Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919) (Digest)

Expulsion (Art. 127, RPC)

Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)

Facts:

The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vice, ordered the segregated district for women of ill repute. Between October 16 and October 25, 1918, the women were kept confined to their houses in the district by the police. The city authorities quietly perfected arrangements with the Bureau of Labor for sending the women to Davao, as laborers; Mayor Justo Lukban, placed some 170 inmates aboard the steamers.

The vessels reached their destination at Davao on October 29. The women were landed and receipted for as laborers by Francisco Sales, provincial governor of Davao, and by Feliciano Ynigo and Rafael Castillo. The governor and the hacendero Ynigo, who appear as parties in the case, had no previous notification that the women were prostitutes who had been expelled from the city of Manila.

Issue:

Whether or not Mayor Lukban has the authority in expelling the prostitutes in his city (Manila) without due process of law

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

            The Mayor and the Chief of Police of Manila cannot force the prostitutes residing in that City to go to and live in Davao against their will, there being no law that authorizes them to do so. These women, despite their being in a sense, lepers of society, are nevertheless not chattels, but Filipino citizens, protected by the same constitutional guarantees as are other citizens.

People vs. Adriano 78 Phil. 561 (1947) (Digest)

Two-Witness Rule in Treason

People vs. Adriano 78 Phil. 561 (1947)

Facts:

Between January and April, 1945, during the occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese Imperial Forces, in the Province of Nueva Ecija, the above-named accused, Apolinar Adriano, a Filipino citizen owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, giving the said enemy aid and comfort in the manner as a “member of the Makapili, a military organization established and designed to assist and aid militarily the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines. 

The prosecution did not introduce any evidence to substantiate any of the facts alleged except that of defendant's having joined the Makapili organization. What the People's Court found is that the accused participated with Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in confiscation of personal property. The acts of the accused had not been established by the testimony of two witnesses.

Issue:

            Whether or not the two-witness rule is required in establishing the guilt of the accused in the crime of treason

Held:

            Yes.

Ratio:

            The two-witness rule required for conviction for treason is that no person shall be convicted thereof unless on the testimony of two-witnesses to the same overt act.  If the overt act is separate, two (2) witnesses must also testify to each part of overt act for conviction.

Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil. 856 (1947) (Digest)

Treason

Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil. 856 (1947)

Facts:

In G. R. No. L-409, Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa, etc., the Court, acting on the petition for habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel and based on the theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended.

Issue:

            Whether or not the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines was then suspended

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier, and if it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme power which governs a body politic or society which constitute the state).

Heirs of Castro vs. Bustos (Digest)

Civil Liability

HEIRS OF RAYMUNDO CASTRO

vs.

APOLONIO BUSTOS

27 SCRA 327

Facts:

CFI of Pampanga found Bustos guilty only of homicide, with two mitigating circumstances, sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify the petitioners, who were represented in the case by a private prosecutor, in the sum of six thousand pesos (P6,000) "without prejudice to whatever the accused (respondent) is entitled from the GSIS for his services of around twenty-six (26) years as a public school teacher."

CA modified the judgment of the trial court insofar as it concerned (1) the amount of damages to be awarded petitioners thus moral (P6,000) and compensatory damages (P13,380).

Issue:

            Whether or not CA correct in the award of moral and compensatory damages?

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

            The interest of justice and equity and in view of the presence of two mitigating circumstances, without any aggravating one to offset them, the award of moral and compensatory damages should be eliminated.

People vs. Comadre 431 SCRA 366 (2004) (Digest)

Complex Crime

26. People vs. Comadre 431 SCRA 366 (2004)

                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. TC: appellants guilty of complex crime of murder with multiple attempted murder.

ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in convicting the appellants?

Held: Only Antonio is liable for the crime.

RULING:

                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.  No conspiracy. Only Antonio is liable for the crime. When Antonio Comadre was in the act of throwing the hand grenade, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano merely looked on without uttering a single word of encouragement or performed any act to assist him.

