Criminal Law 1 Case Digest PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Criminal Law 1 Case Digest PDF

Description

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ELADIO C. TANGAN G.R. No. 103613 February 23, 2001 Facts: At around 11:30 p.m. of December 1, 1984, Navy Captain Eladio C. Tangan was driving alone on Roxas Boulevard heading south. He had just come from Buendia Avenue on an intelligence operation. At the same time, Generoso Miranda, a 29-year old optometrist, was driving his car in the same direction along Roxas Boulevard with his uncle, Manuel Miranda, after coming from the Ramada Hotel. Generoso was moving ahead of Tangan. Suddenly, firecrackers were thrown in Generoso's way, causing him to swerve to the right and cut Tangan's path. Tangan blew his horn several times. Generoso, slowed down to let Tangan pass. Tangan accelerated and overtook Generoso, but when he got in front, Tangan reduced speed. Generoso tried four or five times to overtake on the right lane but Tangan kept blocking his lane. As he approached Airport Road, Tangan slowed down to make a U-tum. Generoso passed him, pulled over and got out of the car with his uncle. Tangan also stopped his car and got out. As the Mirandas got near Tangan's car, Generoso loudly retorted, " Putang ina mo, bakit mo ginigitgit ang sasakyan ko?" Generoso and Tangan then exchanged expletives. Tangari pointed his hand to Generoso and the latter slapped it, saying, "Huwag mo akong dinuduro! Sino ka ba, ano ba ang pinagmamalaki mo?" Tangan countered, "Ikaw, ano ang gusto mo?" With this, Tangan went to his car and got his .38 caliber handgun on the front seat. According to the prosecution witnesses, particularly, Mary Ann Borromeo, Rosalia Cruz and Manuel Miranda, the accused pointed his gun at Generoso Miranda and when Manuel Miranda tried to intervene, the accused pointed his gun at Manuel Miranda, and after that the accused pointed again the gun to Generoso Miranda, the accused shot Generoso Miranda at a distance of about a meter but because the arm of the accused was extended, the muzzle of the gun reached to about more or less one foot away from the body of Generoso Miranda. The shot hit the stomach of Generoso Miranda causing the latter to fall and while still conscious, Generoso Miranda told Manuel Miranda, his uncle, to get the gun. Manuel Miranda grappled for the possession of the gun and during their grappling, Rosalia Cruz intervened and took hold of the gun and after Rosalia Cruz has taken hold of the gun, a man wearing a red T-shirt took the gun from her. The man in T-shirt was chased by Manuel Miranda who was able to get the gun where the man in red T-shirt placed it. On the other hand, the defense, particularly the accused and his witness by the name of Nelson Pante claimed that after the gun was taken by the accused from inside his car, the Mirandas started to grapple for possession of the gun and during the grappling, and while the two Mirandas were trying to wrest away the gun from the accused, they fell down at the back of the car of the accused. According to the accused,

he lost the possession of the gun after falling at the back of his car and as soon as they hit the ground, the gun fell, and it exploded hitting Generoso Miranda. 1 After the gun went off, Tangan ran away. Meanwhile, Generoso lay on the ground bloodied. His uncle, Manuel, looked for the gun and ran after Tangan, joining the mob that had already pursued him. Tangan found a policeman who allowed him to enter his patrol car. Manuel arrived and told the policeman that Tangan had just shot his nephew. Then he went back to where Generoso lay and there found two ladies, later identified as Mary Ann Borromeo and Rosalina Cruz, helping his nephew board a taxi. Manuel suggested that Generoso be brought to the hospital in his car. He was rushed to the Philippine General Hospital but he expired on the way. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense Ruling: No, it is noteworthy that during the trial, petitioner Tangan did not invoke selfdefense but claimed that Generoso was accidentally shot. As such, the burden of proving self-defense, which normally would have belonged to Tangan, did not come into play. Although Tangan must prove his defense of accidental firing by clear and convincing evidence, the burden of proving the commission of the crime remained in the prosecution. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals appreciated in favor of Tangan the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense under Article 13 (1), in relation to Article 11 (1), of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Moreover, the element of unlawful aggression in self-defense must not come from the person defending himself but from the victim. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. Likewise, the exchange of insulting words and invectives between Tangan and Generoso Miranda, no matter how objectionable, could

