People vs. Abungan, 341 SCRA 258 (2000) Digest

Extension of Criminal Liability

35. People vs. Abungan, 341 SCRA 258 (2000)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                Pedro Abungan assailing the Decision  of the RTC of Villasis, Pangasinan,  in Criminal Case, in which he was convicted of murder, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay P50,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased.

However, Abungan had died on July 19, 2000 at the NBP Hospital. 

Issue:

                WON the effect of Appellant Abungan's death on the case and on the appeal extinguished his criminal and civil liability.

Held:

                Yes.

Ratio:

                The death of appellant on July 19, 2000 during the pendency of his appeal extinguished his criminal as well as his civil liability, based solely on delict (civil liability ex delicto).

Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Desierto, 363 SCRA 489 (2001)

Computing the prescriptive period

34. Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Desierto, 363 SCRA 489 (2001)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                Atty. Orlando L. Salvador, Consultant of the Fact Finding Committee, and representing the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a sworn complaint, for violation of Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (g), of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Office of the Ombudsman against the directors and officials of BUSCO, namely: respondents Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Jose Ma. Ozamis, Carlos O. Fortich, Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Jose L. Africa, Julio H. Ozamis, and Miguel V. Gonzales; and the concerned members of the Board of Directors of the PNB.

After considering the evidence adduced, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint of the PCGG on August 28, 1998 on the ground that "there is no sufficient evidence against respondents, both public and private, so as to make them liable for criminal prosecution in court for violation of the Anti-Graft Law xxx." In other words, there was no probable cause. 

Issue:

                WONthe Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in the determination of whether or not probable cause exists against the respondents.  

Held:

                No.

Ratio:

                In any event, there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in his determination of whether or not probable cause exists against the respondents.  This Court has consistently held that the Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call.  He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form and substance or, should he find it otherwise, to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and substance.

Monsanto vs. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190 (1989) Digest

Pardon and its legal consequences

33. Monsanto vs. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190 (1989)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                On March 25, 1983, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Salvacion A. Monsanto (then assistant treasurer of Calbayog City) and three other accused, of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents and sentenced them to imprisonment and to pay a fine of P3,500. 

On December 21, 1984 she was granted an absolute pardon by Pres. Marcos. By reason of said pardon, petitioner wrote the Calbayog City treasurer requesting that she be restored to her former post as assistant city treasurer since the same was still vacant.

Deputy Executive Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran contended that the petitioner must pay the civil indemnification; quoting Revised Penal Code expressly provides that ‘a pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.’  (Sec. 36, par. 2).

Issue:

                WON the appellant the civil liability is not extinguished despite being pardoned by the President.

Held:

                Yes

Ratio:

                A pardon looks to the future.  It is not retrospective.^[19] It makes no amends for the past. Civil liability arising from crime is governed by the Revised Penal Code.  It subsists notwithstanding service of sentence, or for any reason the sentence is not served by pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence.  Petitioner's civil liability may only be extinguished by the same causes recognized in the Civil Code, namely:  payment, loss of the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights of creditor and debtor, compensation and novation. Henceforth, petitioner may apply for reappointment to the Office which was forfeited by reason of her conviction. 

Lacanilao vs. CA, 162 SCRA 563 (1988) Digest

Effects of Mitigating Circumstances and Habitual Delinquency

18. Lacanilao vs. CA, 162 SCRA 563 (1988)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                The CFI of Manila found the petitioner, a policeman, guilty of homicide for the death of one Ceferino Erese.

CA lowered the penalty merely by one period applying Article 64, paragraph 2, of RPC, appreciating as it did incomplete justification as a mere generic or specific mitigating circumstance lowering the penalty to the minimum period. Accordingly, the penalty originally imposed by the CFI of Manila was modified and lowered by the CA to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as the minimum, to 12 and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum.

Issue:

                WON CA erred in appreciating the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty as mere generic circumstance.

Held:

                YES

Ratio:

                The respondent Court erred. Incomplete justification is a special or privileged mitigating circumstance, which, not only can not be offset by aggravating circumstances but also reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law. We agree with the petitioner that the governing provision is Article 69 of the RPC.  Consequently, Article 69 is applicable, for the requirement 'That the majority of such conditions be present" is immaterial since there are only two conditions in order that the circumstance in No. 5 of Article 11 may be taken into account.

People vs. Escober, 157 SCRA 541 (1988) Digest

Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide

19. People vs. Escober, 157 SCRA 541 (1988)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                Escober was a security guard at Vising Electrical Supply, owned by Vicente Chua and Lina Saw Chua. On December 3, 1982, at 7 p.m. he reported for work. Alorte arrived and talked to him because he, Alorte alias Abuyen, wanted to, and two men entered and one man [accused Punzalan] was left at the gate. One of his (Punzalan) companions aimed a gun at Escober and also a knife and they said they would kill him. After 5 minutes, after the two men went up the office, they came down and talked to the man guarding Escober and Alorte fired at him. He was not hit for he was able to avoid it and after that, the four men suddenly left. Escober went down from the pick-up and he heard Vicente Chua calling him and he responded. Chua asked him to call Mrs. Chua at the house because, according to Chua, their children were stabbed. So Escober went to the house and called Mrs. Chua.

Issue:

                WON Punzalan and Escober are guilty of the complex crime of Robbery with homicide.

Held:

                Yes for Punzalan; No for Escober.

Ratio:

                Punzalan’s participation in the crime was to act as a look-out, he did not participate in the killing of the two help­less victims, and he cannot evade responsibility therefor. Well-established is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide

Accused-appellant Juan Escober y Geralde is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Ponce Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990) Digest

Complex Crime

22. Ponce Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the NBI on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the RTC of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 90-10941.  The warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, and companions, charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda PanIilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 990.  

Issue:

                WON the court must abandon Hernandez doctrine (Rebellion can absorb other crimes).

Held:

                NO

Ratio:

                11 Members of the Court voted against abandoning Hernandez. The ruling remains good law, its substantive and logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete reversal.  The President in effect by legislative fiat reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine with the effect of law.  The Court can do no less than accord it the same recognition, absent any sufficiently powerful reason against so doing.

People vs. Toling, 62 SCRA 17 (1975) Digest

Complex Crime

23. People vs. Toling, 62 SCRA 17 (1975)

Student: G-one T. Paisones

Professor: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

Facts:

                The twin Antonio and Jose Toling were riding a train; and stabbed other passengers in such train; as a result 8 persons had been dead and one person wounded.  The twins are charged with 8 counts of murder and one attempted murder.

Issue:

                WON the Toling twins guilty of 8 counts of murder and one attempted murder.

Held:

                YES

Ratio:

                The twins are liable for eight (8) murders and one attempted murder.  (See People vs. Salazar, 105 Phil. 1058 where the accused Moro, who ran amuck, killed sixteen persons and wounded others, was convicted of sixteen separate murders, one frustrated murder and two attempted murders; People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437, where the crimes committed by means of separate acts were held to be complex on the theory that they were the product of a single criminal impulse or intent).