V2 Crim Cases Art 7 - 10 - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download V2 Crim Cases Art 7 - 10 - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Description

People vs. Valdez, G.R. No. L-75390, March 25, 1988 Summary: While Eleno Maquiling was in his home’s yard with his family, he was shot dead from a distance. Danilo Valdez, holding a firearm, and Simplicio Orodio were seen fleeing from the direction where the gunshot came. The Court found them guilty of murder, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, which was based on circumstantial evidence. The Court also found from circumstantial evidence the existence of conspiracy, holding Simplicio Orodio principally liable as coconspirator despite not firing the fatal shot himself. Facts: At about 8pm in the evening, Eleno Maquiling with his family were in their yard, illuminated by a lamp. A relative arrived and asked Eleno’s mother, Esmenia, to accompany her to prayer meeting. She refused and asked Eleno. As Eleno was about to stand up, a gunshot was fired and Eleno fell to the ground. Esmenia looked at the direction where the gunshot came from and saw Danilo Valdez, holding a gun, and Simplicio Orodio, running away from the scene. Danilo was a relative and Simplicio was an acquaintance. Three days after the shooting, Juanito, Eleno’s father, executed a sworn statement before the police that he had not seen the accused at the night of the shooting. But he was told by Eleno that in case something bad happened to him, Danilo and Simplicio should be held responsible as he had quarreled with them because of their stealing and robbing. Ten days later, Esmenia made a statement to the police. Eleno’s brother Dionisio also gave a statement. Both of them identified Danilo as Eleno’s killer. Danilo and Simplicio were charged with murder. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, and aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Issue: 1. Whether or not evidence of the prosecution establishes guilt beyong reasonable doubt. - YES 2. Whether or not Simplicio is principally liable even if he was not the one who shot Eleno. – YES Ruling: 1. Yes. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstances; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Tested by the rule stated above, and considering that Eleno was killed by a shot in the back and suffered eight (8) pellet wounds from one gunshot only; that the accused were immediately seen running down-hill away from the scene after the gunshot report with accused Danilo v. Valdez carrying a long firearm; that three (3) days before the incident there was already bad blood between the victim and accused Danilo Valdez as the victim confided to his father Juanito

Maquiling that if ever he would be shot accused Danilo Valdez is the one to be blamed; that when the place where the crime was committed is an isolated place and it is highly probable that some other malefactors could have been present; and that footprints were seen by the police investigators behind the bamboo grove where the accused were seen to come from immediately after the shooting that Esmenia Maquiling even described the clothing of accused Danilo Valdez; that the two accused are well known to the victim's family thereby precluding the possibility of mistaken Identity; all these proven facts afford sufficient or a reasonable inference that the two accused were indeed the killers of the victim. 2. Yes. Orodio was present with Valdez at the time Eleno Maquiling was killed by a shotgun blast at his back. He was in the company of a man running with a shotgun, at approximately 8:00 o'clock in the evening, immediately after the fatal shooting, just outside the Maquilings house where he had no business being if he were not acting in concert with Danilo Valdez, the accused-appellant who carried the shotgun. He was a close friend (barkada) of the accused Danilo Valdez, both of whom the deceased victim had identified as probably responsible should any untoward event befall the victim. Simplicio Orodio completely failed to explain what he was doing with Danilo Valdez the night of the killing, on the one hand. Upon the other, both Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio pleaded the same alibi. Valdez and Orodio both testified that they were in Cervantes, Ilocos Sur, when Eleno was shot to death. Their common alibi remained uncorroborated for both failed to present either the mother of accused Danilo Valdez who was supposed to have come to Cervantes Ilocos Sur, to inform them that Eleno Maquiling had been shot to death, or any other witness for that matter. The trial court found the accused common defense of alibi as non-credible as it was not impossible for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime. People vs. Patano, G.R. No. 129306, March 14, 2003 Facts: James Patano, Ramil Madriaga and Rosendo Madriaga, Oswaldo Banaag, Manolo Babac, Allan Duarte and Jose Doe, appealed last 15 May 1996 to the crime charged against them which was Kidnapping for Ransom. The aforementioned accused allegedly grouped themselves together, conspired, confederated and mutually helped one another on 25 March 1996 to unlawfully and feloniously detain and kidnap Vicente Uy Chua in Antipolo Rizal to extort ransom and demand an amount of Ten Million Pesos (Php 10,000,000.00). The kidnapped victim Vicente Uy Chua was rescued on 27 March 1996, and the trial court convicted appellants James Patano, Ramil Madriaga, and Rosendo Madriaga of kidnapping for ransom, while the co-accused Oswaldo Banaag was acquitted. It was argued that the total circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants to conspire and propose to commit felony of kidnapping for ransom, because not one of the prosecution witnesses saw the actual abduction. The witness Dimal admitted during cross-examination that he did not see the appellants kidnapping or abducting the kidnap victim, Vicente Uy Chua.

Issue: Whether or not the convicted appellants are all or separately and individually guilty of crime of kidnapping for ransom, conspiring and proposing to each other to commit such felony on the strength of circumstantial evidences presented. Ruling: No. All told, while the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom has been proven, appellants' participation therein had not been adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, all three appellants must be acquitted. The trial court declared that the evidence for the prosecution is purely circumstantial on which basis it ruled that appellants conspired in perpetrating the crime of kidnapping with ransom. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The following elements must concur: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts on which the inference of guilt is based must be proved; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the totality of the pieces of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish the guilt of appellants. Not one of the prosecution witnesses saw the actual abduction. Witness Dimal admitted during cross-examination that he did not see appellants actually kidnap or abduct Uy. SC acquitted them of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158754, August 10, 2007 Petitioner's argument diminishes as grave abuse of discretion the public respondent's rejection of the theory of overlapping conspiracies, which, in the abstract, depicts a picture of a conspirator in the first level of conspiracy performing acts which implement, or in furtherance of, another conspiracy in the next level of which the actor is not an active party. Facts: As an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then President of the Republic of the Philippines, five criminal complaints against the former President and members of his family, his associates, friends and conspirators were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. One of the Information was for the crime of plunder under Republic Act [RA] No. 7080 and among the respondents was herein petitioner Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila. The amended information referred to, like the original, charged respondent Jinggoy, together with the former President and several others, with plunder under RA 7080, as amended by section 12of RA 7659. Jinggoy Estrada interposed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court claiming that respondent Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the charge against him for alleged offenses and with alleged conspirators with whom he is not even connected. Jinggoy then filed a petition for bail before the Sandiganbayan which was subsequently granted in his favor. Hence, the present

petition argues that respondent Special Division of the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to Jinggoy considering the well-established theory of overlapping consipiracies and thus disregarding the application of accepted criminal law precepts, thereby setting a dangerous precedent. Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the theory of overlapping conspiracies when in granted bail to Jinggoy. (NO) Ruling: No. Petitioner's argument diminishes as grave abuse of discretion the public respondent's rejection of the theory of overlapping conspiracies, which, in the abstract, depicts a picture of a conspirator in the first level of conspiracy performing acts which implement, or in furtherance of, another conspiracy in the next level of which the actor is not an active party. As the petitioner's logic goes following this theory, respondent Jinggoy is not only liable for conspiring with former President Estrada in the acquisition of illgotten wealth from "jueteng" under par. (a) of the amended information. He has also a culpable connection with the conspiracy, under par. (b), in the diversion of the tobacco excise tax and in receiving commissions and kickbacks from the purchase by the SSS and GSIS of Belle Corporation shares and other illegal sources under par. (c) and (d), albeit, he is not so named in the last three paragraphs. And since the central figure in the overlapping conspiracies, i.e., President Estrada, is charged with a capital offense, all those within the conspiracy loop would be considered charged with the same kind of non-bailable offense. Revoking the bail thus granted to respondent Jinggoy, as the petitioner urges, which necessarily implies that the evidence of his guilt is strong, would be tantamount to preempting the Sandiganbayan's ongoing determination of the facts and merits of the main case. People vs. Liad (EDGARDO LIAD and JUN VALDERAMA) G.R. No. 133815-17, March 22, 2001 Facts: Lydia Cuenca was driving on her way home when she was approached by three men. The three men managed to force open the vehicle and shot her twice. Manuel, Lydia’s husband, who was also driving and right behind Lydia in a convoy, witnessed the event. Manuel then tried to catch up with the car with the three men and his wounded wife. Meanwhile at Police Station 6, Commonwealth Avenue, the desk officer, SPO Bernarte, received a telephone call from a concerned citizen informing them that a robbery-hold-up was in progress along Commonwealth Avenue. The desk officer immediately dispatched SPO4 Raul Espejon, SPO1 Ricardo Inamac, SPO2 Faustino and SPO1 Diaz. Before they could leave the police station, however, their office received another report from Batasan Hills Barangay Captain Arturo Ison regarding the same incident. The police thus proceeded to Commonwealth Avenue and Ilang-Ilang Street where they saw the victim, Lydia Cuenca, lying on the front door of the Tamaraw FX. SPO4 Diaz and SPO1 Faustino brought the victim to the hospital while the rest of the force proceeded to the Trans-World Compound along Filinvest Road, about 400 yards from Ilang-Ilang Street. A security guard as well as members of the barangay commando informed them that the three suspects were in the compound. Upon approaching the suspects, the police were met with a barrage of gunfire. The police returned fire. The exchange lasted a few minutes until one of the suspects, a certain "Baeng," was hit. Baeng sprawled to the ground, still holding his .38 calibre paltik. Accused-appellants, who were hiding behind the banana

plants, then surrendered to the police. SPO4 Espejon immediately apprehended accused-appellant Jun Valderama and disarmed him of his .38 calibre paltik revolver. He also recovered Baeng’s gun. SPO1 Inamac arrested the other accused-appellant, Edgardo Liad, and confiscated the latter’s firearm, likewise a .38 paltik revolver. SPO1 Inamac also recovered the victim’s jewelry and wallet, which was pointed to by Liad. The victim’s bag was wedged in the trunk of a banana plant. The police brought the accused-appellants to the police station while Baeng, who was gasping for breath, was rushed to the Fairview Hospital. Baeng eventually died. Edgar Liad and Jun Valderama were subsequently charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City with Robbery with Homicide. Issue: Whether or not that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a conspiracy between accused-appellants and the deceased. Held: Yes. The Court finds that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a conspiracy between accused-appellants and the deceased. In conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime. In this case, there were several circumstances immediately before, during and after the robbery indubitably which show that the perpetrators were one in their purpose to rob the victim. Where conspiracy is shown, the precise extent of participation of each accused in the crime is secondary and the act of one may be imputed to all the conspirators. The SC held that the trial court, therefore, did not err in convicting accused-appellants of robbery with homicide. Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide. In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, the requisite elements are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. The latter is a negative fact that constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The Court agrees with accused-appellants and the Solicitor General that the prosecution in this case failed to prove the second element. The SC does not agree with the contention of the Solicitor General that since a paltik is a homemade gun, is illegally manufactured as recognized in People v. Fajardo, and cannot be issued a license or permit, it is no longer necessary to prove that it is unlicensed. This appears to be, at first blush, a very logical proposition. The Court, however, yield to it because Fajardo did not say that paltiks can in no case be issued a license or a permit, and that proof that a firearm is a paltik dispenses with proof that it is unlicensed.

In Criminal Case No. Q-96-65118, Accused-appellants Edgardo Liad y Beigar and Jun Valderama y Caspe are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and are sentenced to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellants are ordered to pay in solidum the heirs of the deceased Lydia Cuenca the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for her death, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P305,265.00 as funeral and burial expenses. In Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-65119 and Q-96-65120 for illegal possession of firearm, Accused-appellants are ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. People vs. Pinto, 204 SCRA 9 (DANIEL PINTO, JR. and NARCISO BUENAFLOR, JR.)

Accused both denied that they were the ones who fired at the victims. But the evidence were strong against them and Daniel Pinto Jr and Narciso Buenaflor Jr were both charged of 3 counts of murder and 1 frustrated murder. Issue: Are the accused guilty of crime charged against them? Ruling: Yes. It is not even necessary to pinpoint who between Pinto and Buenaflor actually caused the death of Richard or the wounding of Maria Theresa in the presence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that they acted in conspiracy with each other. Prior agreement between the appellants to lull their intended victim is not essential to prove conspiracy as the same may be inferred from their own acts showing joint purpose and design. In this case, such unity of purpose and design is shown by the fact that only the two of them fired their guns when the Anduiza jeep with the Tiongsons passed by. This they did in defiance of the order

of their superior not to shoot unless ordered to do so. Conspiracy having been proved, the guilt or culpability is imposable on both appellants in equal degrees. The same conspiracy was evident in the killing of Bello and Andes. The appellants' concerted action was shown by the manner by which they killed the two. In this incident, however, they invoke se lf-defense as a justifying circumstance. Evidence at hand, however, do not favor their claim. The decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed subject to the modifications that appellants shall solidarily be liable for the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000) for each of the three murders they committed and, for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson, each of them shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of from six (6) years of prision correccional maximum as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as maximum.

People vs. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June 8, 2004 Facts: Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio (drinking grioup) were having a drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Robert’s father (Jaime). As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano (appellants) walking. The three stopped in front of the house. While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly throw a hand grenade, ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Drinking group were hit by shrapnel (fragments of the grenade) and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to the Hospital. However, Robert died before reaching the hospital. The trial court found appellants guilty of complex crime of murder with multiple attempted murder. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano. Ruling: Yes. It was established that prior to the grenade explosion, Rey Camat, Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe and Gerry Bullanday were able to identify the culprits, namely, appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano because there was a lamppost in front of the house and the moon was bright. However, there was no conspiracy. A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship. The evidence shows that ...