not be considered as unlawful aggression. There being no lawful aggression on the part of either antagonists, the claim of incomplete self-defense falls. Having caused the fatal wound, Tangan is responsible for all the consequences of his felonious act. He brought out the gun, wrestled with the Mirandas but anticipating that the gun may be taken from him, he fired and fled. The third requisite of lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself is not supported by evidence. By repeatedly blocking the path of the Mirandas for almost five times, Tangan was in effect the one who provoked the former. The repeated blowing of horns, assuming it was done by Generoso, may be irritating to an impatient driver but it certainly could not be considered as creating so powerful an inducement as to incite provocation for the other party to act violently. RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 175457 July 6, 2011 Facts: Atty. David B. Loste, President of the Eastern Samar Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), to the Office of the Ombudsman, praying for an investigation into the alleged transfer of then Mayor Francisco Adalim, an accused in Criminal Case No. 10963 for murder, from the provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the residence of petitioner, then Governor Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. That on or about the 6th day of September 1998, and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Borongan, Province of Eastern Samar, Philippines, Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. being then the Provincial Governor of Eastern Samar, and Alexandrino R. Apelado, being then the Provincial Warden of Eastern Samar, with deliberate intent, manifest partiality and evident bad faith, cause the release from the Provincial Jail of detention prisoner Mayor Francisco Adalim, accused in Criminal Case No. 10963, for Murder, and thereafter placed said detention prisoner (Mayor Francisco Adalim) under accused RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR.’s custody, by allowing said Mayor Adalim to stay at accused Ambil’s residence for a period of Eighty-Five (85) days, more or less which act was done without any court order, thus accused in the performance of official functions had given unwarranted benefits and advantage to detainee Mayor Francisco Adalim to the prejudice of the government. At the pre-trial, petitioners admitted the allegations in the Information. They reason, however, that Adalim’s transfer was justified considering the imminent threats upon his person and the dangers posed by his detention at the provincial jail. According to petitioners, Adalim’s sister, Atty. Juliana A. Adalim-White, had sent numerous prisoners to the same jail where Mayor Adalim was to be held. The court ruled that in moving Adalim to a private residence, petitioners have conspired to accord him unwarranted benefits in the form of more comfortable quarters

with access to television and other privileges that other detainees do not enjoy. It stressed that under the Rules, no person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to bail. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office. Ruling: No, petitioner Apelado, Sr. invokes the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose. Under paragraph 6, Article 11 of the RPC, any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose does not incur any criminal liability. For this justifying circumstance to apply, the following requisites must be present: (1) an order has been issued by a superior; (2) such order must be for some lawful purpose; and (3) the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. Only the first requisite is present in this case. While the order for Adalim’s transfer emanated from petitioner Ambil, Jr., who was then Governor, neither said order nor the means employed by petitioner Apelado, Sr. to carry it out was lawful. In his capacity as the Provincial Jail Warden of Eastern Samar, petitioner Apelado, Sr. fetched Mayor Adalim at the provincial jail and, unarmed with a court order, transported him to the house of petitioner Ambil, Jr. This makes him liable Petitioner Alexandrino R. Apelado, Sr. is, likewise, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for nine (9) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and four (4) months. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HERMIE M. JACINTO G.R. No. 182239 March 16, 2011 Facts: That on or about the 28th day of January, 2003 at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening more or less, at barangay xxx, municipality of xxx, province of xxx and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [Hermie M. Jacinto], with lewd design did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with one AAA, a five-year old minor child. FFF, father of AAA, and appellant have been neighbors since they were born. FFF’s house is along the road. That of appellant lies at the back approximately 80 meters from FFF. To access the road, appellant must pass by FFF’s house, the frequency of which the latter describes to be "every minute [and] every hour." Also, appellant often visits FFF because they were close friends. He bore no grudge against

appellant prior to the incident. AAA likewise knows appellant well. She usually calls him kuya. She sees him all the time – playing at the basketball court near her house, fetching water, and passing by her house on his way to the road. She and appellant used to be friends until the incident. At about past 6 o’clock in the evening of 28 January 2003, FFF sent his eightyear-old daughter CCC to the store of Rudy Hatague to buy cigarettes. AAA followed CCC. When CCC returned without AAA, FFF was not alarmed. He thought she was watching television at the house of her aunt Rita Lingcay [Rita]. Julito went to the same store at around 6:20 in the evening to buy a bottle of Tanduay Rum. At the store, he saw appellant place AAA on his lap. He was wearing sleeveless shirt and a pair of short pants. All of them left the store at the same time. Julito proceeded to the house of Rita to watch television, while appellant, who held the hand of AAA, went towards the direction of the "lower area or place." There he made her lie down on harrowed ground, removed her panty and boxed her on the chest. Already half-naked from waist down, he mounted her, and, while her legs were pushed apart, pushed his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement. She felt pain and cried. Afterwards, appellant left and proceeded to the Perochos. She, in turn, went straight home crying. FFF heard AAA crying and calling his name from downstairs. She was without slippers. He found her face greasy. There was mud on her head and blood was oozing from the back of her head. He checked for any injury and found on her neck a contusion that was already turning black. She had no underwear on and he saw white substance and mud on her vagina. That the crime of rape has been committed is certain. The vivid narration of the acts culminating in the insertion of appellant’s organ into the vagina of five-year-old AAA and the medical findings of the physicians sufficiently proved such fact. Issue: Whether or not Jacinto is exempted due to minority under RA 9344. Ruling: No, Hermie M. Jacinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape. Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 exempts a child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age from criminal liability, unless the child is found to have acted with discernment, in which case, "the appropriate proceedings" in accordance with the Act shall be observed. In the present case, we agree with the Court of Appeals that: "(1) choosing an isolated and dark place to perpetrate the crime, to prevent detection[;] and (2) boxing the victim xxx, to weaken her defense" are indicative of then seventeen (17) year-old appellant’s mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of his unlawful action.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA G.R. No. L-9529 August 30, 1958 Facts: Where the prosecution had established that during the Japanese occupation, appellant, who is a Filipino Citizen, and owing allegiance to the United States of America and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, gave the enemy aid and comfort by rendering service with the Japanese Imperial Army as secret agent, informer and spy, of its Detective force in the province of Iloilo, and that in the performance of such service, he participated actively and directly in the punitive expeditions periodically made by the Japanese forces in the guerrilla-infested areas of the said province and committed robberies, arson and mass-murders, said accused is guilty of the crime of Treason. These specific overt acts of appellant as testified to by eyewitnesses who have survived the harrowing massacres, speak eloquently that his adherence to the enemy in giving it aid and comfort, was accompanied by cruelty and ruthlessness, in wanton disregard of the feelings and decency of his fellow citizens. Issue: Whether or not Villanueva be exempted due to impulse of uncontrollable fear. Ruling: No, the foregoing facts were not impugned by any evidence for appellant, his defense in the lower court merely consisting of (1) his denial of the overt acts imputed upon him, and (2) that if he ever served in the detective force of the Japanese Army since January 1st, 1944, it was because he was made to accept the position under duress, and that his acceptance of such position was for the good of the people, he having saved many Filipino lives from Japanese atrocities. "Duress, force, fear or intimidation to be available as a defense, must be present, imminent and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. Furthermore, although the facts of the case verily justify the imposition of death penalty, yet, for lack of sufficient votes said penalty should be, as it is hereby commuted to reclusion perpetua, in accordance with law. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, JR. y CONJE, MANUEL GARCIA y RIVERA and JOHN DOE G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997

Facts: On October 15, 1992 at about 5:30 in the afternoon, he, the victim Andre Mar Masangkay, Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega, Roberto San Andres were having a drinking spree in the compound near the house of Benjamin Ortega, Jr. at Daangbakal, Dalandanan, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. That while they were drinking, accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia who were [already] drunk arrived and joined them. That victim Andre Mar Masangkay answered the call of nature and went to the back portion of the house. That accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. followed him and later they [referring to the participants in the drinking session] heard the victim Andre Mar shouted, "Don't, help me!" (Huwag, tulungan ninyo ako!) That he and Ariel Caranto ran towards the back portion of the house and [they] saw accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr., on top of Andre Mar Masangkay who was lying down in a canal with his face up and stabbing the latter with a long bladed weapon. That Ariel Caranto ran and fetched Benjamin Ortega, Sr., the father of accused Benjamin, Jr. That he [Quitlong] went to Romeo Ortega in the place where they were having the drinking session [for the latter] to pacify his brother Benjamin, Jr. That Romeo Ortega went to the place of the stabbing and together with Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia lifted Andre Mar Masangkay from the canal and brought Andre Mar to the well and dropped the latter inside the well. That Romeo Ortega, Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia then dropped stones measuring 11 to 12 inches high, 2 feet in length and 11 to 12 inches in weight to the body of Andre Mar Masangkay inside the well. That Romeo Ortega warned him [Quitlong] not to tell anybody of what he saw. That he answered in the affirmative and he could go home. That his house is about 200 meters from Romeo Ortega's house. That upon reaching home, his conscience bothered him, and he told his mother what he witnessed. That he went to the residence of Col. Leonardo Orig and reported the matter. That Col. Orig accompanied him to the Valenzuela Police Station and some police officers went with them to the crime scene. That accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia were apprehended and were brought to the police station. Issue: Whether or not Appallent Garcia had no intention to commit so grave a wrong. Ruling: Yes, appellant Garcia merely assisted in concealing the body of the victim. But the autopsy conducted by the NBI medico-legal officer showed that the victim at that time was still alive, and that he died subsequently of drowning. That drowning was the immediate cause of death was medically demonstrated by the muddy particles found in the victim's airway, lungs, and stomach. The drowning was the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony that. Appellant Garcia had intended to commit; it exemplifies praeter intentionem covered by Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code. Under this paragraph, a person may be convicted of homicide although he had no original intent to kill.

The prosecution's evidence itself shows that Garcia had nothing to do with the stabbing which was solely perpetrated by Appellant Ortega. His responsibility relates only to the attempted concealment of the crime and the resulting drowning of Victim Masangkay. The hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction is that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this constitutional right. Although the prosecution was able to prove that Appellant Garcia assisted in "concealing . . . the body of the crime, . . . in order to prevent its discovery," he can neither be convicted as an accessory after the fact defined under Article 19, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code. The records show that Appellant Garcia is a brother-in-law of Appellant Ortega, the latter's sister, Maritess, being his wife. Such relationship exempts Appellant Garcia from criminal liability as provided by Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARCELINO OLOVERIO G.R. No. 211159 March 18, 2015 Facts: According to the prosecution, on October 2, 2003, at around 3:00 p.m., Rudipico Pogay (Pogay) and Dominador Panday (Panday) saw Rodulfo Gulane walking about five (5) meters away from them with Oloverio trailing behind him. Oloverio allegedly tapped Gulane’s right shoulder and hacked him on the chest and extremities with a bolo until Gulane collapsed on the ground. Oloverio then allegedly took Gulane’s m...