People vs. Gonzalez, 359 SCRA 362 (2001) Digest

Complex Crime

25. People vs. Gonzalez, 359 SCRA 362 (2001)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty.  Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                The appellant was driving with companions, while the private complainant was driving a Toyota FX with his pregnant wife Feliber Andres, his two year old son, Kenneth, and other companions. At the intersection near the Garden of Remembrance, while the accused-appellant Gonzalez was turning left towards the exit and the complainant Noel Andres was headed straight along the road to the exit their two vehicles almost collided.  Noel was able to timely step on the brakes.  The appellant continued while Noel drove behind the appellant's vehicle for some time and cut him off when he found the opportunity to do so.^[1] Noel  then got out of his vehicle and knocked on the appellant's car window.

Noel told the appellant to be careful with his driving and to this Gonzalez allegedly replied, "Accidents are accidents, what's your problem."  Andres stated that he saw the appellant turning red in anger so he decided to go back to his vehicle when he was blocked by the appellant's son.  Andres immediately boarded his vehicle, sat at the driver's seat, closed the door, and partially opened the car window just wide enough to talk back to appellant's son, Dino.  Suddenly, one of his passengers said "Binaril kami".  He turned to his wife Feliberand saw her bloodied and unconscious.  He turned around and saw his son Kenneth and nephew Kevin were also wounded.  The wife of Noel died in the incident.

Issue:

                WON the appellant is guilty of the complex crime of murder for the death of Feliber Andres and for two counts of frustrated homicide.

Held:

                YES

Ratio:

                SC are convinced that the shooting was attended by treachery that qualified the crime of murder aggravated by the use of a semi-automatic pistol specifically fitted with murderous missile.  The crime committed for the killing of Feliber Andres was murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by the use of firearm.As regards the injuries suffered by the two children, the crime committed was two counts of frustrated homicide.  

US vs. Parrone, 24 Phil 29 (Digest)

Retroactive Effect of Penal Law

1. US vs. Parrone, 24 Phil 29

Facts:

Parrone was found guilty of the falsification of cedula and sentenced him to be imprisoned for a period of three years and to pay a fine of P200, and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, in accordance with the provisions of section 55 of Act No. 1189.

The crime was committed by Parrone was amended by (Act No. 2126), which give the accused favorable conditions.

Issue:

            Whether or not, Act. 2126 should be given retroactive effect in so far as they favor the accused?

Held:

            Yes.

Ratio:

The provisions of article 22 of the Penal Code, however, penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony or misdemeanor, even though at the time of the promulgation of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving same.

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Basilio vs. CA, 328 SCRA 341 (2000) Digest

Civil Liability Arising from Felony

41. Basilio vs. CA, 328 SCRA 341 (2000)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                Dionisio Z. Basilio owned Lot Nos. 240 and 214, located in Barrio dela Paz, San Simon, Pampanga, with an area of 14,903 square meters and 2,812 square meters, respectively, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 32699-R and 32698-R, respectively.
On August 5, 1988, Dionisio died.
                On November 12, 1990, Carmelita P. Basilio, widow of Dionisio, together with her children, Francisco, Evelyn, and Gerald filed with the RTC, Pampanga, Macabebe an action for annulment of the deed of sale dated April 26, 1979, involving Lot No. 240, and for its reconveyance to the heirs of Dionisio Z. Basilio, with damages.  Plaintiffs alleged that the deed of sale dated April 26, 1979, covering Lot No. 240 was spurious, on the basis of which the title in the name of Dionisio Z. Basilio was cancelled and a new title issued in the name of the spouses Simon Zablan and Sonia Matias.

Trial court rendered a decision declaring the signatures of Dionisio Z. Basilioas forged and annulled the two deeds of sale.  After due proceedings, on August 7, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision^[9] reversing that of the trial court. 

Issue:

                Whether the deed of sale dated March 19, 1987, was genuine

Held:

                No.

