he was still arrested and imprisoned for the service of his sentence. Dimagiba filed with the RTC of Baguio City a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was granted by the said court after hearing the said case. STATE’S CONTENTION: His petition for writ of habeas corpus was an attempt to reopen a case that has been long final and executory, an action deplorably amounting to forum shopping. (it is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants to have their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favourable judgment) ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: He cited that he should not be imprisoned, SC-AO 12-2000 but instead should be penalized of paying a fine only. ISSUE: Whether filing a petition of writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy and that whether or not SC-AC 12-2000 can be given retroactive application. CRIME: violation of BP 22 HELD: No. The respondent had previously sought the modification of his sentence in a motion for reconsideration, his petition for writ of habeas corpus was clearly an attempt to reopen a case that has already become final and executory. The rule of retroactivity states that criminal laws may be applied retroactively if favourable to the accused. SC-AC No. 12-2000 cannot be given retroactive application if it is not a law that deletes the penalty of imprisonment. It is a merely rule of preference as to which penalty to be imposed under peculiar circumstances of the case. 17. PEOPLE VS. DINDO NATURE: EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE FACTS: Accused appellant Sukarno Dindo y Giamalo was charged, tried and convicted of murder by the Regional trial Court of Pasig for the death of Crestita Lao Y Claver who suffered gunshot wound which directly caused her death. On July 28, 1996 in Taguig Metro Manila the accused together with 3 other unidentified male who up to the time the case was tried, whereabouts are still unknown. Dindo pleaded not guilty and so trial ensued. At 10 am of July 28, 1996, Dindo a tricycle driver catered passenger Crestita Lao together with her daughter Nympha Lao with 2 Taiwanese nationals. Crestita contracted to pay the fare for the 2 remaining seats and directed Dindo to drive towards FTI, Alabang. However, before they could proceed 3 men boarded the same, 2 sat behind the accused appellant’s seat while the other scathed himself beside the side wheel. When they were 50 meters away from the terminal, Dindo turned towards the cemetery, a deviation of route. In front of the cemetery, the 3 men alighted. One of drew a gun from his jacket. Nympha, believing they were held up, she gave her watch but they refused to get it. Instead fired the gun aimed at Crestita. Consequently, Crestita died of gunshot wound of the head. STATE’S CONTENTION: Their evidence tends to establish that Dindo was guilty beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the arrangement made between him and the victim to pay the unoccupied seats and deviating from the usual routes. He conspired with the 3 assailants to kill Crestita Lao. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: It is not an evidence to prove the existence of criminal conspiracy for conspiracy is not a product of negligence but intention on the part of the cohorts. The accused was held with the gun pointed at him and followed everything the 3 unidentified men say.

The fact that the accused-appellant ran after the shooting incident was a natural reaction. There is no standard of behavioural response when one is confronted with a strange and frightful experience and that when he ran away, it is a natural reaction. People act differently given a different stimulus r type of situation. In fact after the incident, he reported it spontaneously within the shortest interval he went to the police precinct wherein he wouldn’t have time to concoct and invent stories. ISSUE: whether guilty of murder—conspiracy and treachery were proven beyond reasonable doubt. CRIME: murder qualified by treachery and conspiracy HELD: He was acquitted of the charge against him because there is no moral certainty and guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Te court ordered release of the accused-appellant from imprisonment. 18. PEOPLE VS. SAYANA NATURE: EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE FACTS: Appellant was charged with 2 counts of rape committed against the daughter (Cheska Angelica De Dios) of his common-law wife (Alma De Dios). Evidence showed that he forced himself upon the 11-yr old daughter of common law wife in their residence in Bulacan. Appellant swore that he treated the complainant as his own child and did not have the heart to molest her. Furthermore, his alibi was corroborated by his father, neighbour and also by his time card on his work as against the allegations of the appellee. Several medical check-ups were conducted by different physicians with some contradictory results. The complainant’s narration on how the appellant ravished her on two different occasions (rape) were incredibly identical as if lifted from a single script. STATE’S CONTENTION: Accused was guilty of rape as evidenced by different medical checkups. The accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The child was raped when she was still 11 years old and because of her fear in her life she kept mum. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: Aside from the given facts, accused appellant’s believe that their relationship was opposed by her sisters because they fear that appellant might report that her cousins where on drug it to his common-law wife’s sister’s hubby who is their finances the family’s expenses. He also knew of his common-law wife’s sister’s illicit relationship with another man and the killing of her former driver which he threatened to expose. Also, he also knew of his common-law wife father on hiding because he committed murder before. The explanation given by the physician who testified for the prosecution discounted the probability that the child was molested. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is entitled for acquittal because of the inconsistencies in the victim’s medical check up and uniformity on 2 accounts of rape, accusations of the appellant on the reason why his common-law wife’s relatives where against him and pursued the case. CRIME: 2 counts of qualified rape HELD: Appellant was acquitted. In rape cases, the primordial duty of the prosecution is to prove and present case in and evidence with clarity and persuasion to support conviction. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required although the law does not require absolute certainty of guilt but of moral certainty. 19. STATE VS. METZGER NATURE: VOID FOR VAGUENESS OR OVER BREADTH (DOCTRINE OF PRO REO) FACTS: Douglas Metzger was convicted by municipal court of Lincoln Nebraska because of violating a Lincoln city ordinance prohibiting any person from committing any “indecent, immodest or filthy act” in the presence of another person. The District Court affirmed and he appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and dismissed. STATE’S CONTENTION: Metzger lived on the ground level of an apartment in Lincoln Nebraska where a large window in his apartment faces a parking lot which is situated on the north side of the apartment building. One early morning of April 30, 1981

another resident of the same apartment while parking his car in a space directly in front of Metzger’s window observed him that he was standing naked with his arms at his sides in his apartment window for a period of 5 seconds, then testified that he saw Metzger’s body from his thighs on up. He called the police, 2 officers arrived then observed him naked eating a bowl of cereal, mid thigh on up. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The criminal statute rests upon an uncertain foundation wherein terms mentioned where so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application. It violates the elements of due process of law in effect spreading in an all-inclusive net wrongdoers and innocent alike may be caught. The statute should have explicitly and specifically provided what proscribes indecent, immodest and filthy act. ISSUE: The Lincoln Municipal Code 9.52.100 is so vague it is unconstitutional. CRIME: 9.52.100 of Lincoln Municipal Code charged of indecent, immodest or filthy act in the presence of another person or persons passing by might ordinarily see the same. HELD: reversed and dismissed. Lincoln Municipal Code 9.52.100 must be declared invalid therefore the conviction cannot stand. 20. ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN NATURE: VOID FOR VAGUENESS OR OVER BREADTH (DOCTRINE OF PRO REO) FACTS: Joseph Ejercito Estrada was petitioned to invalidate the RA 7080 for the ground of unconstitutionality because the law suffers the vice of vagueness particularly on the terms, ‘combination, series and unwarranted’ Because of this the petitioner uses facial challenge on the validity of the mentioned law. STATE’S CONTENTION: The terms combination and series does not constitute vagueness because ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited in the statute. It it not necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. It is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicating unlawful scheme or conspiracy . ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: vagueness of the term used would result to or invalidate the plunder act. It Sec 4 of Plunder act, the term ‘pattern’ is a very important element of the crime plunder’ and Sec 4 is two-pronged: it contains a rule of evidence and a substantive element of the crime such that without it the accused cannot be convicted of plunder. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner possesses locus standi to attack the validity of the law. RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum (conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of a statute) and if so whether it is within the power of Congress to classify it. Whether Plunder Act is unconstitutional due to terms ‘combination, series and unwarranted’ he deems, vague CRIME: plunder, in violation on RA 7080 HELD: No. it is malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent. Precisely because the crimes are mala in se the elements of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. In RA 7659, plunder is a heinous offense implying it is a malum in se (evil in itself) and therefore immoral or inherently wrong. SC decided that Plunder Act is constitutional and petition is dismissed for lack of merit. 21. US VS. SWEET NATURE: GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW

FACTS: Sweet was employed by the United States military who committed an offense against a POW. His case is filed with the CFI, who is given original jurisdiction in all criminal cases for which a penalty of more than 6 months is imposed. He is now contending that the courts are without jurisdiction because he was “acting in the line of duty.” The Appellant was at the time of its alleged commission an employee of the US military authorities in the Philippines and the person upon whom he it is alleged to have been committed was a prisoner of war in the authority of such authorities which is punishable under the Penal Code By Act No. 136 of the United States Philippine Commission, Section 56 (6) now in force by arresto mayor (min: 1 month-1 day, 1 month to 2 months, 2 months-4months) and (max: 4 months & 1 day-6 months, suspension of the right to hold office and right to suffrage during the time of punishment) and a fine of 325-3250 pesos. STATE’S CONTENTION: Under the Spanish Code of Military Justice (Art. 232) an assault of the character charged in e complaint committed in time of war by a military person upon a prisoner of war is punishable as an offense and it is also true that under the provisions of the same Code, the military tribunals have certain exceptions but is immaterial, exclusive cognizance of all offenses whether purely military nature or otherwise committed by military persons. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: Assault committed by a soldier or military employee upon a prisoner of war is not an offense under the Penal Code. If it is an offense under the Code, the military character sustained by the person charged with the offense at the time of its commission exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil tribunals. The acts alleged to constitute the offense were performed by him in the execution of the orders of his military superiors may if true be available by merit in the trial in the court but cannot under this principle affect the right of that court to take jurisdiction of the case. ISSUE: Do the complaint offenses punishable under the Spanish military legislation render them the same or any less an offense under the Article of the Penal Code Act No. 136. Does it apply to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the law? Does the alleged offense was committed by an employee of the US military authorities deprive the court of jurisdiction? CRIME: Penal Code By Act No. 136 of the United States Philippine Commission, Section 56 (6) HELD: Order of the court is affirmed with costs to the appellant. The court asserting jurisdiction here derives its existence and powers from the same Government under the authority of which the acts alleged to constitute the offense to have been performed and not to where the courts of one government are attempting to exercise jurisdiction over the military agents or employees of another and distinct government. 22. SCHECKENBURGER VS. MORAN NATURE: GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW. ORIGINAL ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT. PROHIBITION FACTS: Scheneckenburger an honorary consul from Uruguay at Manila was subsequently charged in CFI-Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He mentioned that Philippine courts don’t have the power to try him, objection was overruled, he filed a petition for a writ of prohibition (is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits. In practice, the Court directs the Clerk to issue the Writ, and directs the Sheriff to serve it on the subordinate, and the Clerk prepares the Writ and gives it to the Sheriff, who serves it. This writ is normally issued by a superior court to the lower court asking it not to proceed with a case which does not fall under its jurisdiction) to prevent the CFI from taking cognizance (knowledge, awareness, notice) of the criminal action filed against him STATE’S CONTENTION: Consul is not privilege of diplomatic immunity and is not exempt from criminal prosecution for criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides.

ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The US and Philippine Constitution, the CFI has no jurisdiction to try him. Original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and consuls is conferred exclusively upon the SC of the Philippines. ISSUE: The SC has Original Jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, consuls, et.al and such jurisdiction excluded courts of the Philippines. CRIME: falsification of a private document HELD: Philippine Constitution took full effect on Nov. 15, 1935. Philippine Constitution being the supreme law of the land shall include all cases affecting ambassadors, consuls et. al. The SC shall have original and appellate jurisdiction as ay be possessed and exercised by SC of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. Jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus was not exclusive to SC but is also conferred on the CFIs. 23. LIANG VS. PEOPLE NATURE: GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW FACTS: Petitioner is an economist from ADB and was charged by the MeTC of Mandaluyong City for allegedly uttering defamatory words against her fellow worker w/ 2 counts of grave oral defamation. MeTC judge received a notice from DFA stated that the petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process because of the agreement between ADB and government under section 45. And without notice dismissed the 2 criminal cases. STATE’S CONTENTION: Prosecution filed writ of mandamus and certiorari and ordered MeTC to enforce warrant of arrest because he is not covered by immunity because commission of the crime is part of the performance of official duty. Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that a certain person is covered by immunity, it is preliminary but due process is right of the accused as much as the prosecution. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: He is covered by immunity from legal process under section 45 of the agreement between ADB and the government. There was no preliminary investigation conducted, violated rights to due process of the law. ISSUE: Is the petitioner covered by immunity under the agreement between the government and ADB and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court. CRIME: slander, defamation under official duty, under Vienna convention on Diplomatic relations, HELD: Petition of review on certiorari of the decision denied. He is not covered by immunity because commission of a crime is part of the performance of the official duty. Preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right but a statutory right and may be invoked only when specifically granted by the law and is clear that P.I is not required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. 24. GUMABON VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISON NATURE: PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW FACTS: Mario Gumabon pleaded guilty on May 5, 1953 and was charged reclusion perpetua for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, robbery, arson and kidnapping (along with 3 other accused). Each of the petitioners have been imprisoned for more than 13 years by the virtue of their convictions. STATE’S CONTENTION: conviction should be final first after ruling will be handed down

ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: They were invoking the doctrine laid down in People vs. Hernandez which negated complex crime, a ruling which was not handed down until after their convictions have become final. In People vs. Hernandez SC ruled against the accused for rebellion complexed with murder, arson and robbery was not warranted under Art. 134 of the RPC there being no such complex offense. The ruling was not handed down until after their convictions have become final. Hernandez served more than the penalty could have been served against him, he is entitled to freedom, and thus his continued detention was illegal. ISSUE: Whether or not Art 22 of the RPC which renders a penal judgment a retroactive effect is applicable in this case (decisions favourable to the accused for the same crime can be applied retroactively) CRIME: rebellion, complex crime with multiple murder, robbery arson and kidnapping HELD: Petition for writ of habeas corpus should be granted and should be set free. Any further detention of petitioners is already illegal and unconstitutional. 25. IN RE: KAY VILLEGAS KAMI NATURE: PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW FACTS: Kay Villegas Kami Inc. (Antonio), advocating government programs for the benefit of the poor is claiming to be a recognized non-stock, non profit corporation contests validity of RA 6132. Sec 8 saying it violates due process rights of association, freedom of expression and is an ex post facto law. They would like to be part of the delegation FOR Con Con. They filed a petition for declatory relief. (An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties’ rights or duties there under. Petitions for declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.) STATE’S CONTENTION: No candidate for delegate to the Convention shall represent or allow himself to be represented as being a candidate of any political party or any other organization, and no political party, political group, political committee, civic, religious, professional, or other organization or organized group of whatever nature shall intervene in the nomination of any such candidate or in the filing of his certificate of candidacy or give aid or support, directly or indirectly, material or otherwise, favorable to or against his campaign for election: Provided, That this provision shall not apply to the members of the family of a candidate within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, nor to the personal campaign staff of the candidate, which shall not be more than one for every ten precincts in his district: Provided, further, That without prejudice to any liability that may be incurred, no permit to hold a public meeting shall be denied on the ground that the provisions of this paragraph may or will be violated: and Provided, finally, That nothing contained herein shall be construed to impair or abridge the freedom of civic, political, religious, professionals, trade organization or organized groups of whatever nature to disseminate information about, or arouse public interest in, the forthcoming Constitutional Convention or to advocate constitutional reforms, programs, policies, or proposals for amendment of the present Constitution, and no prohibition contained herein shall limit or curtail the right of their members, as long as they act individually, to support or oppose any candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Ex post facto law: makes criminal an act done before law was passed and punishes act innocent when done, aggravates crime, inflicts greater punished than the law prescribes, alters legal rules of evidence and deprives a person accused of crime some lawful protection (acquittal or proclamation of amnesty) ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: violated 3 rights and Section 8 of RA 6132 is an ex post facto law ISSUE: 3 rights (Bill of Rights) were violated, it is an ex post facto law. CRIME: violation of election code, electoral process.

HELD: Petition denied. Law is constitutional. Constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal laws. Penalty in law imposed to acts committed after approval of law 26. PEOPLE VS. RINGOR NATURE: PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW FACTS: The accused Augusto Loreto Ringor Jr. petitioned for an automatic review of a decision of the Baguio City RTC on his conviction of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to death and also a separate charge of possession of an unlicensed firearm with a sentence of 17-20 years. On the night of June 23, 1994 he was seen entering People’s Restaurant , witnessed by Fely Batanes saw the accused appellant poked a knife on the victim’s throat. He went out of the restaurant then went back again, stealthily approached the victim from behind and shot him 6 times successively. He was apprehended. STATE’S CONTENTION: He was caught in possession of an unlicensed firearm and he not a licensed gun holder. (Florida) ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The accused contends that his actions were just a mere self-defense. Trial court is erred in convicting accused of murder. RTC also erred in convicting appellant for simple illegal possession of firearms and sentenced him to suffer 17-20 years. The RTC erred in sentencing the accused of death penalty for murder which was not proven and that the alleged murder committed lacks an aggravating circumstance to be charged with reclusion perpetua. ISSUE: Is the amendatory law RA 8294 (effectivity in 1997, crime occurred in 1994) applicable? CRIME: Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 6, RA 7659, illegal possession of firearms complex crime which is qualified for penalty of death. HELD: RA 8294 (illegal possession of firearms) is not applicable because at the time of the commission of the crime the use of an unlicensed firearm was still not an aggravating circumstance in murder to homicide. Applying it to Ringor’s case would mean death penalty will be applied. Hence, the law cannot retroact as it is unfavourable to the accused. In cases of murder or homicide committed with the use of unlicensed firearm there can be no separate conviction for the crime illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866 (illegal possession of firearms). It serves as an aggravating circumstance but no longer a separate offense. RPC A22 retroactivity of law must be applied. The RTC did not err in convicting accused of murder. Self-defense requirements are not met. He failed to prove unlawful aggression, inconsistent to the witness’ statement. Victim was in a prone, defensive position. There is an absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstance to a crime of murder described by A248 (murder not falling under parricide, max: reclusion temporal) of RPC, a lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua has to be imposed in accordance to A63(2) 9rules for the application of indivisible penalties, lesser penalty will be applied for the lack of mitigating circumstance) RPC 27. PEOPLE VS. LACSON NATURE: PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW FACTS: The defendant Panfilo Lacson before filing an appeal to the SC already filed Omnibus Motion;(b) Motion for Reconsideration;(c) Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration;(d) Motion To Set for Oral Arguments. The respondent seeks ruling of voluntary inhibition of some of the associate justices at that time from deciding in the MFR: Renato Corona, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita C. Morales, Romeo Callejo Sr., and Adolfo Azcuna in order to recuse (Challenge (a judge, prosecutor, or juror) as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of...: "a motion to

recuse the prosecutor" (of a judge) Excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality) them from being deliberation, discussing and participating in the resolution because they were appointed by GMA in the SC after his Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments. STATE’S CONTENTION: While section 8 of RCP secures the rights of the accused, it doesn’t and shouldn’t preclude the equally important right of the State to public justice. If a procedural rule impairs a vested right, or would work injustice, the said rule may not be given a retroactive application. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The motion for reconsideration will be biased. Thus, the respondent desires the case to be unloaded from Judge Callejo Sr. and be re raffled to any other member of the court. He asserts that retroactive application of penal laws should also cover all procedures and that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the accused. Petitioner asserts that Sec 8 or RCP was meant to reach back in time to provide relief to the accused in line with the constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial. ISSUE: Revised criminal procedure in question particularly section 8 a. The 5 associate justices inhibit themselves from deciding in the MFR given they only were appointed in the SC after his Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments. b. the application of RCP Article 8 section 117 be given a retroactive application without reservations only and solely on the basis of its being favourable to the accused. CRIME: 1995 Kuratong Baleleng case multiple murder case, controversial because case is rub out (intentional disposal, one side is at par, advantage) which is supposed to be a shoot out (engages both) case. HELD: a. The rule should be applied prospectively. The court upheld the petitioner’s contention while RCP Section 8 secures the rights of the accused, it doesn’t and it shouldn’t preclude the equally important right of the State to public justice. If a procedural rule impairs a vested right, or would work injustice, the said rule may not be given a retroactive application. b. The Court is not mandated to apply rules retroactively just because it is favourable to the accused. The time bar under the new rule is intended to benefit both the State and the accused. When the rule was approved by the court, it intended that the rule be applied prospectively and not retroactively, for to do so would tantamount to the denial of the State’s right to due process. A retroactive application would result in absurd, unjust and oppressive consequences to the State and to the victims of crimes and their heirs. The prosecution of a person twice for the same offense Risk or disadvantage incurred from two sources simultaneously 28. US VS. AH SING NATURE: TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW FACTS: The defendant Ah Sing is a Chinese National employed as a fireman on a steamship. The foreign steamer arrived at the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917 after a voyage direct from the port of Cebu. The defendant bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon brought them on board the steamship and had them in his possession during the trip from Saigon to Cebu. On making the search authorities found the cans of opium hidden in the ashes below the boiler of the steamer’s engine. STATE’S CONTENTION: He did not confess however as to his purpose in buying the opium and did not mention that it was his intention to import the prohibited drugs. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in Saigon. ISSUE: Since the owner of 8 cans of opium did not mention the intention of importing the prohibited drug will the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine islands has been proven?

CRIME: violation of Act 2381 (AN ACT RESTRICTING THE USE OF OPIUM AND REPEALING ACT NUMBERED SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-ONE) HELD: Yes. It is the onus (responsibility or duty) of the government to prove that the vessel from which the drug discharged came into Philippine waters from a foreign country with the drug on board. Import and bring are synonymous terms. The mere act of going it to a port without bringing bulk is a prima facie evidence of importation. 29. PEOPLE VS. WONG CHENG NATURE: TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW FACTS: Wong Cheng (aka Wong Chun) was accused of having illegally smoked opium, aboard the merchant vessel Changsa, an English vessel. The said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay 2.5 miles away from the shores of the City. The accused filed for an appeal in representation of the Attorney General, filed for an appeal that urges revocation of a demurrer sustained by the CFI of Manila. STATE’S CONTENTION: To smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The defendant contended the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court of the said crime which resulted to the dismissal of the case. ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine courts has jurisdiction over the crime committed by Wong Cheng aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters. CRIME: October 19, 1922. Breach of public order HELD: The demurrer is revoked and the court ordered further proceedings. 30. US VS. LOOK CHOW NATURE: TERRITORIALITY FACTS: On August 19, 1909 Jacks & Millinon, Chief Department of Cebu And Internal revenue agent of Cebu respectively went aboard the steamship ERROLL to inspect and search the its cargo, found 2 sacks containing opium. The defendant Look Chow stated voluntarily that he bought these sacks of opium in Hong Kong with the intention of selling them as contraband (Goods that have been imported or exported illegally, Imported or exported illegally, either in defiance of a total ban or without payment of duty.) in Mexico or Vera Cruz (a state in the Mexican Gulf) His hold had already been searched several times for opium, he ordered two other Chinese men to keep the sack. All the evidence found properly constitute corpus delicti (corpus dee-lick-tie, Latin for the substantial fact that a crime has been committed and in a popular crime jargon, the body of the murder victim, physical object upon which the crime was committed) It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it came from Hong Kong and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports of Manila and Cebu. STATE’S CONTENTION: Asked for maximum penalty be imposed upon the defendant, in view of the considerable amount of opium seized. Mere possession of a prohibited substance in the Philippines is an open violation of the penal law in force at the place of commission of the crime. Regardless of the quantity of the drug seized, maximum penalty will still be imposed. However, defendant admitted the quantity of the drug seized. ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The defense moved for the dismissal of the case, on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to try the facts concerned therein did not constitute a crime. ISSUE: Whether courts of local state can exercise its jurisdiction over foreign vessels stationed in its port

CRIME: possession of illegal drugs, smuggling, violation of art 2 RPC HELD: Decision of CFI is affirmed with modification. Reduced imprisonment from 5 years to 6 months and then a fine from 10000 to only 1000. The possession of a prohibited substance in our islands aboard a foreign vessel in transit does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of the country. The foreign vessel is an extension of its own nationality. BUT, if the substance whose use is prohibited within the Philippine islands in the present case landed from the vessel upon the Philippine soil is a crime violating penal laws. Only the courts on the said place has the competent jurisdiction in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty