Criminal Law Digests

PEOPLE VS AGACER {conspiracy, treachery} Facts Florencio, Eddie, Elynor, Franklin and Eric, all surnamed Agacer, are found guilty for the killing of a common relative, Cesario Agacer. The appellants surrounded the victim and one of them set a fire to keep Cesario from retreating. Franklin and Eric hit the deceased with stones, Florencio induces the victim to come closer, was hit with a gunshot from Eddie and was shot with a bow and arrow by Elynor. They left the crime scene together, onboard a tractor and a tricycle.

Issues  

Whether or not conspiracy was involved and if all appellants are liable for the murder Whether or not appellants are guilty of the aggravating circumstance of treachery

Held/Ratio 



YES. In the case at bar, conspiracy is evident in the way the appellants surprised, surrounded, attacked and abandoned the deceased together. Proof of previous agreement is not essential because all acted in unison pursuing one goal, which is to kill the victim. Distinguishing the fatal blow is immaterial in indicting appellants for criminal liability; all are equally liable for murder since conspiracy is present. YES. Treachery was present, fulfilling the conditions that first, the victim was not given the opportunity to defend himself and second, that the means of execution was deliberate (evident in the fact that the accused carried the weapons employed).

PEOPLE VS CONCILLADO {self-defense, alevosia, evident premeditation, voluntary surrender} Facts On August 24, 2002, Diosdado Pido was shot, stabbed and hacked with 26 wounds. On the same night, Edgar Concillado surrendered himself to the police. He was implicated along with his wife Dolores and his cousin Erlito due to a witness testimony claiming that all accused jointly acted to commit murder. The defense contends that Dolores and Erlito were not involved while Edgar only acted out of self defense (when the deceased hacked him while he was urinating by a fence). The Regional Trial court found all the accused guilty of murder and rejected the pleas for self-defense due to the fact that the wounds inflicted makes the claim doubtful. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals found fault in the witness testimony and acquitted both Erlito and Dolores. Edgar was held liable only for homicide and was granted a lower penalty due to voluntary surrender. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling from the Court of Appeals.

Issues    

Whether or not the appellant acted in self-defense Whether or not there was alevosia/treachery Whether or not there was evident premeditation Whether or not the appellant qualifies for the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender

Held/Ratio 



 

NO. The burden of proof in claiming self-defense is shifted to the accused after admittance to the crime. The nature, number and location of wounds inflicted on the deceased as opposed to three superficial wounds on the accused were seen to belie the plea for self-defense. NO. There was a lack of evidence to establish alevosia/treachery since the requisites that means and methods of execution to ensure safety from defense of the victim; and that these were deliberately adopted. This must be present and seen by a witness at the inception of the attack. NO. There was no proof showing that the crime was planned before its execution. YES. The accused immediately surrendered to the authorities on the same night of the event, clearly in a spontaneous manner and before an actual arrest. The requisites of voluntary surrender were clearly met in pursuant to Art 13 on mitigating circumstance.

ATIZADO VS PEOPLE {RA 9344, retroactive application} Facts The petitioners Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal are among those convicted for the murder of Rogelio Llona and were sentenced to an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua. They were charged P 50,000 for civil indemnity, P 30,000 for actual damages and P 50,000 as moral damages. In pursuant to RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act Monreal’s penalty was reduced since he was a minor during the said incident. The said amendment was applied retroactively and the sentence was already fulfilled upon said action. The court called for Salvador Monreal’s immediate release. In order to conform to prevailing jurisprudence however, both Atizado and Monreal however were liable for the amended costs of damages at P 75,000 for death indemnity, P 75,000 as moral damages, P 30,000 for actual damages and an additional P 30,000 for exemplary damages due to the aggravating circumstance of treachery.

Issues 

Whether or not there should be retroactive application of the law on the ground of a modifying circumstance on minority in pursuant to the provisions under RA9344.