Ratio:

                The Court is convinced that Dionisio Z. Basilio did not execute the questioned deed of sale. Although the questioned deed of sale was a public document having in its favor the presumption of regularity, such presumption was adequately refuted by competent witnesses showing its forgery and the Court’s own visual analysis of the document.

Chua vs. CA, 443 SCRA 142 (2004) Digest

Civil Liability Arising from Felony

40. Chua vs. CA, 443 SCRA 142 (2004)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                On February 28, 1996, private respondent Lydia Hao, treasurer of Siena Realty Corporation, filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor of Manila charging Francis Chua and his wife, Elsa Chua, of four counts of falsification of public documents pursuant to Article 172^[3] in relation to Article 171^[4] of the RPC.

Petitioner avers that a derivative suit is by nature peculiar only to intra-corporate proceedings and cannot be made part of a criminal action. He cites the case of Western Institute of Technology, Inc. v. Salas, where the court said that an appeal on the civil aspect of a criminal case cannot be treated as a derivative suit.  Petitioner asserts that in this case, the civil aspect of a criminal case cannot be treated as a derivative suit, considering that Siena Realty Corporation was not the private complainant.

Issue:

                WON Court of Appeals committed reversible errors IN RULING THAT LYDIA HAO’S FILING OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 285721 WAS IN THE NATURE OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT

Held:

                No.

Ratio:

                Petitioner misapprehends our ruling in Western Institute. Under Section 36^[13] of the Corporation Code, read in relation to Section 23,^[14] where a corporation is an injured party, its power to sue is lodged with its board of directors or trustees.^[15] An individual stockholder is permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation wherein he holds stocks in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights, whenever the officials of the corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued, or hold the control of the corporation. In such actions, the suing stockholder is regarded as a nominal party, with the corporation as the real party in interest.^[16]
                A derivative action is a suit by a shareholder to enforce a corporate cause of action. The corporation is a necessary party to the suit. And the relief which is granted is a judgment against a third person in favor of the corporation. Similarly, if a corporation has a defense to an action against it and is not asserting it, a stockholder may intervene and defend on behalf of the corporation.^[

Recebido vs. People, 346 SCRA 881 (2000) Digest

Prescription of Crime

36. Recebido vs. People, 346 SCRA 881 (2000)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                On September 9, 1990, private complainant CaridadDorol went to the house of her cousin, petitioner AnicetoRecebido, at San Isidro, Bacon,Sorsogon to redeem her property, an agricultural land located at San Isidro, Bacon, Sorsogon, which Caridad mortgaged to petitioner sometime in April of 1985.  Petitioner and Caridad did not execute a document on the mortgage but Caridad instead gave petitioner a copy of the Deed of Sale dated June 16, 1973 executed in her favor by her father, Juan Dorol.
                In said confrontation, petitioner refused to allow Caridad to redeem her property on his claim that she had sold her property to him in 1979. Caridad maintained and insisted that the transaction between them involving her property was a mortgage.

                Caridad verified from the Office of the Assessor in Sorsogon that there exists on its file a Deed of Sale dated August 13, 1979, allegedly executed by Caridad l in favor of petitioner and that the property was registered in the latter's name.  After comparison of the specimen signatures of Caridad in other documents with that of the signature of Caridad on the questioned Deed of Sale, NBI Document Examiner Antonio Magbojas, found that the latter signature was falsified.
                CaridadDorol filed her complaint against petitioner Aniceto with the  National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Legaspi City and its Questioned Documents Division conducted an examination in the original copy of the Deed of Sale in question allegedly signed by Caridad, particularly her signature affixed thereon.

Issue:

                Whether or not the crime charged had already prescribed at the time the information was filed.

Held:

                No.

Ratio:

                Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription shall "commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, x xx."  In People v. Reyes,^[12]this Court has declared that registration in public registry is a notice to the whole world.  The record is constructive notice of its contents as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included therein.  All persons are charged with knowledge of what it contains.