Sie sind auf Seite 1von 42

TITLE ONE: Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations

People vs. Lol-lo (43 Phil 19, February 27, 1922)


Facts:
On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left matuta. In one of the boats was an
individual; on the other are eleven men, women and children. After a number of
days of navigation, the second boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and
Bukid. There the boats were surrounded by six vintas manned by 24 armed Moros.
They attacked some of the men and violated the women. They then placed two of
the women to be submerged when they arrived at Maruro. The two women were
able to escape.
Lol-lo and Saraw, two of the Moros returned to Tawi-tawi, Sulu, Philippine
Islands. They were arrested and were charged with the crime of Piracy.
Issue:
Whether or Not defendants are guilty of the crime of Piracy.
Held:
Yes. The crime is punished under Art. 122 and 123 of the Revised Penal Code.
Piracy are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime not against any particular
state but against all of mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of
any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The
jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits.
People vs. Roger Tulin (364 SCRA 10, August 30, 2001)
Facts:
On March21, 1991, M/T Tabangao loaded with kerosene, gasoline and diesel
was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island. The vessel was suddenly
boarded by the defendants, 7 armed pirates. They detained the crew and took
control of the vessel and painted it with Galilee, registered at San Lorenzo,
Honduras. The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, sending misleading radio
messages to PNDC. PNDC, after losing the radio contact with the vessel, reported
the disappearance to the Philippine Coast Guard with the assistance of the Air Force
and Navy, but the search rescue yielded negative results. The vessel arrived in the
vicinity of Singapore while waiting for another vessel which failed to arrive. The
pirates were forced to return to the Philippines at Calatagan Batangas.
On March 28, 1991, the vessel again sailed to Singapores shoreline where
another vessel Navi Pride anchored beside it. Changco, one of the defendants,
ordered the transfer of the vessels cargo.
Issue:
a. Whether or not the defendants were guilty of the crime Qualified Piracy

b. Can defendant Cheong be convicted as accomplice when he was not


charged as such and when the act allegedly committed by him were executed
outside Philippine waters and territory.

Held:
a. Yes. Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. To be a conspirator, one need not participate
in every detail of execution; he need not even take part in every act or need
not know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the
conspiracy.
Art. 123 of the RPC provides for the requisites of Qualified Piracy
Qualified Piracy exists if any of the following circumstances is present:
1. Whenever the offenders have seized the vessel by boarding or firing
upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means
of saving themselves;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical
injuries, or rape.
b. Yes. Art. 122 of the RPC provides that any person who, on the high seas or
in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of
its complement or passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of
said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or
passenger shall be convicted of the crime of piracy.
People vs. Catantan ( 278 SCRA 761, September 5, 1997)
Facts:
On June 27, 1993, the Pilapil brothers were fishing in the sea 3km away from
the shores of Tabongan Cebu. Their pumpboat was boarded by the defendants and
was seized. As they passed the shoreline of Nipa, they saw another boat and the
defendants seized the same. The defendant ordered the operator Juanito to take
them to Mungaz. As Ursal, co-accused with defendants was transferring to the
new pumpboat, he was caught in an accident that threw Eugene into the sea. Juan
Pilapil untied his brothers legs and found themselves safely ashore.
An information for the crime of Piracy was filed against the defendant.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant is guilty of the crime of Piracy.
Held:

Yes. Sec 2, par. (d), of PD 532, defines Piracy as any attack upon the seizure
of the any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment, or the personal belongings of the complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters shall be considered
as Piracy.
And a vessel is considered in Sec. 2, par (6) of the same decree as any
vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to
another through Philippine waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessel or
boats used in fishing.

TITLE TWO: Crimes Against The Fundamental Laws Of The State


Astorga vs. People (412 SCRA 51, October 1, 2003)
Facts:
On September 1, 1997, Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of DENR
Office No. 8, Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram, Western Samar to
conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in line with the
governments campaign against illegal logging.
The team was escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco Jr. and SPO1 Rupo
Capoguian. The team then spotted two yacht-like boats at Brgy. Bagacay but then
left knowing the owner was not around. En route to Brgy. Manungca in Sta. Rita they
spotted two more boats prompting them to stop and investigate. Maniscan and
Militante, members of the team disembarked from DENR pumpboat and proceeded
to the site of boat construction. There they met Mayor Astorga. The team was
harassed by the mayor and 2 armed men. They were brought to the house of the
mayor where they had dinner and were not allowed to leave until 2 am.
The team then filed a complaint of Arbitrary Detention.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime Arbitrary Detention.
Held:
Yes. Arbitrary Detention is punished under Art. 124 of the RPC and its
elements are:
a) That the offender is a public officer or employee
b) That he detains a person
c) That the detention is without legal grounds.
1. Public officers are the policemen and other agents of the law, the
judges or mayors, barangay captain and a municipal councillor.

2. Detention is defined as the actual confinement of a person in an


enclosure, or in any manner of detaining and depriving him of his
liberty.
The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal
detention is that the curtailment of the victims liberty need
not involve any physical restraint upon the victims person. If
the acts and actuations produce fear and be compelled to
limit his own actions and movements he is detained against
his will.
3. Legal grounds for the detention of any person
a. The commission of a crime
b. Violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital.
Mayor Astorga admitted that his acts were motivated by his
instinct for self preservation and the feeling that he was
being singled out thus, without legal grounds.

Cayao vs. Del Mundo (226 SCRA 492, September 15, 1993)
Facts:
On or about October 22, 1992, while traversing Indang Cavite, Cayao, a bus
driver overtook another bus. As a consequence, the bus driven by Cayao almost
collided with an oncoming owner-type jeepney owned by Del Mundo and was driven
by his son Rommel. That afternoon, he was picked up by Indang police and was
brought to the sala of the judge and was compelled to choose from 3 punishments
(a) to face a charge of multiple attempted homicide, (b) revocation of drivers
license or (c) be put in jail for 3 days. Cayao chose the third. He was forced to sign a
waver of detention and remained in the premises of the municipal jail for 3 days
and was then released on the 3rd day.
Issue:
Whether or not defendants is guilty of Arbitrary Detention.
Held:
Yes. Even if Cayao was not put behind bars as respondent intended, however,
Cayao was not allowed to leave the premises of the jail house. Confinement not only
means incarceration, but also restraining a man, either morally or physically of his
personal liberty. The judge, as a public officer, ordered the arrest and detention of
Cayao without legal grounds.

Milo vs. Salanga (152 SCRA 113, July 20, 1987)


Facts:

On April 21, 1973, Juan Tuvera Sr., a barrio captain, with the aid of some other
private persons maltreated Armando Valdez by hitting with butts of their guns and
fist blows. He was then locked inside the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for
11 hours.
Issue:
Whether or not Tuvera Sr., a barrio captain is a public officer who can be
liable for Abitrary Detention.
Held:
Yes. Public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with
authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Such public
officers are the policemen or other agents of the law, the judges or mayors.
However, even before PD 299 was signed into law, barrio lieutenants (barrio
captains/barangay captains) were recognized as persons in authority. Under RA
3590, the Revised Barrio Charter provides powers and duties of a barrio captain
including maintenance of public order and law enforcement. He is a peace officer in
the barrio considered under the law as a person in authority. He may make arrest
and detain persons within legal limits. Barrio captains powers and functions are
similar with mayors. Thus, he can be liable for Arbitrary Detention.

People vs. Garcia (313 SCRA 279, August 30, 1999)


Facts:
On November 28, 1994, two police officers boarded a jeepney en route to
Baguio City. Garcia boarded the same jeepney carrying a plastic bag. After a while,
the policemen smelled marijuana which emanate from the bag of the accused. They
followed him unti the caught him red-handed with 5 bricks of dried marijuana
leaves. The police officers then arrested him and seized the bag. Garcia was turned
over to CIS for further investigation. The next day, the policemen transferred the
accused to the Baguio City jail.
Issue:
Whether or not policemen are liable for Delay in the Delivery of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial Authority.
Held:
No. Art. 215 of the RPC penalizes a public officer who shall detain another for
some legal ground and fail to deliver him to the proper authorities and in cases of
crimes punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, in 36 hours.
Possession of 5 kg. of marijuana is a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death. Garcia was detained for further investigation and delivered by the

arresting officers to the court in the afternoon of the next day. Clearly it did not
exceed the duration that the law proved, i.e. 36 hrs. from the time of his arrest.