Held/Ratio 

YES. Laws can be applied retroactively they are favorable to the accused. The age of criminal liability was raised through RA 9344 which provides that criminals above 15 but below 18 are subject to a penalty lower that what the law normally prescribes. Pursuant to Article 68 of the RPC, Monreal’s penalty should be reduced from Reclusion Perpetua to the indeterminate sentence of prision mayor (6 yrs 1 day) as minimum to reclusion temporal (14 yrs 8 mos 1 day) as maximum. In the case at bar, Monreal has already served more than 16 years in prison and is therefore qualified for immediate release.

PEOPLE VS FLORES {qualifying circumstance of relationship} Facts Isidro Flores raped [AAA] who is a minor under 15 years old. The victim is the adoptive daughter of Flores’ wife. The 13 year-old victim allege that she has been repeatedly raped since she was 11 years old but the court appreciated just two counts of rape in accordance with physical evidence examined by the medico legal. The lower courts appreciated the qualifying circumstances of relationship on the stipulated fact that he is her guardian. The Supreme Court rejected this, reducing the sentence to simple rape but adding the penalty of exemplary damages.

Issues 

Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of relationship can be appreciated

Held/Ratio 

NO. The aggravating circumstance where penalty is raised if the offender is the victim’s legal guardian was not appreciated in the case at bar. Recent jurisprudence dictates that guardianship must be legally appointed and that the extreme punishment of death cannot be subjected to mere stipulation or admissions.

VALEROSO VS PEOPLE {Prospective application of penal laws} Facts Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso was arrested in relation to a kidnapping case but was implicated due to illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. While the petitioner is a policeman, the firearm confiscated was not issued to him and was licensed under a different name. The Court of Appeals modified the sentence from the original penalty of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum was reduced to prision correctional in pursuant to RA 8294. In addition, petitioner was charged with a fine of P 15,000 RA 8294 amended PD 1866 which prescribes the heavier penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. Issues 

Whether or not the rule on prospectivity should be upheld

Held/Ratio 

NO. While the general rule prescribes that the law should not have retroactive application, as an exception, a retroactive or ex post facto law may be applied if it is favorable to the accused.

TAN VS BALLENA {mala in se vs mala prohibita} Facts Antonio Tan, Danilo Domingo and Robert Lim were sued by the employees of their dissolved company Footjoy Industrial Corporation for breaching the SSS law after failing to pay the membership dues. They allege that they must not be held accountable since the company’s downfall was caused by economic conditions and a fire that caused some ruins. The DOJ supported this petition and reversed the resolution in favor of petitioner. The Court of Appeals however rejected the DOJ resolution and ruled that petitioners should be held liable regardless of a show of good faith or lack of intent in the commission of the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling. Issues 

Whether or not good faith and lack of intent are material in the application of a special law

Held/Ratio 

NO. Special laws like the SSS Law are mala prohibita or are deemed wrong only due to positive law. Intent is only material in the commission of crimes characterized as mala in se which are inherently evil or publicly condemned.

RAIT VS PEOPLE {overt or external act} Facts The victim was induced to drink beer with the petitioner. As soon as she got intoxicated, petitioner and his co-accused took her away, held her down and took off her pants. Petitioner was able to insert a finger into her vagina before she was able to free herself. The lower courts convicted the offender of attempted rape. The accused petitioned before the Supreme Court citing Baleros, Jr. vs People where the offender was only convicted of just vexation. In the cited case, the offender pressed a cloth soaked with chemical while pressed on top of the victim. The court appreciated the fact that both the offender and the victim were fully-clothed and that there seem to be no attempt to undress the victim. The court ruled that rape cannot be appreciated without proof beyond reasonable doubt. Issues 

Whether or not the crime can be reduced from attempted rape to mere acts of lasciviousness or unjust vexation

Held/Ratio 

NO. Unlike the jurisprudence cited by the side of the accused, the overt or external acts of the offender from intoxicating and undressing the victim, clearly points to the intention of committing rape. Attempted rape instead of just vexation then is the proper sanction.

