PEOPLE vs. QUIÑONES (Case Digest)

PEOPLE vs. QUIÑONES
(183 SCRA 747)
March 28, 1990; G.R. No. 80042

Facts:

On June 30, 1986, the bodies of three men were found in a wooded area in barangay Tuaco, Basud, Camarines Norte. The corpses were in a state of decomposition and bore various contusions, stab and bullet wounds, and other injuries indicating foul play. The victims were later positively identified as Alexander Sy, Augusto Gabo and Frisco Marcellana.

In due time, an information for robbery with multiple homicide was filed against Adolfo Quiñones, Alfredo Aban, Zaldy Civico, Ronilo Canaba, Amado Conda, Jr., Santiago Solarte, Armando Buitre and one John Doe. 

The evidence for the prosecution established that the three victims were riding in a dark blue Mitsubishi car at about seven o'clock in the evening of June 27 or 28, 1986, when they were intercepted along the Maharlika Highway in the above-named barangay by the accused, who had placed sacks on the road to block the way. The three were taken to the nearby woods where they were killed.  According to his brother, Napoleon, Alexander Sy was at that time carrying P300,000.00, representing the weekly collections of his business, a necklace with pendant worth P20,000.00, a P10,000.00 diamond ring, and a licensed .22 caliber handgun.   All this, together with the other articles belonging to the victims, were taken by the accused, who also used the car in fleeing to Sapang Palay, where it was recovered without the stereo and the spare tire.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused are guilty of robbery with multiple homicide.

Held:

There is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the Revised Penal Code thus the charge should have been for robbery with homicide only regardless of the fact that three persons were killed in the commission of the robbery. In this special complex crime, the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294 of the said Code.

People vs. Anticamara and Calaguas (Case Digest)

People vs. Anticamara and Calaguas (Case Digest)

GR No. 178771, June 08, 2011

Facts:

That on or about the 7th day of May 2002, more or less 3:00 o'clock in the early morning, at the Estrella Compound, Brgy. Carmen East, Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, the above-named accused, who are private persons, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with firearms, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Sulpacio Abad and AAA, both employees of the Estrellas, thereby depriving them of their liberty, all against their will for a period of twenty-seven (27) days.

 That in the course of the kidnapping, Sulpacio Abad was killed and buried in Brgy. Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan and AAA was raped for several times by her abductors.

Issue:

Whether or not there is special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape in the instant case spite of the fact that he (Lando Calaguas) had no participation in the commission of the (two) sexual abuses against the victim?

Held:

Lando Calaguas (one of the accused-appellant) is also liable for special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape. Since conspiracy is established between the other accused and Lando in the commission of kidnapping, the latter is responsible for the rape committed by former since there is no showing that Lando endeavored to prevent his companion from raping AAA.

People vs. Nocum et. Al., (Case Digest)

People vs. Nocum et. Al., (Case Digest)

G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013

By: G-one T. Paisones

Facts:

                On or about September 12, 1998 in Muntinlupa City, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain for themselves and without the consent of the owner, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away one motor vehicle  valued at more or less Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to the damage and prejudice of its owner, Lourdes Eleccion, in the aforestated amount and in the course of the commission thereof, Erico Medel, the driver of the said vehicle, was killed.

Issue:

Whether or not there is special complex crime of carnapping with homicide attended in the case.

Held:

                Yes.

Ratio:

To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof." Thus, the prosecution in this case has the burden of proving that: (1) Mallari took the Toyota FX taxi; (2) his original criminal design was carnapping; (3) he killed the driver, Medel; and (4) the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof."

In fine, all the elements of the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, as well as the identity of Mallari as one of the perpetrators of the crime, were all proved beyond reasonable doubt. The foregoing circumstances inevitably lead to the lone, fair and reasonable conclusion that Mallari participated in stealing the FX taxi driven by Medel and in killing him.