Agbay vs. Dep. Ombudsman (309 SCRA 726, July 2, 1999)

Facts:
On September 7, 1997, petitioner, together with Jugalbot was arrested and
detained at the Liloan Police Station for an alleged violation of RA 7160, Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The
following day a complaint was filed.
On September 10, 1997, counsel for petitioner wrote Chief of Police of Liloan
demanding the release of petitioner for failure of delivery to the proper judicial
authority for 36 hours. On September 12, MTC of Liloan, Cebu issued the
commitment of petitioner to the jail warden of Cebu. Petitioner was released on post
bond.
On September 26, petitioner filed a complaint for Delay in the Delivery of
Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authority.
Issue:
Whether or not the filing of the complaint with the MTC constitutes delivery to
a proper judicial authority as contemplated by Art. 215 of the RPC.
Held:
Yes. As contemplated in Art. 125 of the RPC, Judicial Authority means the
courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the
temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a
public offense, that is, the Supreme Court and other such inferior courts as may be
established by law.
Upon filing of complaint to MTC, the intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied. By
such act, the detained person is informed of the crime imputed against him and
upon his application with the court, he may be released on bail.

TITLE THREE: Crimes Against Public Order

Ladlad vs. Velasco (GR No. 172070, June 21, 2007)


Facts:
Petitioners are private individuals and members of the House of
Representatives representing various party list groups, all face charges of rebellion

in relation to Art. 135 of the RPC in two criminal cases pending with the RTC Manila
during the issuance of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of Presidential Proclamation
No. 1017 declaring a State of National Emergency for allegedly conspiring and
confederating with each other...
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the crime of rebellion.
Held:
No. The prosecution failed to prove probable cause to indict Beltran for
rebellion.
Rebellion under Art. 135 of RPC is committed
By rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purposes of
removing from the allegiance to said government or its laws, the territory of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other
armed forces or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislative, wholly or partially,
of any of their powers or prerogatives.

People vs. Silongan


Facts:
On March 16, 1996, businessman Alexander Saldaa went to Sultan Kudarat
with three companions to meet with Macapagal Silongan concerning the gold
nuggets being sold by the latter. During the meeting, Macapagal told them that a
relative died and that he has to pick up his brother in Cotabato. After fetching the
brother, while they were on their way back, 15 men appeared and held Alexander
and his companions captive. They were taken to a mountain hideout in
Maguindanao and demanded P 15M from Alexander. Letters were sent to
Alexanders Family for negotiations of the ransom. He was detained for 5 months
and was released to the military in exchange of a relative who was caught
delivering a ransom note. Only 8 of the accused were brought to trial.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of kidnapping with ransom and not Rebellion.
Held:
Yes. Positive identification prevails over the simple denial of the accused. A
positive identification of the accused, when categorical, consistent and
straightforward, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness
testifying on the matter, prevails over this defence.

Art. 267 of the RPC defined and penalized the crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention. It is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty coupled
with proof beyond reasonable doubt of intent of the accused to effect the same:
Elements:

1. The offender is a private individual


2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the
latter of his liberty
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal
4. The commission of the offense, any of the 4 circumstances
enumerated in Art. 267 be present
But if the kidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting ransom, the
fourth element is no longer necessary
For the crime to be committed, at least one overt act of demanding ransom
must be made. It is not necessary that here be actual payment of ransom
because what the law requires is merely the existence of the purpose of
demanding ransom.
Charge should be rebellion and not kidnapping argument:
o As regards the argument that the crime was politically motivated,
the charge should be rebellion is without merit
o The political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to
justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion
o Merely because it is alleged that the accused were members of MILF
or of MNLF, does not necessarily mean that he crime of kidnapping
was committed in furtherance of rebellion.

The accused were convicted of the crime of kidnapping for ransom with
serious illegal detention.
People vs. Olivia (349 SCRA 435, January 18, 2001)
Facts:
On May 26, 1986, Jacinto Magbojos Jr. was taken by the group of the accused.
Two witnesses were warned not to report to the police authorities or they will be
killed.
Sometime in 1989, Renato Magbojos, elder brother of Jacinto MAgbojos Jr.
met Levelito Tubieron while on board a ship and told him the location of the burial
site of his brother. On March 1, 1989, Jacintos remains were exhumed.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant is guity of rebellion and not murder.
Held:
No. One can be convicted only of rebellion when the murders, robberies and
kidnapping were committed as a means to or furtherance of rebellion. Offenses
which were not committed in furtherance of rebellion, but for personal reasons or

other motives, are to be punished separately even if committed simultaneously with


the rebellious acts.
In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that the killing of Jacinto
was in connection with or in furtherance of their rebellious act.

People vs. Lovedioro (250 SCRA 359, November 29, 1995)


Facts:
Off-duty policemen SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St. when the
defendant fired a gun at the deceaseds right ear. Nestor Armenta identified the
defendant since it is his nephew.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant is guilty of rebellion and not murder.
Held:
No. It is not a sufficient evidence that defendant is a member of NPA. Solicitor
General avers that the crime committed by defendant may be considered as
rebellion only if the defense itself had conclusively proven that the motive or intent
for the killing of the policemen was for political and subversive ends.
Political crimes are directly aimed against the political order, as well as such
common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose.
The decisive factor is intent or motive
Overt acts of rebellion are not enough. Both purpose and overt acts are
essential components of the crime. Common crimes should be committed with
political motivation to be absorbed by rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motives
relates to the act and not only membership in an organization dedicated to the
furtherance of rebellion.

People vs. Hernandez (99 Phil 515, July 18, 1956)


Facts:
On or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and
continuously thereafter until the present time, 31 defendants and others whose
whereabouts and identities were still unknown, accused and their co-conspirators,
officers and members of or associated with Congress of Labor Organization (CLO),
an active agency, organ and instrumentality of the Communist Party of the
Philippines (PKP) cooperates and synchronizes its activities with the rebellious

activities of Hukbong Mapagpalayag Bayan (HMB) to thereby assure, facilitate and


effect the complete and permanent success of the armed rebellion against the
Republic of the Philippines.
Hukbalahaps have risen publicly and taken arms to remove the territory of
the Philippines from the allegiance of the government. Making armed raids, sorties
and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments as well
as innocent civilians. In furtherance, committed acts of murder, pillage, looting,
plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to create and
spread chaos, disorder, terror and fear.
Issue:
Whether or not defendants are guilty of the crime Conspiracy and Proposal to
Commit Rebellion or Insurrection.
Held:
Yes. The court found Hernandez to have close connections with the
Secretariat of the Communist Party. In the testimonies shown in court, it appears
that Taruc and other CPP leaders used to send notes to Hernandez, who in turn
issued press releases in the local papers. His acts belong to the category of
propaganda, to which he appears to have limited his actions to communism.
The advocacy of communism is not to be considered as a criminal act of
conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. In the very
nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the
communist advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start
an uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an
uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted authority and seize the reins
of government itself. Only when the communist advocates action and actual
uprising, war or otherwise, becomes guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.

People vs. Dasig (GR No. 100231, April 28, 1993)


Facts:
On August 4, 1987, Pfc. Manatad, Pfc. Tizon and Pfc. Catamora were assisting
in canning the traffic at M.N. Briones and Bonifacio Streets in Mandaue City. At
about 4 pm, Pfc. Catamora noticed 8 persons, one of whom is Edwin Nuez, acting
suspiciously. They ended up in an gun battle that resulted to the death of Pfc.
Manatad. The defendants were able to escape but were apprehended after 12 days.
Dasig confessed that he and the group of Nuez, acting killed Pfc. Manatad,
but contends that he should be convicted of simple rebellion and not murder with
direct assault.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant is guilty of rebellion and not murder with direct
assault.

Held:
Yes. Art. 135 of the RPC defines rebellion as a crime of taking up arms against
the government.
In this case, Dasig not only confessed voluntarily his membership with the
sparrows unit but also his participation and that of his group in the killing of Pfc.
Manatad while manning the traffic. The sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the
NPA with the objective of overthrowing the duly constituted government. The killing
of Pfc. Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive
ends of the NPA.
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of men
and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion
though crimes in themselves are absorbed in one crime of rebellion. The killing of a
police officer is included as an act done in furtherance of rebellion.

