People vs Buensuceso

(Homicide and Murder)

Facts:
When Rodolfo Aguilar and Pariseo Tayag arrived in the Municipal Building,
there were two persons there, namely, Enrique Mallo and Pat. Eduardo Mallari .
Subsequently, a heated argument took place between Pat. Aguilar and Tayag arising
from the latter's refusal to give his fan knife to the former.
Thereafter Tayag hurriedly left the office. He was followed by Pat. Aguilar,
Mallari and de la Cruz who walked fast, with Aguilar and Mallari holding guns. After
having gone out of the building Aguilar fired his gun upward. When Tayag was near
towards the wooden fence, Aguilar aimed his gun at Tayag and fired, hitting him
above the right knee. Tayag continued to run towards his house. Mallari went to the
waiting shed to intercept Tayag. Aguilar followed Mallari in the shed and they took
opposite sides of the road, that is, Rizal Street, in front of the Catholic Church. Then
there were several successive gun shots.
After the commotion, Tayag was seen lying prostrate near the back of a jeep
parked at the corner of Rizal and San Juan Streets, about 60 meters away from the
municipal building.

Issue: Whether or not they will be guilty of Murder?

Held: Yes
Ratio: The crime is Murder, qualified by treachery. The victim was already retreating
backwards until he reached the fence of the town plaza when AGUILAR fired his
revolver at the former hitting him above the right knee. Notwithstanding that he
was already hit and wounded, and possibly immobilized, he was still subjected to
successive shots as shown by the wounds that he had received, even at his back.
Certainly, the means employed by the accused-appellants tended directly and
specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from
any defense which the victim might have made.
The killing of the victim was aggravated by abuse of superior strength as
shown by the number of assailants, which circumstance, however, is absorbed by
treachery.

People vs Berana
(Rape)
Facts: On June 2, 1994 at around 2:00 o'clock in the morning, 14-year old Maria
Elena Jarcia was sleeping with her four-year old niece in one of the two rooms in a
house her family was renting at Bayawas Street, Naga City when she was awakened
by her brother-in-law, herein accused-appellant, Raul Berana. Complainant
recognized him because light was filtering in from a nearby window. Berana pointed
a "buntot page" at her neck and warned her not to make any noise, otherwise she
would be killed. The terrified girl was made to lie down while accused-appellant
raised her duster and proceeded to remove her shorts and her underwear, after
which he mashed her breast and lay on top of her. The helpless girl was again
threatened not to make any noise otherwise he would kill her. Complainant tried to
cover her breasts with her arms but accused-appellant pushed her arms aside. As
he inserted his organ into her womanhood, Elena felt excruciating pain. He began
kissing her and made several push and pull movements, after which, the victim felt
something liquid in her organ. Accused-appellant sat down and warned her not to
talk to anyone about the incident.

Issue: Whether or Not the Relationship between the Accused appellant and the
complainant aggravates the crime ?
Held: No
Ratio: Considering that the relationship of accused-appellant to complainant
qualifies the crime of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua to rape punishable by
death, it is but proper that a more stringent proof of relationship between the
offender
and
the
offended
party
must
be
established
by
the
prosecution. Corollarily, a clearer proof of relationship between the complainant
and the spouse of accused-appellant must be presented. The relationship of
accused-appellant and the complainant, is not adequately substantiated since it is
merely based on testimony of the complainant, her mother's testimony and the
accused-appellant's use of the words, "mama at papa" in his letters. Needless to
say, the evidence presented are not sufficient to dispel doubts about the true
relationship of accused-appellant and the complainant, to the benefit of which the
accused is entitled.

Timoner vs People
(Grave Coercion)
Facts:
The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code.
The petitioner was the mayor of a town and by the recommendation of the
Municipal Health Officer, he barricaded some establishments and stalls which
protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway and who were not complying
with certain health and sanitation requirement. The petitioner then filed a complaint
against the owners of the stalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance
aswell as nuisance per se. The owners of the stalls charged the petitioner with the
offense of grave coercion.
Issue: W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed
grave coercion is correct .?
Held: No
Ratio:
The court is in agreement that the complainants were public nuisance for
affecting a considerable number of persons in their neighborhood. Petitioner, as
mayor of the town, merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the
Municipal Health Officer. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his
duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability. Grave coercion is committed when "a
person who, without authority of law, shall by means of violence, prevent another
from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his
will, either it be right or wrong." The third element being absent in the case at bar,
petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion.