People vs. Bernabe (Case Digest)

People vs. Bernabe (Case Digest)

G.R. No. 185726, October 16, 2009

By: G-one T. Paisones

In the evening of May 25, 2005, accused-appellant invited Jomar, Alvin, and three girls known only as Kambal, Mandy, and Cherry to his house for a drinking spree. Accused-appellant allowed his guests to stay on and sleep in his bedroom.

At about 2:00 a.m. of May 26, 2005, Jomar was awakened by the voice of accused-appellant. Outside the house, they met the victim Jann Michael Olivo. While the three were walking along Chico Street, the victim told accused-appellant that he knew the latter. Accused-appellant poked a gun at the victim and ordered the latter to go with them to accused-appellants house where he started questioning the victim why the latter was roaming around the house. Jomar, who was in the bedroom, heard accused-appellant strongly utter the words, Sino ang nagbayad sa iyo na subaybayan ako, to which the victim answered Walang nagutos sa akin na subaybayan ka. Then, Jomar heard some punching sounds and then he heard a person plead, Kuya Bong parang awa niyo na ho kahit dito na lang ako tumira sa inyo, huwag mo lang akong patayin. 

Jomar peeped outside the bedroom. He saw accused-appellant holding a piece of wood while the victim was sitting near the front door of the house. He also saw Alvin, who was seemingly frightened, seated near another room. Jomar stayed inside the bedroom from where he saw accused-appellant hit the victim thrice with the piece of wood until it broke. Accused-appellant then instructed the weakened victim to undress while he went to the kitchen to get a toothbrush and some lotion. Accused-appellant commanded the victim to bend over and the former then put lotion on the victims butt. The victim shouted in pain as accused-appellant inserted the toothbrush into the victim’s anus.

Issue:

            Whether or not the there is special complex crime attendant in the case?

Held:

Beating the victim thrice with a piece of wood and inserting toothbrush into the anal orifice while the victim was dying is not special complex crime. There is treachery, which qualified the killing of Jann Michael Olivo to Murder and aggravating circumstance of cruelty which aggravated the murder because inserted the toothbrush into the victim’s anus was unnecessary to the commission of the crime.

People vs. Villaflores (Case Digest)

People vs. Villaflores (Case Digest)

G.R. No.  184926, April 11, 2012

By: G-one T. Paisones

Topic: Meaning of Special Complex Crime

Subject: Legal Research

FACTS:

Marita had been playing at the rear of their residence in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City; Julia, her mother, first noticed her missing from home on July 2, 1999.  Manito (father of Marita) rushed home and arrived there at about 2 pm, and immediately he and Julia went in search of their daughter. They did not find her. On the next day, Manito reported to the police that Marita was missing.  In her desperation, Julia sought out a clairvoyant (manghuhula) in an adjacent barangay, and the latter hinted that Marita might be found only five houses away from their own. Following the clairvoyants direction, they found Maritas lifeless body inside the comfort room of an abandoned house about five structures away from their own house. Julia had been tortured and strangled till death.

Two witnesses, Aldrin Bautista and Jovy Solidum, who indicated that Villaflores might be the culprit who had raped and killed Marita. The police thus arrested Villaflores on July 3, 1999 just as he was alighting from a vehicle. They saw Edmundo Villaflores, known in the neighborhood by his Batman tag and a neighbor of the [victims family], leading Marita by the hand (umakay sa bata). 

            No direct evidences are presented by the prosecution; only circumstantial evidence of the statement of two witnesses outline above.

Issues

Whether or not CA gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide because the State did not discharge its burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt every fact and circumstance constituting the crime charged.

Held:

No

Ratio:

The felony of rape with homicide is a composite crime. A composite crime, also known as a special complex crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law, and differs from a compound or complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

There are distinctions between a composite crime, and a complex or compound crime under Article 48 RPC. In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of separate information.

Supreme Court conceded the difficulty of proving the commission of rape when only the victim is left to testify on the circumstances of its commission; because in the crime is rape with homicide, because there may usually be no living witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed. Yet, the situation is not always hopeless for the State, for the Rules of Court also allows circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime as well as the identity of the culprit.  Direct evidence proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder; in contrast, circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.  To be clear, then, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting a felon free.

