Criminal Law 1 Case Digest PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Criminal Law 1 Case Digest PDF

Description

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE C. VILLAMALA and GAUDIOSA MALUNJAO VILLAMALA G.R. No. L-41312 July 29, 1977 Facts: On the evening of November 5, 1974, complainant Eustaquia Bentulan was with her three children in their house in Barrio Nangka, Consolacion, Cebu, her husband being away as he was a fisherman. About ten that night, she heard appellant Gaudiosa Villamala calling her by her nickname King, whereupon she stood up and opened the door to enable her visitor to enter. That the latter did, at the same time asking where her husband was, she was informed that he was away. While the two seated side by side were conversing, complainant heard Gaudiosa whistle, and immediately thereafter, her husband, appellant Vicente Villamala entered the house. No sooner was he inside when Gaudiosa, who was at Eustaquia's left side, placed her left arm around her neck and pinned the latter to the floor, the left leg of appellant being thrust between Eustaquia's knees. In that situation with Gaudiosa choking her neck, she was unable to extricate herself, being held fast by the bigger and taller Gaudiosa. Vicente in turn took advantage of the situation and through force removed complainant's black skirt and panties. Such torn garments appellant Vicente Villamala threw aside, removed his short pants, and placed himself on top of Eustaquia. Thus, he was able to consummate the sexual act with Gaudiosa continuing to hold and pin to the floor the victim's neck and left leg. While Eustaquia was thus being sexually assaulted, both appellants told her in a low voice not to worry because she would be financially assisted, the needs of her children being attended to, and perfumes and dresses supplied her. The two appellants continued to appease the victim telling the latter not to worry; they then left the victim who was in tears the whole evening. When her husband, Vicente Bentulan arrived at 5:00 o'clock in the morning of November 6, 1974, she immediately reported her being ravished by the appellants. The following day, the Bentulan spouses went to the Philippine Constabulary Headquarters at Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City and lodged their complaint for rape.

Issue: Whether or not there was a direct participation done by Gaudiosa Villamala Held: To convict appellant as a principal by direct participation in the, it is necessary that conspiracy among him and his co-accused be proved. There is conspiracy when two or more individuals come to an agreement and decide to commit the felony. In this case, Gaudiosa and Vicente conspired to rape Eustaquia. Gaudiosa’s act of whistling indicated a go signal to her husband to execute the act. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Vs. JEANETTE (GINETTE) YANSON-DUMANCAS G.R. No. 13352728. December 13, 1999 Facts: Jeanette Yanson Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold bar transaction losing P352,000 to Danilo Lumangyao and his cohort. On this occasion Mario Lamis brought out the plan to abduct Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr. They went to the office of Col. Nicolas Torres at PNP Headquarters where they met the colonel who told them that if you find these two people (referring to Lumangyao and Gargar) to bring and hide them at Dragon Lodge Motel. Moises Grandeza together with Gargar Jr. proceeded to the house of Bardot where they found Lumangyao and thereafter the three of them went to Tinolahan Eatery. It was there that Divinagracia and Fernandez manhandled Lumangyao and Gargar. Jeanette then investigated the two victims on the whereabouts of the money that they swindled from her and the two answered that it was already spent. It was then that Jeanette ordered Doming (Geroche) to take care of the two (Lumangyao and Gargar). From DHacienda Motel, the group rode on the red toyota land cruiser. They proceeded to Hda. Pedrosa in Brgy. Alijis. When they arrived there the two victims were ordered to alight and sit by the side of the road. Geroche then asked Moises Grandeza to hold the hands