PEOPLE VS PAYCANA {complex crime under 1st clause of Act 48} Facts Jesus Paycana Jr. was indicted for the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion, having killed his wife who was seven months pregnant. According to the testimony of their daughter, the accused strangled and stabbed his wife who incurred 14 wounds. He claims that he caught a man coming out of their house the previous night; and after not getting an adequate answer from the wife, asked to live separately. According to him, he was on his way to leave when his wife first attacked him with a knife. The courts did not appreciate his plea of self-defense because aside from the number of wounds on the victim, evidence suggests that his wounds were possibly self-inflicted. Issues 

Whether or not the accused can be charged of a complex crime

Held/Ratio 

YES. The first clause of Article 48 defines a complex crime which is the commission of two or more grave or less grave felonies with a single act. It applies to the case at bar where an intentional abortion was committed as a consequence of killing its mother.

VASQUEZ VS PEOPLE {indeterminate sentence law} Facts Rodolfo Vasquez, along with his co-accused were charged with estafa for inducing Gemma Argoso to loan out money under the belief that said funds will be used to finance a mango plantation. The accused allowed the complainant to inspect a piece of land planted with some mango trees and even acquired the help of a certain Filipina Antonio to act as a broker. It was only after Vasquez failed to pay the loan that Argoso discovered that the property mortgaged was not what she inspected but a barren land in a mountainous area. The trial court penalized the petitioner with the indeterminate prison term of 17 yrs, 4 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court of Appeals modified the indeterminate penalty as 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 30 years of reclusion perpetua as maximum.

Issues 

Whether or not the lower courts prescribed the correct penalty

Held/Ratio 

NO. The Supreme Court further modified the penalty by highlighting the fact that the lower court incorrectly applied the penalty under PD 818 which describes estafa committed issuing bouncing checks. The penalty was modified in pursuant to Article 315 of the RPC which provides that for fraud exceeding P 22,000, the maximum penalty of prision correctional shall be applied with the additional 1 year for every additional P 10,000 following a maximum limit of 20 years. In accordance with the court’s mandate to construe law in favor of the accused however, the modifying circumstance that the amount exceeds P 22,000 should not be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty.

PEOPLE VS CASTRO & TALITA {extinction of criminal liability} Facts The lower courts charged Florenda Castro for the crime of parricide and murder for the death of her husband, Elpido and her father-in-law Alfredo. Her co-appellant Christopher Talita was charged with double-murder for the actual shooting of the said victims. Florenda was spotted in the get-away car that picked Talita up from the crime scene. The lower courts found her guilty of the said crime. Upon awaiting the final trial before the Supreme Court however, the accused died while under the custody of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa. Issues 

Whether or not the court should extinguish Florenda Castro’s criminal and civil liabilities

Held/Ratio 

YES. In pursuant to Article 89 of the RPC which established that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict before final judgment.

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION VS INTERPORT RESOURCES CORP, ET AL. {effect of absolute repeal} Facts The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) ordered the Interport Resources Corporation (IRC) to send a copy of its contracted agreement with Ganda Holdings Berhad (GHB). SEC states that the IRC failed to make public disclosures regarding its negotiations with GHB and that directors are guilty of trading shares that were used as insider information. IRC complies with the order but later received an order citing its violation of the Rules on Disclosure of Material Facts as well as a violation of Sec 30 in relation to Sec 36 of the Revised Securities Act. The IRC then files for an Omnibus Motion declaring that SEC does not have jurisdiction because of PD 1758 amending Section 8 of PD 902-A which transferred sole jurisdiction for investigations to the Prosecution and Enforcement Department (PED). The appellate court ruled in favor of IRC and inhibiting SEC from taking action. Before final judgment, the section creating PED was repealed by the Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799). Issues 

Whether or not SEC has jurisdiction to investigate the IRC

Held/Ratio 

YES. Despite the abolition of the PED, the new Securities Regulation Code prescribes similar roles like that of the repealed act. An exception to an absolute repeal is when acts merely reenact the substantive provisions of a repealed law. In the case at bar, the new code retains the illegality of the acts committed by the IRC and thus maintains the authority vested upon the SEC.