The Rules of Court makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred; hence, no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.  Nor has the quantity of circumstances sufficient to convict an accused been fixed as to be reduced into some definite standard to be followed in every instance. 

Amon Trading Corp. vs. CA, and Tri-Realty Development and Construction Corp

Amon Trading Corp. vs. CA, and Tri-Realty Development and Construction Corp

G.R. No. 158585, December 13, 2005, 477 SCRA 582 (2005)

(Digested Case Digest)

Facts: 

Eleanor Bahia Sanchez (represent Lines & Spaces) order from petitioner Amon Trading Corporation, and from Juliana Marketing bags of cement for Tri-Reality development and construction, but it found out that both cannot deliver all its balance and refunded the amount of undelivered bags of cement to Eleanor Sanchez, but Sanchez had already fled abroad, private respondent (Tri-realty) filed this case for sum of money against petitioners and Lines & Spaces.  Tri-realty contended that Lines & Spaces is their agent; hence they are entitled for the money involved.

Issue: 

Whether or not Lines & Spaces is the Tri-realty’s agent

Held:

No agreement of agency between Tri-realty and Lines & Spaces, but rather a provider for the latter’s cement needs. All the pedantry about whether Lines & Spaces acted as agent of private respondent is absurd because Amon took orders from Eleanor Sanchez who, after all, was the one who paid them the manager’s checks for the purchase of cement. 

Since line space is not agent of tri-realty, no vinculum could be said to exist between Amon and tri-realty. 

Bernardo vs. Bernardo, 96 Phil 202 (1954) Case Digest

Bernardo vs. Bernardo

G.R. No. 5872, November 29, 1954, 96 Phil 202 (1954)

Case Digest

By: G-one T. Paisones

Doctrine:

Terms with Legal Meaning

Facts:

Enrique Bernardo the petitioner sold his lot to the respondent Crisostomo S. Bernardo.  That lot also found that the house of the petitioner since July 13, 1944; that because of family relationship the petitioners "were able to remain in the premises due to the tolerance of, and out of charity from, the appellee (respondent Crisostomo Bernardo) and his deceased parents who were the rightful lessees of the lot in question."

Due to his long stay in that parcel of land; the petitioner argue that he is a bona fide occupants therof because of his long stay in said parcel of land.

Issue:

Whether or not the terms "actual bona fide settlers and occupants", plainly indicating that "actual" and "bona fide" are synonymous based on the existing laws.

Held:

No.

Ratio:

the terms "actual bona fide settlers and occupants", plainly indicating that "actual" and "bona fide" are not synonymous, while the Commonwealth acts deleted the term "actual" and solely used the words "bona fide occupant", thereby emphasizing the requirement that the prospective beneficiaries of the acts should be endowed with legitimate tenure.

Evident Premeditation vs. Treachery

Evident Premeditation vs. Treachery

Parameters	Evident Premeditation	Treachery
Codal	That the act be committed with evident premeditation.	That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
Codes	Article 14, Paragraph 13	Article 14, Paragraph 16
Requisites	The prosecution must prove — 1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime; 2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and 3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.	(1) That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.
What crimes it apply?	Applicable only to crimes against persons	Applicable only to crimes against persons
Effect of Praeter Intentionem	When victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating. (People vs. Mabug-at)
Kind of Aggravating Circumstance	Qualifying circumstance	Qualifying circumstance
As to the defends of the victim	Victim may defend himself	Victim was not in a position to defend himself
As to the focus	Focus more on the sufficient time of planning, determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.	Focus more on means, method or form of attack employed by the culprit so that his victim was not in a position to defend himself.
How to prove?	Sufficiency of time span between the determination and execution of the criminal intent	By the manner, modes, methods and forms of the attacks
Difficult / Easy in proving?	Difficult to prove than the Treachery	Easier to prove than Evident Premeditation

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (Case Digest)

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 152154, July 15, 2003

Corrected Version

Topic: Prohibitions/Inhibitions of President of the Philippines

Facts:

One of the foremost concerns of the Aquino Government in February 1986 was the recovery of the unexplained or ill-gotten wealth reputedly amassed by former President and Mrs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, their relatives, friends and business associates. Thus, the very first Executive Order (EO) issued by then President Corazon Aquino upon her assumption to office after the ouster of the Marcoses was EO No. 1, issued on February 28, 1986. It created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and charged it with the task of assisting the President in the "recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship." 