People vs. Cabrera (43 Phil. 84, March 4, 1922)


Facts:
On December 13, 1920, Manila policemen arrested a woman who was a
relative of a constabulary soldier stationed at the Sta. Lucia Barracks. The arrest of
the woman was considered by some of the constabulary soldiers as an outrage
committed by the policemen. It gave rise to friction between members of the Manila
police department and members of the Philippine constabulary.
The next day there was an encounter between policeman Mojica and
constabulary soldiers that resulted to the shooting of private Masinag that
eventually died. A day after this incident, a rumor spread among the constabulary
that Mojica was back to his original duties.
On the night of December 15 some members of the constabulary escaped
their barracks through a window by sawing it. They had rifles and ammunitions and
were organized under the command of their sergeants and corporals. They attacked
some Manila policemen in three instances.
1. On Calle Real, Intramuros, a group of constabulary soldier shot and killed an
American policeman and his companion.
2. The constabulary indiscriminately shot at a passerby, causing death and
wounding of most of the passengers.
3. While rifing a motorcycle, a policeman Saplala and Capt. William E. Wichman
(Asst. Chief of Police) were shot and killed.
Issue:
1. Whether or not conspiracy existed in the commission of the crime.
2. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the rime of treason and sedition.

Held:
1. Yes. It is primary rule that if two or more persons combine to perform a
criminal act, each is responsible for al the acts of the others done in the
furtherance of the common design; and the result is the same if the act is
divided into parts and each person proceeds with this part unaided.
Conspiracy is generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and
circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be
proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing
one part and another part of the same, so as to complete it, with view of attainment
of the same object, one will be justified to the conclusion that they were engaged in
conspiracy to effect that object.
2. Yes. Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. It
punishes all persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by
force of outside of legal methods any of five objects, including that of
inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
official or agent of the government (national/provincial/municipal).
It is not necessary that the offender is a private individual and that the
offended party is a public officer. What is important is that there is a public
uprising to incite or inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of any official or agent of the government.

The defendants were also convicted of multiple murders with grave


injuries a=without the defense of double jeopardy. Two information for
sedition and murder are perfectly distinct in point of law.

People vs. Umali (96 Phil 185, November 29, 1954)


Facts:
In the evening of November 14, 1951, a raid was staged in the town of Tiaong,
Quezonby the defendants which resulted in the burning down and complete
destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan, Valentin Robles and Mortega;
the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicent Soriano and Leocadio
Untalan and; the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five civilians. Some of
the raiders also engaged in the looting and robbing of one house and two Chinese
stores.
The political situation in Tiaong dates back in 1947 when Umali and Punzalan
were friends but became enemies due to the jealousy of Umali. Then 1951 elections
came where Punzalan ran for re-election and Umali campaigned for his leader,
Epifanio Pasumbal.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of rebellion with multiple murder,
frustrated murder, arson and robbery.

Held:
No. The accused are guilty of Sedition, Multiple Murder, Frustrated Murder,
Arson and Physical Injuries. The purpose of the raid and the act of raiders in rising
publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the government and for doing
the purpose defined under Art. 134 of the RPC. Rather, the object was to attain by
means of force, intimidation, etc. One object was to inflict an act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of a public official, Mayor Marcial Punzalan of Tiaong,
acts that constitute Sedition punished under Art. 139 of the same code.

People vs. Nabong (57 Phil. 455, November 3, 1932)


Facts:
The defendant is an attorney who had been retained to defend one Juan Feleo
against a charge of Sedition. Feleo was related by marriage to the defendant, and
was a recognized leader of the communist in Nueva Ecija.
Sometime in January 1931, An Antonio Ora, head of the communists in the
Philippines dies and a necrological service in his memory was prepared. Major
Silvino Gallardo, in charge of the Philippine Constabulary was informed that a red
flag would be displayed in the meeting as an emblem of the communists. An
opinion from a fiscal regarding the display of the flag was that it was said to be
unlawful. He gave a copy to Nabong but the latter said that he do not agree with the
opinion and he refuse to accompany the constabulary officers and the fiscal to the
said meeting. The constabulary officers and fiscal went to Sta. Rosa, on their way,
they met Juan Feleo and requested to refrain from displaying the red flag, Feleo
promised to compy.
At the meeting, the red flag was displayed which caused the arrest and
removal of Feleo that resulted in disorder. After Feleo was taken, the meeting
continued and few members delivered a speech, including Nabong. The officers
were attentive in the course of the speech and found the said seditious.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime Sedition.
Held:
Yes. It was the purpose of the defendant in his speech to incite his hearers to
overthrow the government by unlawful means. The words used manifestly tended to
induce the people to resist and use violence against the agents of the constabulary
and to instigate the poor cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes. They also
suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies, thereby tending to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace. It is not necessary, in order
to be seditious that the words used resulted in public uprising. The law punishes
utterances which may endanger public order.

Gelig vs. People (GR No. 173150, July 28, 2010)


Facts:
Lydia and private complainant Gemma Micarsos were public school teachers
at the Nailon Elementary School. Lydias son was a student of Gemma.
On July 17, 1981, Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from his son,
Roseller that Gemma is calling him names while in class. Lydia slapped Gemma and
pushed her, causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. She suffered contusion.
However, Gemma continued to experience abdominal pains and started bleeding.
On August 28, 1981, she was diagnosed to have suffered incomplete abortion.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner can be convicted of slight physical injuries under
the information charging her for direct assault with unintentional abortion. (RTC)
Held:
No. The petitioner is guilty of Direct Assault under the second mode (Art.
148).
Elements:
a) That the offender (1) makes an attack, (2) employs force, (3) makes a
serious intimidation, or (4) makes a serious resistance
b) That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.
c) That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent
a. Is engaged in the actual performance of official duties
b. He is assaulted by reason of past performance of duties
d) That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in
authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties.
e) There is no public uprising
Art 152 Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority
No evidence that the slapping is the proximate cause of the unintentional
abortion
Petitioner is convicted of the crime Direct Assault

Rivera vs. People (462 SCRA 350, June 30, 2005)


Facts:
On March 20, 1993, Police Inspector Edward Leygo and SPO1 Joseph Basquial
were conducting routine patrol on board a police car when they came upon a truck
unloading sacks of chicken dung at the stall of the accused Rivera at Halsema
Highway, Shilan La Trinidad, Benguet. Inspector Leygo advised the driver for
violation of Ordinance No. I-91 which the driver complied with the directive. The
policemen escorted the truck back to Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet. Not long
after, another 2 policemen stopped the same truck at Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet.
The accused arrived at the scene and told the driver to obey him and not the

policemen. Inspector Leygo arrived and was able to chase the truck. Leygo and
Rivera had a confrontation that lead to the utterance of insulting words and
punching the Inspector. The accused was arrested and taken to police headquarters.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime Direct Assault.
Held:
Yes. Riveras case falls under the second mode of Art 148 of the RPC.
Well-settled rule that the testimony of a single witness, if
straightforward and categorical is sufficient to convict.
Aggravated when: (a) the assault is committed with a weapon; (b)
when the offender is a public officer or employee; (c) when the
offender lays hand upon persons in authority.

People vs. Abalos (258 SCRA 523, July 9, 1996)


Facts:
On March 20, 1983, during a barangay fiesta Police Major Cecilia Abalos and
the defendant Tiburcio Abalos, his son had a heated argument. The victim, Pfc.
Sofronio Labine arrived at the scene to stop the fight. He was struck in the head
with a piece of wood by the defendant. He immediately fled from the scene.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of complex crime of Direct Assault with
Murder.
Held:
Yes. He is guilty of the second mode of Art. 148 of the RPC. All of the
elements of Direct Assault were present in this case.
When the assault results in the killing of that agent or of a person in
authority, there arises the complex crime of Direct Assault with Murder or Homicide.
The killing inthe instant case constituted the felony of murder qualified by
alevosia through treacherous means. Pfc. Labine was struck from behind.
Labine was a duly appointed member of INP in Catbalogan, Samar and thus,
was an agent of a person in authority pursuant to Art. 152 of the RPC. He was also
in the actual performance of his duties when assaulted by defendant, and was
wearing his uniform.

