Case Doctrines for Title VIII onwards for Criminal Law II

Title VIII Crimes against persons

In People v. Castillo, the Court held that the fact that the accused walked away
from the scene of the crime without calling for help puts doubt on the defence of
reckless imprudence
In People vs. Barde, the Court held that in prosecuting for frustrated murder, it
is essential to prove that the wound suffered were fatal.
In People vs. P03 Fallorina, the Court held that when an adult attacks a child,
treachery exists as the person, due to his tender years, cannot be expected to put
up a defence
In People vs. Peralta, the Court held that the presence of conspiracy does not
necessarily mean that there is evident premeditation. Evident premeditation is
not inherent in conspiracy as the absence of the former does not necessarily
negate the existence of the later. Unlike in evident premeditation where a
sufficient period of time must elapse to afford full meditation and reflection for
the perpetrator to deliberate on the consequences of his intended deed,
conspiracy arise from the moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit a felony and forthwith decide to commit it
In People vs. Campuhan, the Court held that absent any showing of the slightest
penetration of the female organ (i.e touching of either labia of the pudendum by
the penis) there can be no consummated rape; at most it can only be attempted
rape or acts of lasciviousness

Title IX Crimes against personal liberty and security

In Baleros vs. People, the Court held that absent the proof of intent to penetrate
the vagina, acts such as of covering the face of victim with a piece of cloth soaked
in chemical, while laying on top of her is unjust vexation.
There is unjust vexation when the act of a person caused annoyance, irritation,
torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of a person to whom it is directed.
In People vs. Astorga, the Court held that to prove Kidnapping there must be
actual intention to detain the offended person. Mere prevention of doing
something not prohibited by law, or compelling someone to do something against
his is not Kidnapping but grave coercion.

In Marzalado vs. People, the Court held that an owners act to prevent damage to
his unit which the lessee has left justifies his alleged trespass to the dwelling.
Title X Crimes against property
People vs. Puno PD 532 (Highway Robbery), Robbery with intimidation and
threat, simple robbery
The essence of brigandage under the Code as a crime of depredation wherein the
unlawful acts are directed not only against specific, intended or preconceived
victims, but against any and all prospective victims anywhere on the highway
and whosoever they may potentially be, is the same as the concept of brigandage
which is maintained in Presidential Decree No. 532
If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery
in band if there are at least four armed participants.
People vs. de Guzman Fencing vs. Robbery, Filing for the crime of fencing
In People vs. de Guzman, the Court ruled that the crimes of robbery and fencing
are two distinct offenses. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have
participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise
involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime
of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be
consummated. Thus, the complaint for fencing must be filed in the jurisdiction of
where the alleged act of fencing has occurred and not necessarily where the
previous robbery took place.
In People vs. Regala, the Court ruled that additional rapes committed on the
same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty because there is no law
providing that additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the RPC is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of
the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a specific
paragraph providing for analogous circumstances.
In People vs. Garcia, the court held that in crimes of unlawful taking of property
through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary that the person unlawfully
divested of the personal property be the owner thereof. What is simply required
is that the property does not belong to the offender. Actual possession of the
property by the person disposed suffices.
In Santos vs. People, the Court held that a vehicle carnapped when it was
initially given to him in trust through repairs constitutes theft instead of Estafa.
The difference between theft and Estafa is that in theft the thing is taken while

in Estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own user or
benefit. If the person was entrusted only with the material or physical or de facto
possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if
he has juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes
Estafa.
In Cruz vs. People, the Court considered the use of position to commit theft as a
circumstance tantamount to grave abuse of confidence which qualifies theft.
In People vs. Juliano, the Court held that acceptance within the 3 day period to
fund bounced checks of new replacement checks negate the element of deceit
required to charge for Estafa for the issuance of the first checks.
In Sycsip vs. CA, the Court held that a buyers reliance on his right to suspend
payment until a developer had fulfilled is obligations to the buyer is a valid
defence against purported violation of BP 22.
In Bax vs. People, the Court held that in prosecuting for BP 22, the prosecution
must prove that the complainant has been served actual written notice and after
5 days thereof, the complainant has failed to pay the holder the amount due or to
make arrangements for its payment.
In other words: In Bax vs. People, the absence of proof that the accused received
written notice of dishonour of the checks, a prosecution for violation of BP 22
cannot prosper
In Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs People, the Court held that for the purpose of
exemption from criminal liability given under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code, relationship by affinity created between surviving spouse and blood
relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the
marriage which created the affinity. (the same with article 11, artice 13(5),
article 20)
In Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs People, the Court held that the coverage of
article 332 is strictly limited to felonies of simple crimes of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief and not to crimes complexed with other crimes such as theft
through falsification or estafa through falsification.
In Milla vs. People, the Court held that novation does not extinguish an act of
swindling which was already incurred.

Title XII Crimes against civil status of person

Garcia vs. CA Prescription for Bigamy 15 years from the time of discovery of
the wife
In Garcia vs. CA, the Court ruled that prescription for bigamy is 15 years and
commences from the time of discovery of the offended party. In defining the
offended party the court ruled that offended party in the commission of the
crime, public or private, is the party whom every person criminally liable for a
felony is civilly liable.
Related Article 100 RPC
Nollora vs. People Bigamy ; defense of muslim faith in bigamy
In Nollora vs. People, the Court rejected the defence of Muslim faith in a bigamy
case when the accused married a non-muslim woman. Article 12 (2) of the Code
of Muslim Personal Laws states that in case of a marriage between a Muslim
and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this Code,
the Family Code shall apply.
Related: Articles regarding marriage on the Code of Muslim Personal Laws
Title XIII Crimes against honor
Chen vs. Calasan place to file the case
In Chen vs. Calasan, the Court ruled that relative to article 360, the case should
be filed in the actual residence at the time of commission of the offense. The
court distinguished actual residence from domicile and held that actual
residence is the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual
residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual
stay there at.
In short:
In Chen vs. Calasan, the Court ruled that relative to filing a case for violation of
article 360, it should be fled in the place where he has physical presence in such
place and actual stay there at.
Tulfo vs. People libel
In Tulfo vs. People, the Court ruled that there is malice when statements are
uttered/ published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard on
whether it was false or not. In this case, the court also ruled that there is

reckless disregard when the accused did not verify the information on which he
based his writing.
Trend 1st time libel cases for members of the media = fine
Villanueva vs. People Slight oral defamation, slight slander by deed
In the case of Villaueva vs. People, the Court modified grave oral defamation and
grave slander by deed decision to slight oral defamation and slight slander by
deed when it found that the person had committed such acts in the heat of anger,
with some provocation on the part of the offended party

Title XIV Quasi Offenses

Ivler vs. People - Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries
Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of
the number or severity of the consequences.
Article 48 does not Apply to Acts Penalized Under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code because the former was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one or
more consequences
Dizon vs. People Anti Hazing Law vis--vis Reckless Imprudence
In a case prior to the enactment of the Anti-hazing law, the Court held in the
consolidated cases of Villa vs. People, Dizon vs. People, and People vs. CA that
acts of hazing does not necessarily mean that there is malice on the part of
accused. In the same, the Court modified the charge and reduced homicide
verdict to reckless impudence resulting to homicide there being no proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the hazers intent to inflict physical injuries/ or cause death.
Reckless imprudence or negligence consists of a voluntary act done without
malice, from which an immediate personal harm, injury or material damage
results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution or advertence on the part of
the person committing it. The test to determine such is the question: would a
prudent man of the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee the harm to
the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be
pursued? If so, the law imposes on the doer the duty to take precaution against
mischievous results of the act. Failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Dr. Niniveth Cruz vs. CA
In Dr. Niniveth Cruz vs. CA, the Court held that in reckless imprudence cases
stemming from Medical Malpractice, the presentation of an expert testimony to

testify on the standard of care observed by other members in the medical

profession under similar cricumstances is necessary to support the charge.