PEOPLE VS GONZALES {corpus delicti} Facts The trial court charged Budoy Gonzales with the crime of arson. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision. According to the version of the prosecution, the accused threatened to burn the house of Salvacion Loresto suspects the complainant Salvacion Loresto of reporting his involvement in jueteng operations. The complainant then reported the incident to the police who stayed to stand guard within the perimeters of her house. Complainant claimed to have witnessed the accused start the fire. The police thereby ran after and caught the accused. Issues 

Whether or not having the complainant as sole witness and inconsistency in her testimonies play a part in the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Held/Ratio 

NO. The court appreciates corpus delicti (substance of a crime) which speaks of the fact that the crime has actually been committed. In cases of arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by the proof of the bare occurrence of a fire.

PEOPLE VS ERQUIZA {proof beyond reasonable doubt} Facts The lower courts charged Larry Erguiza with one count of rape. According to the victim, she was at the mango orchard with her friends Joy and Ricky Agbuya at around 5 pm when her shorts got hooked on the fence. She claims that her friends left her, which gave the accused the opportunity to rape and threaten her to silence. The victim got pregnant and upon this discovery, she was compelled to relay this story to her relatives. The family of the accused allegedly offered the family of the victim 1 million pesos so that the case would not be filed in court; the family of the accused however claims the opposite and that the family of the victim asked for the settlement which they were unable to comply with because they could not afford it. The accused presented the alibi that he was at the house of the victim’s family till 5 pm doing some repairs. Upon coming home, he was requested to fetch the hilot Juanita Angeles to help with the delivery of his child. Angeles testified that he never left the side of his wife till she gave birth at 3 am the next day. The victim’s friend Joy Agbuya testified that she never brought her brother Ricky along to the mango orchard and that she and the victim usually goes there at around 1 pm. She also says that she did not leave her friend that day her shorts got caught on the fence. During that day, Joy claims that they parted ways along their Aunt Beth’s house. Asked about their relationship, Joy told the court that they were no longer friends after quarreling since the victim’s mom instructed her to lie to the court that she left her friend behind. Issues 

Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Held/Ratio 

NO. The conflicting testimonies between Joy and the complainant as well as the testimony of Juanita that established the appellant’s alibi poses some doubt and bar the court from the conviction of rape with moral certainty. Following the equipoise rule where evidence seem equally balanced, the court is compelled to rule in favor of the accused. Furthermore, it would have been the duty of the prosecution to present its case with such a manner that conviction is the inevitable result such that the court will not be burdened of the thought that an innocent man will be imprisoned the rest of his life.

PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ ET AL. {effect of conspiracy upon criminal liability of conspirators} Facts The accused F01 Felipe Dela Cruz, Audi Dona, Alfredo Concepcion, Eduardo Palacpac, Bernardo Ranara, Jomari de los Reyes, Dominador Recepcion and Robert Alfonso took Ruben Labajata, a jeepney driver (who testified as witness), hostage in order to carry out a robbery. The appellants raided a 7-Eleven Convenience Store where two victims, the guard Nestor Mayagma and a customer Elmer Duque were killed by F01 Dela Cruz and Diosdado Recepcion (deceased) respectively. After robbing the convenience store, the party stopped by a Petron Station and took some money as well. Ruben brought them to Tarlac where the police were able to track the offenders down with his help. The lower courts charged the appellants of Robbery with Homicide and Robbery in Band. The Supreme Court affirmed the first but did not appreciate the aggravating circumstance for the second count because of procedural errors. Penalties were also adjusted to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. Issues 

Whether or not all are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide

Held/Ratio 

YES. Upon establishing conspiracy between all appellants, all of the accused are liable for the action of any of their members unless it is shown that there was an attempt to stop the actor from performing the crime. In the case at bar, conspiracy was established upon the factual evidence that all accused were together before and after the commission of the crime. It is unnecessary to establish that there was prior agreement; it is enough that the members were united in the execution of their purpose.

PEOPLE VS ZULUETA {RA 9346} Facts Claudio Zulueta was charged with raping his daughter on three counts of rape. The trial court sentenced the accused to death penalty in pursuant to the penalty in the RPC. The Court of Appeals reduced the sentence to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court. Issues 

Whether or not the trial court erred in prescribing the death penalty

Held/Ratio 

YES. In pursuant to RA 9346 amending the maximum penalty of death penalty to reclusion perpetua.