People vs. Dural (223 SCRA 523, June 8, 1993)

Facts:
On January 31, 1988, at around 12:00 pm, prosecution witnesses were at the
Macaneneng St. Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City when they heard successive gunshots
and hid themselves in a concrete fence. At a distance, they saw 3 armed men firing
upon 2 Capcom Soldiers. They also noticed 2 other men at the scene, one was
accused Bernardo Itucal who was left to take care of the scene. The witness then
went to Capcom headquarters for their testimony.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the accused (Dural) is guilty of the complex crime Murder
with Direct Assault
2. Whether or not the accused (Itucal) is liable for conspiracy
Held:
1. Yes. Witnesses clearly identified him as one of the gunmen. Dural and the 2
gunmen knew that the victims, T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato
Manglingot, were members of the Phil. Constabulary detailed with the
Capcom as they were in uniform and riding an official Capcom car. The
victims were agents of persons in authority and were in the performance of
official duty as peace officers and law enforcers. Dural committed Direct
Assault under Art. 148 of the RPC. For killing the victims, he is found guilty of
two counts of complex crimes of murder with Direct Assault.
2. No. Itucal did not possess any weapon and that he arrived at the scene of the
crime when the assailants left.
TITLE FOUR: Crimes Against Public Interest
Tecson vs. CA (370 SCRA 181, November 22, 2001)
Facts:
A civilian informer notified the Cash Department of the Central Bank of the
Philippines that a certain Mang Andy was involved in a syndicate engaged in the
business of counterfeit US Dollar Notes.
On April 26, 1990, a test-buy operation was ordered which resulted in the
purchase of one counterfeit US dollar note for the price of P200.
Atty. Pio Chan Jr., Chief of Investigation Staff of CBP formed ateam to conduct
a buy-bust operation. On April 28, the operation was held at Jollibee Sta. Cruz,
Manila, where Mang Andy whom later identified as Alejandro Tecson was
apprehended in possession of 70 pcs. of US dollar notes, with intent to sell the same
to the undercover agent.
Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime illegal possession and use of
false treasury or banknotes and other instruments of credit.
Held:
Yes. He is liable under Art. 168 of the RPC of the crime illegal possession and
use of false treasury or banknotes and other instruments of credit.
Elements:
1. That any treasury or banknote or certificate or other obligation and
security payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person.
2. That the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or
falsified.
3. That he either used or possessed with intent to use any of any of such
forged or falsified documents.
The evidence is admissible because the petitioner was caught in flagrante
delicto by the prosecution witness during the buy-bust operation
It is a case of a legally valid warrantless and seizure of the evidence of the
crime.
Clemente vs. People (652 SCRA 382, June 15, 2011)
Facts:
Petitioner is a detainee at Manila City Jail. On August 7, 2007, informantinmate Francis Dela Cruz informed the jail officers of a counterfeit P500 from
Clemente with order to buy a drink from the City Jail bakery. The jail guard then
entered the cell of Clemente and confiscated a wallet from his back pocket that
contained 23 pieces of suspected counterfeit P500. The 24 bills were turned over for
BSP analysis and found that they were counterfeit.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of illegal possession and use of false
treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit.
Held:
No. Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone, without anything more,
is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute a criminal offense under Art. 168 of the
RPC, the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or banknotes. In
this case, prosecution failed to show that Clemente used or intended to use such
counterfeit money. The informant, Francis Dela Cruz was not presented to the court.
Thus, their account is hearsay and not based on personal knowledge. Since he was
the only one who has knowledge of the act which manifested Clementes intent to
use for there must be an overt act to manifest such intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guillergan vs. People (641 SCRA 511, February 2, 2011)
Facts:

Sometime in 1987, petitioner Guillergan, a Lieutenant Colonel in the AFP,


directed Master Sergeant Edna Seclon, Chief Clerk of the Controllers Office, to
cause the preparation of the payrolls of their civilian intelligence agents with
supporting time record and book. Each time the processing unit returned the
payrolls for lack of signature of the payees, Guillergan would direct Technical
Sergeant Nemesio Butcon, the Budget and Fiscal Non-commissioned Officer, to affix
his initial to complete the requirements and facilitate the processing of the payrolls.
Also on Guillergans instruction, the CIAs payrolls in Region 6 were covered
by cash advances payable to Capt. Roland Maclang. When ready, Guillergan
received the cash and checks and turned over to Brigadier Rio. At the end of 1987,
Rio further received huge amount of administrative funds and requested that it be
re-aligned to intelligence funds to facilitate clearing.
On April 14, 1989, the AFP Anti-Graft Board filed a complaint against Rio,
Butcon., Maclang, Seclon and Guillergan for violating Articles of War 94 in relation to
Art. 217 of the RPC.
Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the case but recommended the filing of
charges of illegal use of public funds. The Sandiganbayan filed a case of estafa
under Art. 315 (2a) in relation to Art. 171 of the RPC.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime punished under Art. 172
(estafa) in relation to Art. 171.
Held:
Yes. What is punished in falsification of a public document is the violation of
public faith and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed in it.
Art. 171 elements:
1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.
2. He takes advantage of his public position
3. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is done
Art. 172 (1) elements:
1. The offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who
did not take advantage of his public position
2. The offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in
Art. 171
3. The falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial
document.
All the elements are present in this case
1. Guillergans position as a comptroller did not include the preparation of
the appointments and payrolls of CIA. Nor did he have official custody
of the pertinent documents. His official function was limited to keeping
the records of the resources that the command received from Camp
Crame. Thus, he did not take advantage of his public position.
2. He induced/ordered Butcon to sign the payrolls as payee to make it
appear that persons participated in an act of proceeding (in this case,
the payroll document) when they di not in fact so participate.

3. Falsification was committed on the time of record, book, and payrolls


which were public documents.
Guillergan is guilty of violation of Art. 172 of the RPC.
Galeos vs. People (642 SCRA 485 G.R.174730 37 February 9, 2011)
FACTS:
Ong was appointed OIC-Mayor of Naga, Cebu and was elected eventually. On
June 1, 1994, Ong permanently appointed Galeas and Rivera for positions in the
municipal engineer, which were casual employees before the appointment. On their
SALNs, they did not fill up the questions if they have relatives in the government.
Ongs signature appear on the person who administered oath.
Criminal charges against Ong, Galeas and Rivera was filed per falsification of
public documents, in connection with the certification and false statements in the
SALN.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the crime of falsification of public
documents
HELD:
Yes. Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code enumerated the acts punished of the
crime of falsification of public documents:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubic;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
>>elements.
a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a
narration of facts.
b) he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false
* In addition, it must be proven that the public officer has taken advantage of his
official position in the falsification.
>>elements to consider that he has taken advantage of his official position
1) he has duty to make or prepare otherwise to intervene in the preparation
of the document
2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.
*Intent to gain or intent to injure a 3rd person is not essential. What is punished is
the violation of public faith and destruction of truth.
In this case, the elements are proven. Nepotism is not allowed in the Civil Service.

BIENVENIDO GONZULADO vs People


(481 SCRA 569 G.R. No. 150910 February 6, 2006)
Facts:
On January 11, 1978, Ulysses Villaflor, member of Bacolod City Police Office
married Anita Manlangit. They stayed at Ulysess mothers home. Ulyses was then
assigned to Pagadian City while his wife moved to Samar. He was then re-assigned
to Bacolod City where he bought a house and had a mistress Rosemarie Gelogo. He
transformed the small house to a 2-storey structure. Ulyses died and Gelogo sold
the house to petitioner, who introduced to his relative, spouses Canlas who bought
the house.
On January 20, 1993, Gelogo and Greg Canlas executed a deed of sale, as
witnessed by petitioner. Anita Manlangit then filed charging Rosemarie Gelogo,
Gonzulado and spouses Canlas with the crime of estafa thru falsification of public
documents, when Gelogo affixed and signed her name as Rosemarie Villaflor
knowing that there is a legal wife in the deed of sale
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime of falsification of public
documents.
HELD:
Yes. The accused are guilty under Act 4 Art. 171 of the RPC
4) Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
Rosemarie Gelogo signing as Rosemarie Villaflor instead of her real namae
in order to sell the house to spouses Canlas. Likewise proved that Gonzulado
acted in conspiracy with Gelogo.
AVELLA GARCIA vs. Court of Appeals
(471 SCRA 427 G.R. No. 128213 December 13, 2005)
FACTS:
Early in October 1990, a verbal agreement was entered into between Alberto
Quijada and Garcia for the sale of Quijadas house and lot at Mandaluyong.
Payments were executed in several instances. Two receipts were reproduced. The
relationship of the buyer and seller turned sour. Garcia filed a complaint of estafa
against Quijada for his failure to execute a deed of sale and deliver the subject
property. Among the evidence she submitted was the copy of receipt which
appeared to be attend from 15,000 155,000.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of falsification
HELD:

