Digests of Special Law Cases By: Debz Perez 1.Violation of R.A.

9262 Ang vs People Facts: Complainant Irish Sagud (Irish) and accused Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora Province. Rustan courted Irish and they became onand-off sweethearts towards the end of 2004. When Irish learned afterwards that Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish broke up with him. In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with kIrishs face superimposed on the figure. The senders cellphone number, stated in the message, was one of the numbers that Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text messages from Rustan. He boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her. And he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet. One of the messages he sent to Irish, written in text messaging shorthand, read: Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede ring send sa lahat ng chatter. Issue: Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the nude picture in this case, already constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. Ruling The provisions of Section 3 and Section 5 (h) (5), taken together, indicate that the elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are: 1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman; 2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and 3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her. The court arrived at the following facts: One. Section 3(e) provides that a dating relationship includes a situation where the parties are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. The two of them were romantically involved, as Rustan himself admits, from October to December of 2003. That would be time enough for nurturing a relationship of mutual trust and love. An away-bati or a fight-and-kiss thing between two lovers is a common occurrence. Their taking place does not mean that the romantic relation between the two should be deemed broken up during periods of misunderstanding.

Two. Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes any act or series of acts that constitutes violence against women. This means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children. Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones. Secondly, the Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced baseds on Rustans low regard for the alleged moral sensibilities of todays youth. What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of course only be determined based on the circumstances of each case. Here, the naked woman on the picture, her legs spread open and bearing Irishs head and face, was clearly an obscene picture and, to Irish a revolting and offensive one. Surely, any woman like Irish, who is not in the pornography trade, would be scandalized and pained if she sees herself in such a picture. What makes it further terrifying is that, as Irish testified, Rustan sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all to see. That must have given her a nightmare. Three. The bulk of the evidence against him consisted in Irishs testimony that she received the obscene picture and malicious text messages that the senders cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan with whom she had been previously in communication. Indeed, to prove that the cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan, Irish and the police used such numbers to summon him to come to Lorentess Resort and he did. Consequently, the prosecution did not have to present the confiscated cellphone and SIM cards to prove that Rustan sent those messages. In conclusion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Anti-hazing Law Leni Villa Case Facts: On the night of 8 February 1991, the neophytes were met by some members of the Aquila Fraternity (Aquilans) for their initiation rites which will last for three days. They were informed that there would be physical beatings, and that they could quit at any time. After their briefing, they were brought to the Almeda Compound in Caloocan City for the commencement of their initiation. The neophytes were then subjected to traditional forms of Aquilan initiation rites. These rites included the Indian Run, which required the neophytes to run a gauntlet of two parallel rows of Aquilans, each row delivering blows to the neophytes; the Bicol Express, which obliged the neophytes to sit on the floor with their backs against the wall and their legs outstretched while the Aquilans walked, jumped, or ran over their legs; the Rounds, in which the neophytes were held at the back of their pants by the auxiliaries (the Aquilans charged with the duty of lending assistance to neophytes during initiation rites), while the latter were being hit with fist blows on their arms or with knee blows on their thighs by two Aquilans; and the Auxies Privilege Round, in which the auxiliaries were given the opportunity to inflict physical pain on the neophytes. During this time, the neophytes were also indoctrinated with the fraternity principles.

On the morning of their second day 9February 1991 the neophytes were made to present comic plays and to play rough basketball. They were also required to memorize and recite the Aquila Fraternitys principles. Whenever they would give a wrong answer, they would be hit on their arms or legs. Late in the afternoon, the Aquilans revived the initiation rites proper and proceeded to torment them physically and psychologically. The neophytes were subjected to the same manner of hazing that they endured on the first day of initiation. After a few hours, the initiation for the day officially ended. After a while, accused non-resident or alumni fraternity members Fidelito Dizon (Dizon) and Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that the rites be reopened. The head of initiation rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino), initially refused. Upon the insistence of Dizon and Villareal, however, he reopened the initiation rites. The fraternity members, including Dizon and Villareal, then subjected the neophytes to paddling and to additional rounds of physical pain. Lenny received several paddle blows, one of which was so strong it sent him sprawling to the ground. The neophytes heard him complaining of intense pain and difficulty in breathing. After their last session of physical beatings, Lenny could no longer walk. After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lennys shivering and incoherent mumblings. Initially, Villareal and Dizon dismissed these rumblings, as they thought he was just overacting. When they realized, though, that Lenny was really feeling cold, some of the Aquilans started helping him. They removed his clothes and helped him through a sleeping bag to keep him warm. When his condition worsened, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was pronounced dead on arrival. ISSUES Whether the acts of the aquilans constitute acts in violation of the Anti-hazing law. Ruling: Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then, these five accused fraternity members would have all been convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). Since there was no law prohibiting the act of hazing when Lenny died, we are constrained to rule according to existing laws at the time of his death. Furthermore, our ruling herein shall be interpreted without prejudice to the applicability of the Anti-Hazing Law to subsequent cases. 3. PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 People vs Avecilla Facts: at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening of December 24, 1991, accused-appellant arrived at the basketball court located on Dapo Street, Pandacan, Manila, and, for no apparent reason, suddenly fired a gun in the air. He then went to a nearby alley and, minutes later, proceeded to the closed store about four (4) meters away from the basketball court. There, he initiated an argument with the group of Boy

Manalaysay, Jimmy Tolentino and Macario Afable, Jr. Afable tried to pacify accusedappellant, whereupon, the latter placed his left arm around Afable's neck and shot him pointblank on the abdomen. Afable ran toward the alley and accused-appellant ran after him. Another shot rang out, so one of the bystanders, Carlos Taganas, went to the alley and there, he saw accused-appellant and Afable grappling for possession of the gun. The Chief Barangay Tanod arrived and was able to wrest the gun away from accused-appellant, who immediately fled from the scene of the incident. Afable was rushed to the Philippine General Hospital, where he eventually expired.1wphi1.nt Consequently, accused-appellant was charged of Qualified Illiegal Possession of Firearm before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 38 which rendered judgment convicting him of the crime charged pursuant to p.d. 1866. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant was charged correctly of the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms. Ruling: the law on illegal possession of firearms has been amended by Republic Act No. 8294, which took effect on July 6, 1994. It is clearly provides that where murder or homicide results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is no longer qualified illegal possession, but murder or homicide, as the case may be. In such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance. In view of the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8294 to Presidential Decree NO. 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearms is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in the homicide case. Inasmuch as the amendatory law is favorable to accused-appellant in this case, the same may be retroactively applied. This new law applies even to violations that occurred prior to its effectivity as it may be given retroactive effect under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.