of Lumangyao and then Gargar behind their backs. After that, Gargallano was the first to shoot. He shot Gargar at the back of his head using a baby armalite. Then Geroche followed suit by shooting Lumangyao with a .45 cal. Pistol at his right lower jaw. Thereafter, the two dead bodies were loaded on board the land cruiser and brought to Hda. Siason where Pecha and Hilado buried them in the shallow grave they dug. Issue: Whether or not sufficient evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeanette indeed directly inducing them to commit the crime. Held: In order that a person may be convicted as principal by inducement, the following must be present: (1) the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime, and (2) such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor. By the foregoing standards, the remark of Jeanette to take care of the two does not constitute the command required by law to justify a finding that she is guilty as a principal by inducement. Furthermore, the utterance, which was supposedly the act of inducement, should precede the commission of the crime itself. In the case at bar, the abduction, which is an essential element of the crime charged (kidnapping for ransom with murder) has already taken place when Jeanette allegedly told accused-appellant Geroche to take care of the two. Said utterance could, therefore, not have been the inducement to commit the crime charged in this case. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO JORGE Y RAMIREZ G.R. No. 99379 April 22, 1994 Facts: Patricio Ocenar, a barangay tanod of Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City. Ocenar narrates that on 26 June 1990, at around nine-thirty in the evening, he was at the barangay hall. Then a person informed him that Francisco Palma was being molested by three men. Taking with him his "knife-stick," Ocenar proceeded to Paui Street pointed to by the informer. There, at some ten arm’s length, Ocenar saw Eduardo Jorge and Romeo Lajera holding the hands of Palma and a woman stabbing him on the left chest with a long instrument. Ocenar could not tell exactly what kind of weapon was used. He shouted at them and all three ran away leaving Palma behind to chase his aggressors but he collapsed immediately on Baloy Street. According to Dr. Renato Bautista who examined the victim, the stab wound on his left chest was the cause of his death. On the part of appellant Jorge, he denies any participation in the crime. He claims he was sleeping in his house at the time of the killing and was only awakened when policemen, led by the widow, forced him out of his house despite his protestations and profession of innocence, and brought to the police station. Issue: Whether or not Eduardo Jorge is a Principal by Indispendable Cooperaton Held: To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have been accomplished. The only involvement of appellant was his holding of the hand of Palma when he was stabbed by Bernales on the left chest. There was no other evidence to show unity of design. It is possible that the appellant had no knowledge of the common

design, if there was any, nor of the intended assault until the victim was stabbed. The thrust could have been made at the spur of the moment, totally unexpected by appellant. The mere holding of the victim's hand does not necessarily prove intention to kill. If the tragedy was a chance stabbing, there can be no conspiracy to speak of. Perhaps it would have been different if the victim was stabbed more than once and appellant still held on to the hand of the victim.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RUDY FRONDA G.R. Nos. 102361-62 May 14, 1993 Facts: At about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of June 11, 1986, the deceased Eduardo (Edwin) Balaan And Esminio Balaan who are brothers, were take by seven (7) armed men in fatigue uniform with long firearms, suspected to be NPA members, accompanied by accused Rudy Fronda and Roderick Padua from the house of one Ferminio Balaan, at Barangay Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan. The said Rudy Fronda and Roderick Padua are residents of the same place. The armed men tied the hands of the deceased at their back lying down face downward, in front of the house of Ferminio Balaan. The armed men together with Roderick Padua and Rudy Fronda proceeded towards sitio Tulong, Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan passing through the ricefields (taking along with them the Balaan brothers). After that, the NPA's instructed them to go home, but in the afternoon of the same day June 11, 1986, Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun, sent Elmer Martinez, Orlando Gonzales, George Peralta and Librado Duran to get him and further he was ordered to get a spade and a crowbar used in digging the hole where the Balaan brothers were buried. Appellant was the one who pointed the location where the victims' bodies buried. Appellant for a period of more than three (3) years, failed to report the incident to the authorities, and he did not in any way object, when he was ordered to tie the hands of the victims. Issue: Whether or not Rudy Fronda was an accomplice Held: Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accomplice is one who, not being a principal, "cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts". Under this provision, a person is considered as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the crime is of a minor character. To be convicted as such, it is necessary that he be aware to the criminal intent of the principal and thereby cooperates knowingly or intentionally by supplying material or moral aid for the efficacious execution of the crime. In the case at bar, records indicate that appellant was seen being handed by and receiving from one of the armed men a hunting knife. Also, as aforesaid, appellant was not able to explain his failure to report the incident to the explain his failure to report the incident to the authorities for more than three (3) years. These circumstances, among others, establish the fact that appellant consciously concurred with the acts of the assailants. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. JOSE TAMAYO, ET AL G.R. No. L-18289 November 17, 1922 Facts: It appears in evidence that on the morning of the day mentioned in the complaint the deceased, Catalino Carrera, in company with his brother, Francisco Carrera, and a youth of thirteen years, named Juan Gonzales, who was living with the deceased, repaired to a field belonging to the deceased, in the barrio of San Felipe, municipality of Binalonan, to do agricultural work, preparatory to the planting of palay. While the three mentioned were busy as above stated, the five appellants herein arrived to begin work preparing