In all the alleged ill-gotten wealth cases filed by the PCGG, this Court has seen fit to set aside technicalities and formalities that merely serve to delay or impede judicious resolution. This Court prefers to have such cases resolved on the merits at the Sandiganbayan. But substantial justice to the Filipino people and to all parties concerned, not mere legalisms or perfection of form, should now be relentlessly and firmly pursued. Almost two decades have passed since the government initiated its search for and reversion of such ill-gotten wealth. The definitive resolution of such cases on the merits is thus long overdue. If there is proof of illegal acquisition, accumulation, misappropriation, fraud or illicit conduct, let it be brought out now. Let the ownership of these funds and other assets be finally determined and resolved with dispatch, free from all the delaying technicalities and annoying procedural sidetracks.

Issue:

Whether or not President Marcos committed prohibited and inhibited acts as a president during his term of office

                                                                                                                      

Held:

Yes

Ratio:

It is settled that judicial admissions may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.^[82] Thus, facts pleaded in the petition and answer, as in the case at bar, are deemed admissions of petitioner and respondents, respectively, who are not permitted to contradict them or subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with such admissions.^[83]

The sum of $304,372.43 should be held as the only known lawful income of respondents since they did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL), as required by law, from which their net worth could be determined. Besides, under the 1935 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not receive any other emolument from the Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities.^[84] Likewise, under the 1973 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not receive during his tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source.^[85] In fact, his management of businesses, like the administration of foundations to accumulate funds, was expressly prohibited under the 1973 Constitution:

Article VII, Sec. 4(2) The President and the Vice-President shall not, during their tenure, hold any other office except when otherwise provided in this Constitution, nor may they practice any profession, participate directly or indirectly in the management of any business, or be financially interested directly or indirectly in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government or any other subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government owned or controlled corporation.

Article VII, Sec. 11 No Member of the National Assembly shall appear as counsel before any court inferior to a court with appellate jurisdiction, x x x. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof including any government owned or controlled corporation during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit.

Article IX, Sec. 7 The Prime Minister and Members of the Cabinet shall be subject to the provision of Section 11, Article VIII hereof and may not appear as counsel before any court or administrative body, or manage any business, or practice any profession, and shall also be subject to such other disqualification as may be provided by law.

Their only known lawful income of $304,372.43 can therefore legally and fairly serve as basis for determining the existence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the Swiss funds.

Respondents argue that petitioner was not able to establish a prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss funds since it failed to prove the essential elements under Section 3, paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of RA 1379. As the Act is a penal statute, its provisions are mandatory and should thus be construed strictly against the petitioner and liberally in favor of respondent Marcoses.

We hold that it was not for petitioner to establish the Marcoses other lawful income or income from legitimately acquired property for the presumption to apply because, as between petitioner and respondents, the latter were in a better position to know if there were such other sources of lawful income. And if indeed there was such other lawful income, respondents should have specifically stated the same in their answer. Insofar as petitioner Republic was concerned, it was enough to specify the known lawful income of respondents.

Section 9 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations provides that, in determining prima facie evidence of ill-gotten wealth, the value of the accumulated assets, properties and other material possessions of those covered by Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2 must be out of proportion to the known lawful income of such persons. The respondent Marcos couple did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) from which their net worth could be determined. Their failure to file their SAL was in itself a violation of law and to allow them to successfully assail the Republic for not presenting their SAL would reward them for their violation of the law.