Yes. The elements of the crime of falsification under Art. 171(6) of the RPC
are:
1) That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a
document
2) That it was made on a genuine document
3) That the alteration or or intercalation has changed the meaning of the
document
4) That the changes made the document speak something false.
When this are committed by a private individual on a private document the
violation would fall under par.2, Art. 172 of the same code. In addition, to the
elements, independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to
the third person.
Given the admissions of Garcia to the alteration, and without convincing
evidence that the alteration was with the consent of Quijada, the Court holds
that the 4 elements were proven to convict the petitioner.
LEOPOLDO OANI vs People
G.R. No. 139984 March 31, 2005
FACTS:
During the SY 1988-1989, the Panabo High School, headed by Principal
Leopoldo Oani implemented the free secondary school program of the government.
The school received P648,532.00 from the Department of Education, culture and
Sports (DECS) for Maintenance and other operating Expenses (MOOE).
On March 1, 1990, DECS Secretary received a letter from the PTA of Panabo
HS regarding the investigation of Principal Oani and Bonifacio Roa, auditor for the
alleged overpricing of 12 fire extinguishers.
In the investigation of MOEE team, they found that Oani approved the
purchase of the overpriced extinguishers, stereo set and office supplies. Information
was filed to Oani and Roa for violations of Rep. Act. 3019
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petioner violated R.A. 3019
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner did not conduct a public bidding in the purchase of the
materials. He argues that he was justified in dispensing with a public bidding and to
purchase on a negotiated basis with the private company. He is wrong. COA Circular
No. 78-84 provides that negotiated contracts may be entered into where any of the
following conditions exists:
1. Whenever the supplies are urgently needed to meet a emergency which
may involved the loss of or danger to life and/or property;
2. whenever the supplies to be used in connection with a project or activity
which cannot be delayed without causing detriment to the public service;
3. whenever the materials are sold by an exclusive distributor or
manufacturer who does not have subdealers selling at lower prices and for
which no suitable substitute can be obtained elsewhere at more
advantageous terms to the government;

4. whenever the supplies under procurement have been unsuccessfully


placed on bid for at least two consecutive times, either due to lack of bidders
of the offers received in each instance equipment, the purchase of (9) units
fire extinguishes were exhorbirant or non-confirming to specifications:
5. In cases where it is apparent that the requisition of the needed supplies
through negotiated purchase is most advantageous to the government as
determined by the head of agency;
6. whenever the purchase is made from an agency of the government.
7. whenever the purchase is made from a foreign government.
* None of the conditions existed when the petitioner purchased the fire
extinguishers on a negotiated basis. Number 3 and 5 is not proven by evidence. He
also submitted falsified certification to remedy his contentions.
* It is therefore proven that the accused and committee failed to conduct any
canvass and public bidding as mandated by law.
*Oani undermined the process, to protect the public interest by giving the public
the best possible advantage thru open competition. He did not only act in a wanton
careless manner but also in an unspeakable breath of duty in a flagrant and
palpable way. In full contemplation of the law, his acts constitute gross inexcusable
negligence.
* In a public bidding, there must be competition that is legitimate, fair and honest.
The three principles of a public bidding are the offer to the public;
An opportunity for competition; and a basis for exact comparison of bids.
*A contract granted without the competitive bidding is void and the party to whom
it is awarded cannot benefit from it.
*In the present case, the petitioner purchased the materials without the benefit of a
public bidding, in gross and evident bad faith, resulting in the considerable
overpricing, to the gross prejudice of the government.
PEOPLE VS ROLDAN MORALES
G.R. NO. 172873 MARCH 19, 2010
FACTS:
On January 2, 2003, prosecution witness PO1 Eduardo Roy was on duty when
he made the pre-operation report on the buy-bust operation to be conducted. He
then proceeded to Jollibee Nrgy. San Vicente, Quezon City with PO3 Amando Rivera
and informant who were introduced as buyer of piso worth of shabu,
respondent Morales immediately produced a sachet containing the alleged drug.
Morales received the marked money and was immediately arrested. Upon
conducting the body search, he found another sachet of shabu and two aluminium
foils. The items seized were brought to crime lab and tested positive for
Methylampheromine Hydrochloride.
ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Drug Act


of 2002.
HELD:
No. Absence of the element of corpus delicti.
Elements of Illegal sale of dangerous drugs:
1) Proof that the transaction or sale took place
2) Presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
Elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
1) The accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
prohibited or regulated drug
2) Such possession is not authorized by law
3) The accused is freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the
drug
*In this case the evidence of corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable
doubt. Sec. 21 of RA 9165 provides:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of conflication, seized and for surrender
Dangerous Drugs, Plant sources of Dangerous Drugs, Plant sources of Dangerous
Drugs, controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Investments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment The POEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof.
*In this case, the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated
dangerous drugs as mandated in Sec. 21 of RA 9165, were not observed. The
procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized items collectively
raised doubts as to whether the items presented in court were the exact same items
that were confiscated from appellant when he was apprehended.
*The court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Sec. 21 of RA
9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for as long as the
integrity and the evidenciary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending team.
*The identity of the corpus delicti was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There
aws a braek in the chain of custody which proves fatal to the case.

PEOPLE VS ELMERMEMENG PERALTA


G.R. NO. 17347 FEBRUARY 26, 2010
FACTS:
District Drug Enforment Group (DDEG), Southern Police Fort Bonifacio,
Taguig, Metro Manila, received reports of accused Elmer Peraltas drug pushing
activities at Makati City.
On July 21, 2002, the DDEG staged a buy-bust operation with SPO1 Alberto
Sangalang as poseur-buyer. The informant introduced Sangalong to Peralta as DI
then gave Peralta a marked P500.00 bill for a sachet of shabu at a signal. Sangalong
told his informant to buy cigarettes. The police back-up team entered the house
and arrested Peralta. The sachet of shabu was marked as 1-210702 and taken to
PNP Crime Lab and was tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated RA 9165
HELD:
No. Absence of an element to the violation:
Elements of sale of illegal drugs
a)identities of the buyer and seller
b)transaction or sale of the illegal drug
c)existence of the corpus delicti
*Prosecution failed to show the chain of custody. The integrity of the seized drugs
was not preserved
*Prosecution failed to proved the 3rd elements: existence of corpus delicti.
*Respondent is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS NICOLAS GUTIERREZ
G.R. NO. 179213 SEPTEMBER 8, 2009
FACTS:
On June 16, 2003, while on duty at the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Psay
City Police Force, prosecution witness SPO3 Matias received information via
telephone from a concerned citizen that a certain alias Nick , later identified as
the respondent, was peddling shabu along San Agustin St., Pasig City. Police officers
proceeded and survelieled the area and confirmed the information.
SPO3 formed a buy-bust team with PO1 Espares as poseur-buyer and PO1
Mapula and PO1 Familiara as members. They then went to the location and met with
an asset. PO1 Espares approached the respondent and gave the marked money for
the payment of a piso pack of shabu. Respondent then dress from his back pocket
a black plastic case and took one sachet of the crystalline substance. The team on
signal apprehended the respondent and confiscated the case.
ISSUE:

HELD:
No. Absence of the third element. Existence of corpus delicti
Elements of sale of illegal drugs
a)identities of the buyer and seller
b)transaction or sale of the illegal drug
c)existence of the corpus delicti
*In prosecution involving narcotics, the narcotics substance itself constitutes the
corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubts demands that
unwaiving exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of
custody rule performed this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of evidence are removed.
*Sec. 1(b) of the Dangerous Drug Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 which
implements RA 9165 defines chain of custody as follows:
b.Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plants source of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment at each stage. From the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of the seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
dates and times when such transfers of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
*Movement of seized evidence be maintained:
As a movement of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the movement the item was
pick up to the time it is offered into evidence. In such way that the event person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it
was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
chain. These witnesses would then described the precautions taken to ensure that
there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
*Prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody. Question if the evidence
examined and presented in court is the same.
*Failure to comply with Sec. 21 par.1 of Article II of RA9165 with respect to custody
and disposition of the evidence. There was no physical inventory and photograph.
PEOPLE VS QUE MING KHA
G.R. NO. 133265 MAY 29, 2002