People vs Patola
(Roberry with Rape)
While at the store where the victim were saleslady accused Sangayon closed
the door of, Patola, with a gun in his hand, approached Mila and told her not to
shout if she did not want to die. Patola and Sangayon herded Mila, Elena, the
Cohado couple and their son William to an adjoining room and told them to lie down
on the floor face down. They were hogtied with nylon ropes. Their mouths were
stuffed with pieces of cloth torn from the curtains.
Patola, Sangayon and their two companions ransacked the store and took
away P1,700 in cash, appliances, a wrist watch and other things with a total value of
P4,500. Then, Sangayon untied the feet of Elena and brought her to a room and
abused her. After Sangayon was through, his companion entered the room and in
turn abused Elena. The second robber brought Elena to the sala, hogtied her again
and covered her with a blanket. Mila was untied by Patola and brought to another
room where he ravished her.

Issue: Whether or Not the accused should be punished under Rape with Homicide?
Held: No
Ratio: According to the Supreme Court;
That controversy was set at rest in People vs. Cabural, L34105,
February 4, 1983, 120 SCRA 528 and People vs. Porcare, L37235, February 5, 1983, 120 SCRA 546, where it was held
that robbery with qualified rape should be punished
under article 294[2]. (See People vs. Mendez, L-35491, May 27,
1983, 122 SCRA 415). It should be stressed that in the case the

accused were not charged with qualified rape alone, a crime

against chastity, but with robbery with rape, a crime against
property.
The trial court applied in this case article 335. It regarded
article 294[2] as having been "amended" by article 335.That is
why it imposed the death penalty. If article 294[2], before it
was amended, is to be applied, the penalty is only reclusion
perpetua. At any rate, for lack of the necessary ten votes, the
death penalty cannot be imposed.

Empelis vs IAC
(Qualified Theft)
Facts:
On the early morning of June 10, 1979, while Catarining stayed in his
plantation to keep watch, he saw four (4) persons within the premises of his
plantation gathering and tying some coconuts. He then went home, fetched his
neighbors Anastacio Andales and Teodomero Garay and took along a flashlight.
Upon reaching the coconut plantation with his companions, Catarining beamed his
flashlight on the four persons who, turned out to be the herein appellants. Elpidio
Empelis and Emilio Carbungco were seen carrying coconuts on a piece of wood on
their shoulders while Salvad and Mamerto Carbungco were espied carrying coconuts
with their bare hands.

Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is qualified theft

Held: Yes
Ratio: Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code states that the crime of theft shall "be
punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively
expressed in the next preceding article ... if the property stolen ... consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, ... ." Thus, the stealing of
coconuts when they are still in the tree or deposited on the ground within the
premises is qualified theft. When the coconuts are stolen in any other place, it is

simple theft. Stated differently, if the coconuts were taken in front of a house along
the highway outside the coconut plantation, it would be simple theft only.

Gma Network inc. vs Bustos

(Libel)

Facts:
Examinees
who
failed
the
August
1987
physicians
licensureexaminations filed a mandamus in the RTC of Manila against the Board of
Medicine of the Professional Regulation Commission (herein respondents). The
examinees alleged that the Board committed manifest errors in the checking
of answers. Petitioners (GMA and Vidal) secured a copy of the petition, made a
report, and aired it in their Headline News.
Issue: Whether or not the televised news report in question is libelous?
Held: No
Ratio: Liability for libel attaches when the following elements are present: (a) an
allegation or imputation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another (b)
publication of the imputation (c) identity of the person defamed (d) existence of
malice. Malice is a term use to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by
personal ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty, but merely to injure he
reputation of the person defamed. In this case the report aired by petitioners was
basically a narration of the contents of the petition for mandamus. (Side topic:

petitioners report is also covered by qualified privilege communication, although

not specified in Article 354 of Revised Penal Code).