another plot of land for cultivation, adjacent to or near the paddy upon which the deceased was at work. The five appellants found that no water was available for watering the land which they intended to prepare, because all the water in the canal was being appropriated by the deceased. Seeing that their request for water was disregarded, the anger of the appellants was aroused, and Hilario Tamayo advanced towards the irrigating ditch, and toward the deceased, with the intention, so Hilario states, of breaking the dam with his hands, thereby releasing the water so that it would continue its course in the ditch. When Hilario Tamayo found himself confronted by the deceased in a threatening attitude, he at once closed in upon the deceased and, seizing him firmly by the neck, began choking him, with the result that the deceased was rendered incapable of effectual resistance. As soon as Hilario had been thus drawn away from the deceased, Ramon Tamayo at once took Hilario's place and continued choking the deceased until the latter had become visibly weak; and it was at this moment that Jose Tamayo, a son of Ramon, ran up and delivered a blow with a bamboo stick on the side of the head of the deceased just above the left ear. The deceased at once gave down, but Ramon Tamayo continued to choke him for a few moments until life was extinct. The physician who examined the cadaver found that the longitudinal blow on the side of the head had broken through the skin and fractured and depressed the skull over a length of eight centimeters. Death was evidently caused by the direct shock produced by the blow. Issue: Whether or not Ramon Tamayo can be convicted as an accomplice in the homicide committed in this case by Jose Tamayo Held: Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accomplice is one who, not being a principal, "cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. In this connection it becomes important to note that both Basilia Orensia and Francisco Carrera repeatedly testify that after the deceased had received the fatal injury, Ramon Tamayo continued to hold and choke the deceased, then evidently on the ground, until after life was extinct. if true, it shows that Ramon Tamayo approved of the blow struck by his son Jose Tamayo. Sufficient to make Ramon responsible as an accomplice. G.R. NO. 173858: July 17, 2007 ERNESTO GARCES vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Facts: On August 2, 1992, between 8:00 and 9:00 o'clock in the evening, AAA was on her way to the chapel when the five accused suddenly appeared and approached her. Rosendo Pacursa covered her mouth with his hands and told her not to shout or she will be killed. He then brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn while his four companions stood guard outside. Inside the barn, Pacursa started kissing AAA. Private complainant fought back but to no avail. Thereafter, Pacursa succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. After a while, they heard people shouting and calling the name of AAA. At this point, petitioner Ernesto Garces entered the barn, covered AAA's mouth, then dragged her outside. He also threatened to kill her if she reports the incident. The medico-legal findings of Dr. Herminio Venus showed that there was a laceration in complainant's private parts possibly caused by sexual contact. Issue: Whether or not Ernesto Garces can be convicted as an accomplice in the rape committed in this case by Rosendo Pacursa Held:

The two elements necessary to hold petitioner liable as an accomplice are present: (1) community of criminal design, that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; and (2) performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. The facts show that petitioner participated in the commission of the crime even before complainant was raped. He was present when Pacursa abducted complainant and when he brought her to the barn. He positioned himself outside the barn together with the other accused as a lookout. When he heard the shouts of people looking for complainant, he entered the barn and took complainant away from Pacursa. Having known of the criminal design and thereafter acting as a lookout, petitioner is liable as an accomplice, there being insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE C. DE GUZMAN G.R. No. 77368 October 5, 1993 Facts: On 09 September 1985, robbery was committed in Quezon City in the house of Jose L. Obillos, Sr., where various pieces of precious jewelry alleged to be worth millions of pesos were taken. Subsequently, an information, dated 22 October 1985, was also filed against herein respondent spouses Danilo A. Alcantara and Isabelita Esguerra-Alcantara, from whose possession the jewelries stolen were recovered in Antipolo, Rizal. Issue: Whether or not there is a violation of the Anti-Fencing Law Held: Anti-Fencing Law has been enacted for the purpose of imposing a heavier penalty on persons who profit from the effects of the crime of robbery or theft, no longer merely as accessories under Article 19, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, but as equally guilty with the perpetrators of the robbery or theft itself. Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything. "Fencing", upon the other hand, is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. The crimes of robbery and fencing are clearly then two distinct offenses. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. True, the object property in fencing must have been previously taken by means of either robbery or theft but the place where the robbery or theft occurs is inconsequential....