FACTS:
On May 16, 1997, Chief Inspector Gilbert dela Fuente, Head of the
Intelligence and Investigation Division, station 6, Central Police District, received a
phone call from an informant that a van which being used to transport shabu at
Quezon City. Dela Fuerte dispatched 3 teams at 5pm, the team spotted the van and
it hit a 7-year old boy but sped away. They followed the van and intercepted it at
Commonwealth Avenue. They got out of their vehicle and approached the van. They
noticed Several sacks at the back of the van that contained several plastic bags
containing white crystalline substance. They arrested the driver Go and Que Ming
Kha.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of violating RA 9165
HELD:
Que Ming Kha (Alfonso Go) guilty
- All the elements are present being the driver of the van
- He cannot claim that he was not aware of the existence of the contraband.
The crime is malum prohibitum, lack of criminal intent and good faith do
not excuse the accused from criminal liability. Mere possession and/or
delivery of the regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under
RA 9165.
- Evidence is admissible even without warrant of arrest: (4) seizure of
evidence in the plain view.
- Kim Que Yu (Alfonso Que) acquitted
- Not present in the sane of the crime
NAZARIO MARIFOSQUE VS PEOPLE
GR NO. 156685 JULY 21, 2004
FACTS:
On October 13, 1990, spouses Sy went to the office of Capt. Alberto Salvo ,
chief of the Intelligence and operating Division stationed at the Criminal
Investigation Service (CIS) to report the robbery of shellane tanks and the alleged
extortion attempt by petitioner Police Sgt. Marifosque in exchange for the recovery
of the lost items. Capt. Solvo set up a plan to entrap the petitioner. Petitioner
Marifosque was arrested at the Golden Grace Department Store with the marked
money given by Hian Hian Yu Sy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery.
HELD:
Yes. The crime of direct bribery as defined in Art. 210 of the RPC consists of
the following elements:
1)that the accused is a public officer;
That he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or
promise.

3)that such gift present or promise has been given in consideration of his
commission of some crime, or any act constituting a crime, or to refrain from
doing something which it is his official duty to do
4)that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public
officer.
*Definition of public authority is provided in Art. 210 RPC
NASZARO MARIFOSQUE VS. PEOPLE
G.R.No.156685
JULY 27,2014
FACTS:
On October 13,1990, spouses sy went to the office of capt.Alberto Salvo,chief
of the
Intelligence and operating Division stationed at the criminal Investigation service
(CIS) to
Report the robbery of shellane tanks and the alleged extorsion attempt by petitioner
Police Sgt.Marifosque in exchange for the recovery of the lost items.capt.Salvo set
up a
Plan to entrap the petitioner.Petitioner Marifosque was arrested at the golden grace
Department
Store with the marked mony given by Hian Hian yu sy.
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery.
HEILD:
Yez.The crime of direct bribery as difine in Art.210 of of the RPC consist of the
Following elements:
1) That the accused is a public officer;
2) That he receive directly or through another some gift or present ,offer
or promise
3) That such gift ,present or promise has been given in consideration of
his commission
of some crime,or any act constituting a crime ,or to refrain frome
doing
something which it is his official duty to do
4) That the crime or act relates to the exercise of his fuctions as a public
officer.

Definition of public authority is provide in art .210 RPC.At the time of the
incident,
Petitioner was a police surgeant when he directly receive bribe money fome
Yu so Pong
And his daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the recovery of the stolen
cylinder tanks,

An act constituting a crime under Art .210 of the RPC.

The case falls under the second paragraph of Art.210 of the PRC
*If the gift was accept by the officer in consideration of the execution of an
Act which deos not constitute a crime,and the officer executed said act,he
shall
suffer the same penalty provide in the preceding paragraph.

NATHANIEL MANIPON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN


G.R. No.L58889
JULY 31,1996
FACTS:
Petitioner is deputy sheriff of the court of first instance of Baguio and
benguet
and was assigned to enforce an order of the Minister of Labor to executive the
decition of
the labor arbiter in Langog Tabek,et al vs. Harry Dominguez,et al pursuant to that
assignment Mnipon on Nov,9,1979 sent a notice the commercial bank and trust
branch
in baguio gamishing the bank accounts of Dominguez.On November
12,1979,Dominguez
sought Manipons help in the withdrawal of the of he garnished account.
On December 27,1979, when the two met again at the office of the national
Intelligence and security Authority (NISA),Manipon told Dominguez that he can
remedy the
Withdrawal.Dominguez interpreted this to mnean that manipon would withdraw the
garnished
Amount for a consideration.They agreed to meet at the bank.Dominguez then when
to NISA
Substation commander Luisito Sanchez to entrap Manipon.
On December 28,Manipon arrived in the bank and delivered a letter lifting the
Garnishment .He handed the money to Dominguez and left.He was then arrested
and
Tested positive to fouresent powder from the marked money
ISSUE:
W/N the petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery.
HEILD:
Yes.All the elements provide in Art,210 of the RPC are present
*Exceptions to the rule of valid search and seizure without warrant
1) search incidental to an arrest
2) search of moving vehicle
3) search of evidence in plan view

*The case fall under number 1 thus evidence is admissible in court.


LAURO SORIANO JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
GR NO. L-65952 JULY 31, 1984
FACTS:
Thomas Tan was accused of qualified theft was assigned for investigation to
the petitioner who was an Assistant City Fiscal. Petitioner demanded 14,000 from
Tan as price for dismissing the case. . Tan reported the demand to NBI. The
petitioner was entrapped and arrested for violation of sec.3 par (b) of RA 3019 or
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner violated RA3019.
HELD:
No. Petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC
Sec.3(b) of RA 3019
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions
of public officers already penalized by existing law. The following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public offices and are hereby declared to
be unlawful.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with
any contract or transaction between the government and any other party,
wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the
law.

The investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Neither was
it a transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the
team which precedes it. A transaction, like a contract, is one which involves
come consideration as in credit transactions and this element (consideration)
is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.

LEONOR FORMILLEZA VS SANDIGANBAYAN


GR NO. 75160 March 18, 1988
FACTS:
Estrella Mutia was an employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA)
for 12 years, her appointment was co-terminus with a project of the NIA. On
December 31`,1983, her appointment was terminated. Mutia said that she took
steps to obtain either permanent or atleast renewed appointment. She approached
the regional director but was advised to sec the petition, being the personnel
supervisor of the regional office of NIA in Tacloban. The petitioner refused to her
appointment papers unless were given some money.

On February 21, 1984. Mutia reported her problem to the Philippine


Constabulary an entrapment was set and on second attempt, the petitioner was
arrested with the marked money.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of indirect bribery.
HELD:
No. Indirect bribery under Art. 211 of the RPC consists of the following
elements:
1) The offender is a public officer
2) He accepts gifts
3) The said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office
*The essential ingredient of indirect bribery is that the public officer concerned must
have accepted the gift or material consideration. These must be clear intention on
the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and consider as his own
property, such as putting away the gift for safekeeping or pocketing them. Mere
physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show
such acceptance is not sufficient.

GREGORY POZAR VS. COURT OF APPEALS


GR No. L-62439 October 23, 1984
FACTS:
The petitioner was convicted of the crime of less physical injuries and the
crime of oral defamation. On November 28, 1979, he filed for application for
probation. He together with his lawyer Atty. Reynaldo Suarez went to the Probation
Office to inquire about the requirements, but probation officer Danilo Ocampo was
not around.
On December 10, 1979, the petitioner has a meeting with Mr. Ocampo and
was asked to submit a photocopy of his visa and 10 picture, being a foreigner.
On December 17, the petitioner went back to the probation office but Mr.
Ocampo was not around so he handed an envelope to Mr. Manalo to give the same
to Mr. Ocampo on December 19, Mr. Ocampo handed it back to Mr. Mando to return
it back to the petitioner.
Mr. Ocampo filed an information to the judge regarding the money. The office
of the City Fiscal immediately investigated the situation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of corruption of public
officials
HELD:

No. Art.212 of the RPC provides for the elements of the crime of corruption of
public officials and are as follows:
1) That the offender makes offers or promises or gifts or present to a public
officer.
2) That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public
officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct
bribery or indirect bribery.
*The giving of monery was done in good faith since the petitioner is a foreigner and
unfamiliar with probation rules and regulations. He was confused or befuddled and
his acts constitutes only an advance for the expenses for the documentation.
RINA CHUA VS EDGARDO NUESTRO
AM No. P-88-256 October 11, 1990
FACTS:
On September 12, 1988, the court issued a writ of execution on a civil case.
Petitioner, her husband and ounsel asked the respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo
Nuestro to immediately enforce the writ and they agreed to give P1,000 to the
respondent aside from expenses on the next day, the respondent asked for an
additional amount of P500.00. He went to the property and broke the padlock. The
counsel for defendent arrived with the receipt of payment of the superseades bond
to suspend the execution of the writ.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of direct bribery.
HELD:
Yes. All the elements provided in Art. 210 of the RFC are present. The fee is
received was distinct from the sheriffs fee and expenses for execution and is not
intended for that purpose.
ROBERTO CHANG VS. PEOPLE
496 SCRA 321 GR No. 165111 July 21, 2006
FACTS:
Makati Treasurers office examiners Vivian Yu and Lenila Azevedo conducted
an examination of the books of accounts and other records of GDI to verify the
amount of tax due from the business operations, and found a total amount of
P494.60 tax deficiency for 1986 to 1990.
The office of the Treasurer issued a notice to GDI for payment. The notices
were received by Mario Magat, Chief Operating Officer of CDI.
On May 15, 1991 Magat and San Mateo, assessor met at a sports Club,
petitioner Roberto Chang later joined them. They agreed that if GDI could pay
P125,000, the assessment will be resolved. On May 29, San Mateo went to GDI
office for the check but refused to accept it when it was payable to the municipal
treasurers. On June 6, Magat met San Mateo and Chang and was given two options

pay P494,60 to the municipality or P125,000 to them. GDI president then referred
the matter to the NBI.
On June 19, 1991, the payment was scheduled to be made and Magat
informed the NBI for the entrapment. Magat, San Mateo, Chang and his driver had
lunch at the sports club. Magat then handed the brown enveloped with the money
in exchange of the certificate of examination that GDI had no more realibility. It was
received by Chang and passed it to San Mateo. They were then arrested they were
found positive for fluorescent poweder.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners Chang and San Mateo violated Sec. 3(6) of the RA
3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
HELD:
Yes. Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 provides:
Sec. 3 Corrupt practices of public officers in addition to acts or omissions of public
pfficers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift present share percentage or
benefit for himself or for any other person in connection with any contract ot
transaction between the Government and any other party. Wherein the public officer
in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
Elements|:
1) The offender is a public officer
2) Who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage, or a
benefit
3) On behalf of the offender or any other person
4) In connection with a contract or transaction with the government
5) In which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right
to intervene
*All the elements are present
*It was an entrapment not an instigation. It was established that the criminal
intent originated from the petitioners.
ANUNCIO BUSTILLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
486 SCRA 545 GR No. 146217 April 7, 2006
FACTS:
In 1995, the office of the Special Prosecutor charged petitioner, then
incumbent mayor of Bunawan, Agusan Del Sur, and his daughter, in the
Sandiganbayan with falsification of Public Documents under Art. 171 of the RFC. The
accfused falsified 3 vouchers, making it appear that P30,000 of lumber was bought
from Estigoy Lumber and not from Rowena Woodcraft, a single proprietorship owned
by the daughter Rowena Bustillo.
ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners suspension from office pendent lite finds basis in
sec. 13 of RA 3019.
HELD:
Yes. Sec. 13 of RA 3019 provides:
Suspension and loss of benefits any incumbent public officer against whom any
criminal prosecution under a valid information under this act or under Title I, Book II
of the RFC or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or
property, whether as a simple or as a complex offense and it whatever stage of
execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from
office. Should he be convicted by final judgement, he shall lose all retirement or
gratituity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to
reinstatement and to salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during
suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed
against him.
*The case falls undr Title 4 Book II, but it involved fraud upon government or public
funds or property. Fraud refers to an instance or an act of trickery or deceit
especially when involving misinterprentation.
FLORANTE SORIQUEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN
414 SCRA 222 GR No. 153526 October 25, 2005
FACTS:
On February 29 to June 15, 1996 petitioner Progran Director of Mt. Pinatubo
Rehabilitation Project Management Office (MPR-PMO) along with 9 other public
officials of DPWH consented or permitted the contractor, atlantic erectons Inc. To
deviate from the plans and specifications of a contract in constructing the
Transverse section of the Pasig-Potrero River Diking System (Megadike) in violation
of the material provision of said contract and allowed to called P38,289,708.61 and
which breach of contract causing prejudice and damage to the government.
ISSUE:
Whether or not is guilty of violation of sec. 3(e) of RA 3016
HELD:
Yes. All the elements provided in Sec. 3(e) of RA 3016 are present
Sec. 3 Corrupt practices of public officers in addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and hereby declared to be unlawful:
(e) causing any undue injury to any party. Including the Government or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses
or permits or other concessions.
Elements:

1) The accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official


functions
2) 2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
inexcusable negligence
3) 3) his action has caused undue injury to any party, including the government,
or has given any party any unwarranted benefit advantage or preference in
the discharge of his functions
*1) petitioner is a public officer being an official of DPWH (MPR-FMO) Program
Director
2) petitioner recommended the defective design of megadike. He constituted
evident bad faith or inexecusable negligence, as the design plan proved to be
defective.
3) with the collapse of megadike, it cause undue injury.
EDGAR TEVES VS SANDIGANBAYAN
447 SCRA 209 GR No. 154182 December 17, 2004
FACTS:
On February 4, 1992, Edgar Teves, Mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental with
wife Teresita Teves caused the issuance of the appropriate business permit/license
to operate the Valencia Cockpit and Recreation Center for Daniel Teves. Petitioner
and wife are the actual owners and operators of the said cockpit.
An information for violation of Sec. 3 (h) of RA 3016 or the Anti-graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners violated RA 3016
HELD:
Yes. Sec. 3(h) of the Anti-graft law provides:
Sec.3. Corrupt practices of the public officers in addition to acts or omissions of
public offices already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitue corrupt
practices of any public officers and are hereby declared to the unlawful.
(h) Directly and indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business,
contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes ot takes part in his
official capacity, or which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from
having any interest.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS:
1) The accused is a public officers
2) He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business,
contract or transaction
3) He other:
a) Intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such
interest

b) B) is prohibited from having such interest by the constitution or any law


Sec.89 (2) of the Local Government Code Provides:
Section 89. Prohibited Business and Pecuniary interest.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any local government official or employee directly or
indirectly to:
(b) (2) hold such interests in any cockfit or other games licensed by a local
government unit.
*The Anti-Graft Law has to yield to the LGC an older statue and specific LGC
prescribes a lighter penalty.
*edgar Teves is convicted of violation of Sec.3(h) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
corrupt Practices act.
For possession of pecuniary under Sec. 89 (2) of the local government code of 1991.
PEOPLE VS JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
GR No. 148560 September 12, 2007
FACTS:
On April 4, 2001, an information of plunder was filed against respondent
Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and 2 others including his son Jose
Jinggoy Estrada for the crime of plunder. The information stated that during the
incumbency of the respondent, in connivance with other accused a mass,
accumulate and acquire ill-gotten wealth with a totl value of P4,097,804,173.17
more or less at the expense of the Filipinos and the Philiippines through any or a
combination or a series of overt or criminal acts or similar schemes or means
described as follows.
a) Receive an amount from illegal gambling in the form of gift, share,
percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit
b) Misappropriating public funds for personal gain
c) Compelling the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of stock of the Belle
corporation for personal gain
d) Unjustly enriching himself from gifts, shares, percentages, kickbacks or any
form of pecuniary benefit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of plunder
HELD:
Yes. RA 7080 provides for the elements of the crime:
1) That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with
members of the family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates subordinates or other persons.
2) That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts described in Sec.
1(d) of RA 7080 as amended
3) That the aggragate amouth or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed,
accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00

Section 1(d) reads:


Ill-gotten wealth means any assets, property, business enterprise or material
possession of any person within the purview of Sec 2 hereof, acquired by him
directly or indirectly through dummies, nominies, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar
schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds
or raids on the public treasury.
2) By receiving directly or indirectly, any commission, gifts, shares percentage,
kickbacks or any form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office
or position
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to
the National Government or any of its subdivision, agencies or
instrumentalities or GOCCs
4) By obtaining receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock
equity or any other form of interest or participation including promises of
future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking.
5) By establishing agricultural industrial or commercial monopolies or other
combinations and/or implementations of decrees and orders intended to
benefit particular person or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship,
connection or influence to unjustify enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and damage and prejudice of the Filipino and the Philippines.

All the elements were present: (1) Respondent was then the President; (2) he
acted in connivance with the Governor Chavit Singson and other persons in
amassing, accumulating and acquiring ill-gotten wealth as follows:
a)receiving bi-mothly collections from jueteng; and (b) ordering the GSIS and
SSS to purchase shares of stock of the Belle Corporation

VIOLETA BAHILIDAD VS. PEOPLE


G.R No. 185195
MARCH 17,2010
FACTS:
Petitioner with different public officials of saranggani province conspired
Together in a scheme of giving Fictitious grants and donations using funcis
of the provincial government. A special audit was conducted and found that
almost 10M of government funds were illegally used.
A complaint was filed by a concerned citizen.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner acted in conspiracy with other accused in


commiting the
Complex crime of malversation of public funds though falsification of Public
ducoments.
HELD:
NO. The petitioner is aquitted on reasonable guilt.
Conspiracy exists when two or more person come to an agreement
concerning
the commision of a felony and decide to commit
it.Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from the
conduct of the accused before,during and after the commission of the crime, which
are indicative of joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.
Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design, indecated by the
performance of an overt act leading to the crime commited. *Petitioner
participation in the crime not adequately proven with moral centainty. Petitioner, as
a private individual, had no hand in the preparation, processing or
disburesment of the check issued in her name.
ROMEO Jr. VS. PEOPLE
G.R.No145229 April 20,2006
FACTS:
On january 14,1988, petitioner davalos, supply officer of the office of the
Provincial Engineer of Marinduque receive a cash advance frome philippine national
Bank (PNB) For the proccurent of working tools for a ceratain NALGO project.
On may 5, 1988, he received a demand letter ton submit a liquidation of the
of the P18,000 cash advance. The second demand was also unheeded.
On August 16, 1970, the new Provincial Treasure informed the Provincial
Prosecutor
Of COAs findings that the petitioner has an settled cash advance of P18,000
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public
funds.
HELD:
Yes. The crime of malversation of public funds is defined and penalized under
Art. 217 of the RPC:
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or proprty-Presumptiom of
malversation
Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office,
is accountable for Public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take
or misappropriate or shall consent , or through abandonment or negligence, shall
permit any other person to take such public funds or property , wholly or portially,

or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation pf malversation of such funds or


property shall suffer:
xxx
The failure of a public officer to have duly fortcoming any public
Funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
Authorized officer, shall, be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund
or property to personal uses.
Elements:
1.That the offender is a public officer.
2.That he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the
dutiies of his office.
3. That the funds or proper are public funds or property for which He
is accountable.
4. .That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take
them.
*All the elements are present
*In the crime of malversation, all that necessary for conviction is sufficient
Proof that the acountable officer had receive public funds, that he did not have in
his possession when demand was made. And that he could not explain his failure to
do so. *Presumption in Art. 217 that failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon
demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put
such missing fund or property to personal use.
-The presumption is rebuhable
-However, petitioner failed to overcome the prima facie evidence
PAMILA CHAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R No.149613
AUGUST 9, 2005
FACTS:
In november 1989, petitioner was hired as accounting clerk II at the regional
Office of the NBI, functioning as cashier or collection officer.
Petitionaer went on leave frome December 7 to 27,1995. On December 27,
the Auditor frome COA conducted a routine audit examination and found that all
accounts are accounted for. On January 26,1996, the same auditor conducted
another audit examination and found a shortage of P290,228 in petitioners cash
accountability. She also sent a memorandum to the regional dirictor requesting the
petitioner to be relieved. Acting on the memorandum, petitoner was replaced by
Gloria Alvarez.
As SOP of COA to conduct auddit examination whenever an accountable Officer is
replaced and found that petitioner had cumulative shortage of cash Accountability
of P333,360.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public
funds
HELD:
Yes. She is found guilty on the third mode of malversation : Shall consent or,
Through abandonment or negligence, shall pirmit any person to take such public
funds or property.
*She was remiss in her supervision of the acting collectionofficer, bas and Failed to
rebut the presumption. *She omit to report the shortages of bas to the proper
authority upon her Discovery thereof and also assisted in the cover up. *She
granted that the funds be barrowed by bas. However, the grant of loans through
the vale system is clear case of an accountable officer consenting to the
improper or unauthorize use of public funds by other persons, which is punishable
by law.
ELVIRA AGULLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No.132926
JULY 20. 2001
FACTS:
Petitioner,disbursing office of ministry public workls and highways (MPUH)
receive P26,404.26 of public funds. They found that such fund was missing when
her acount was audited. She was sent a demand letter but contented that when
she opt to answer, she had a stroke. Information of the crime of malversation of
public funds was filed against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public
funds
HELD:
NO. The presumption under Art.217 of the RPC was rebutted. The court state
that when absence of funds not due to the personal use thereof by the accussed,
the presumption is completely destroyed.
*Records reveral that on October 22,1985. Petitioner had a stroke on the
Streets of tacloban when the amount was lost.
LUIS TABUENA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 103501.03 FEBUARY 17, 1997
FACTS:

Then Presedent Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to
the Presidents office and in cash what the Manilla International Airport (MIA) owes
the Philppine National Construction Corporation (PNCC). About a week leter, he
receive a memo to comply with the verbal instruction.
Tabuena compiled that coused the release of PSSM of MIAA funds.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds
HELD:
NO. petitioner acted in good faith in complying with chief Executives order.
Thus, criminal intent is absent in the commision of the crime and that
abandonent or negligence was not proved. Conversation as necessary element of
offence of embezzlement, being froudulent
appropriation to ones own
use of anothers proper.

AMANDO TETRANGCO VS. OMBUDSMAN


G.R. No.156427 JANUARY 20, 2006
FACTS:
On march 8, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint before the ombudsman
Alleging that on jaunuary 26,2001 , private respondent Mayor Atienza gave
financial assistance to the members of the brgy.105, zone 8, District 1, and
refunded the same when such disburrsement was nit justified as lawful expence.
Mayor Atienza denied the allegations and sought the dismisal of the case
which was granted. Hence, petition to this court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent is guilty of the crime of technical
malversation or
illegal use of public funds.
HELD:
No.Art.220 of the RPC provide:
Art.220. illegal use of public funds or property any public officer who
shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use
other than that for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or
ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prison correcional in its

minimum period or a fine ranging frome one-half to the total of the sum
misapplied, if by reason such misapplication, any damages or embarassment shall
have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the
penalty of special disqualification. If no damage or embarassment to the public
service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine form 5 to 50 percent of the sum
misapplied.
Elements:
1.The offender is an accountable public officer
2.He applies a public funds or property under his administration to some public use
3.The public use for which the public funds or property were applied is different
Frome the purpose for which they were originally approriated by law or
ordinance.
*The third element is not present in this case.
NORMA ABDULLA VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No.150129 APRIL 6,2005
FACTS:
Farmer presedent of sulo state college petitioner Norma Abdulla requested
for the Convensation of 34 secondaary school teachers to Instructor I items and was
approved By the department of budget and managemenent (DBM). Prior to the
approval , the Fund was allotted to the partial funding of paying the differencials of
the Said 34 teachers in the amount of P40.000.00. however , out of the 34, only 6
teachers were entitled and paid the salary differentials as they were already the
same salary rate as Instructor I.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the prtitioner is guilty of the crime of illegal use of public
funds
HELD:
No.Criminal intent is absent.
Basic principle in criminal law, actus non facit recum, nisi mens it rea
A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained of be innocent. To constitute a crime, the act must be accompied
by criminal intent.
Article 220 of the RPC provides for the elements:
1.The offender is a public officer.
2.That there is a public fund under his administration.
3.That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law nor
ordinance
4.That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such

Fund or property has been approriated by law or ordinance.


*Elements 2 and 3 are absent
The fund is from the lump sum appropriation of RA 6688
OSCAR PARUNGAO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R No.96025 MAY 15, 1991
FACTS:
The province of pampanga recievs an annual CRBI (Construction
Rehabilitation, Bettement and Inprovement) Fund. In 1980, Brgy ,Jalung recieve the
amount of P1485,250.00 And was released to the provincial teasurer Oscar
Parungao where the project is to be implemented. However,the fund was use to
defray the labor payrolls of the different barangays of porac.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime illega se of public funds.
HELD:
No. Elements 3 and 4 as provide by the ART.220 of the RPC are absent. Based
on the testimony prosecution witness Lacsamana, the CRBI fund Is a general fund.
The internal agreement between the DPWH and the Barangay Captain was not
provided for by law or ordinance.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen