#12. Joemar Ortega vs. People of the Philippines.

GR. 151085 (August 20, 2008)

Facts:
Petitioner was 13 years old when he raped a year old girl This act was committed sometime in 1996. The
lower courts convicted him of rape with criminal and civil liability imposed. During the pendency of
appeal in the Supreme Court, RA 9344 was passed which provided that at the time of the commission of the
crime, a child whose age was 15 years old and below will be exempted from criminal liability.
ISSUE:
Whether criminal liability attaches although there were already convictions in the lower court. Stated
otherwise, whether the retroactive effect of the law is not applicable in the case at bar.
HELD.
NO. Although there is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches. Sec. 15 of RA 9344 exempts a
child below fifteen from criminal liability if at the time of the commission of the crime he is below fifteen
(15) years of age. Upon assessment, the offender will be released to the custody of his parents or be
referred to prevention programs. It is given a retroactive since penal laws which are favourable to the accused
are give retroactive effect(Art 22 of the Revised Penal code) Even if the crime committed is heinous as in this
case rape- criminal liability does not attach. The flaw in the logic of the law should be addressed in Congress
and not in courts. This is to give life to the full intent of the law. Civil liability however, is not extinguished

#14. Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali vs. People of the Philippines
GR 180380 (August 4, 2009)
Facts:
Petitioners inflicted physical injuries to thevictim which caused the latters death. At the time ofthe crime,
Raymund and Rodel were minors 14years old and 16 years old respectively. The lowercourt found them
guilty of homicide. Petitionerselevated the case to the CA and during the pendencyof the appeal, RA 9344
took effect.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners should be exemptedfrom criminal liability.
HELD:
Yes. At the time of the commission of thecrime, petitioners were minors. By provisions of RA9344, they are
exempted from liability but not fromcriminal liability. Their exemption however differs. Inthe case of
Raymund, the case is dismissed as to himsince he was below 15 years old. He is to be releasedand custody is
given to the parents by virtue of RA9344 Secs. 6 and 20 setting the minimum age ofcriminal responsibility
and who will have custodyrespectively. In the case of Rodel, who was 16 yearsold at that time, It is
necessary to determine whetherhe acted with discernment or not. Sec 6 provides thatchildren above 15 but
below 18 will be exempt fromcriminal liability unless he acted with discernment.He, however, should be
subjected to an interventionprogram. Sec 38 provides for the automaticsuspension of sentence.

#14. RAYMUND MADALI AND RODEL MADALI VS PEOPLE

G.R. No. 180380 August 4, 2009
Facts:
For the death of AAA, a minor, Raymund, Rodel and a certain Bernardino Jojo Maestro were
charged before the RTC with the crime of Murder. The three accused, with the assistance of counsel,
pleaded not guilty. On trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses.
Jovencio, an eyewitness of the incident executed an affidavit of his testimony positively identifying
the accused as the perpetrator of the offense. He executed his first affidavit but because of the threat
made on him by a certain Wilson, an uncle of Raymund and Rodel, Jovencio executed a second affidavit,
repudiating his first affidavit. And finally, Jovencio made his third sworn statement substantially reverting
to his first affidavit.
He was presented in the court and stated his version of the incident. The accused interposed the
defense of denial and alibi.
The RTC rendered a guilty verdict against the 3 accused of the crime of homicide with appreciation
of mitigating circumstance of minority. On appeal, the CA affirm the RTC decision with modification. Raymund
is exempted from the liability thereon being 15 years below at the commission of the offense while Rodels
conviction was sustained.
Issue: WON the parties and their witnesses are credible in the case.
Ruling: Affirmative. The testimony of Jovencio was substantiated by the medical findings supported
Jovencios account. Against the damning evidence adduced by the prosecution, petitioners Raymund and Rodel
could only muster mere denial. Unfortunately for them, their defense was much too flaccid to stay firm
against the weighty evidence for the prosecution. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence,
is a negative and self-serving evidence that deserves no weight in law. It cannot be given greater evidentiary
value than the testimony of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.
Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, two elements must concur: (a) the accused was in another place at
the time the crime was committed; and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime
at the time it was committed. In the case under consideration, it was not physically impossible for them to be
at the crime scene and to be participants in the gruesome crime.
Issue: WON the changing testimony in affidavit will affect the witnesss credibility
Ruling: Negative. The affidavit of recantation executed by a witness prior to the trial cannot prevail over the
testimony made during the trial. As held by this Court, an affidavit of recantation, being usually taken ex
parte, would be considered inferior to the testimony given in open court. A recantation is exceedingly
unreliable, inasmuch as it is easily secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for
monetary consideration. Besides, Jovencio explained why he executed the second affidavit or the affidavit
of recantation, which supposedly exonerated petitioners. He had been threatened by a certain Wilson, who
was a relative of petitioners.

#5. Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan GR 103501 17 February 1997

POSTED BY RACHEL CHAN IN CASE DIGESTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Facts: Luis Tabuena as General Manager of MIAA received direct order from Marcos to pay directly to his
office sum of 55mio in cash to pay for MIAAs liability to PNCC. He then received Presidential Memorandum
from Fe Gimenez (secretary). The money was delivered in cash in three withdrawals, no vouchers prepared to
support the disbursement although Gimenez issued a receipt on the third delivery for the entire amount.
Tabuena was accused and convicted of the crime of malversation by Sandiganbayan for defrauding the
government, taking and misappropriating money when there is no outstanding obligation between MIAA and
PNCC. Petitioner contended that he was acting in good faith when the office of the president directed him to
deliver the said amount to his office person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some
lawful purpose.
Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan violated due process on the ground of departing from that common
standard of fairness and impartiality?
Decision: Sandiganbayan decision reversed and set aside. Tabuena and Peralta are acquitted of the crime of
malversation. The majority believes that the interference by the Sandiganbayan Justices was just too
excessive that it cannot be justified under the norm applied to a jury trial, or even under the standard
employed in a non-jury trial where the judge is admittedly given more leeway in propounding questions to
clarify points and to elicit additional relevant evidence.

It is never proper for a judge to discharge the duties of a prosecuting attorney. However anxious a judge may
be for the enforcement of the law, he should always remember that he is as much judge in behalf of the
defendant accused of crime, and whose liberty is in jeopardy, as he is judge in behalf of the state, for the
purpose of safeguarding the interests of society.

#6. People vs. MadarangG.R. No. 132319. May 12, 2000

Ponente: Puno, J.Topic: Insanity/Imbecility: Basis of Exception
FACTS: Fernando Madarang was charged with parricide for killing his wife Lillia Madarang. Here fused to
enter a plea during arraignment, and so was entered as not guilty in accordance to the rules of court. Counsel
for the accused manifested that his client had been observed exhibiting abnormal behavior. Court decided to
transfer accused to the National Center for Mental Health, after refusal to answer any question.
Initial examination at NCMH revealed Fernando as suffering from schizophrenia. He was detained and
medicated at the hospital. He was discharged after 2 years, and recommitted at the provincial jail after being
found fit to face charges.
At the trial, it was established that the accused was legally married to the victim, and their union resulted in 7
children. He worked as a seaman for 16 years, and thereafter started a hardware store business. His venture
failed, and he lost his entire fortune to cock fighting. Fernando, his wife, and the children, were forced to
move in with his mother-in-law ( Avelina Mirador), because he could no longer support his family. Lillia was also
heavily pregnant with their 8th child, and was about to give birth.
On Sept. 3, 1993, Fernando and Lillia had because of jealousy. He was accusing her of infidelity, and in the
heat of the fight, stabbed her in front of the children. The children wereheard shouting and crying, and were
brought out of the house by Avelina Miradors nephew. She mentions seeing the accused emerge from the
house, with a bolo. She declares noobservation of anything peculiar about accused before the event, nor does
she know of anyreason why he killed Lillia, because she never saw the two engage in any argument while
livingwith her. Accused declares no recollection of any relevant events. He was sentenced withpenalty of
reclusion perpetua. Accused appealed, insisting his criminal act was involuntary.
ISSUE: Whether or not evidence adduced by the defense is sufficient to establish appellant sinsanity, which
would be a basis for being free from criminal liability.
HELD: No. Philippine Courts have established a stringent criterion for insanity. To be exempting,it is required
that: (1) there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act;(2) he acted without the
least discernment because there is complete absence of power todiscern; (3) or that there is total deprivation
of will.
Appellant was diagnosed to be suffering from schizophrenia AFTER he killed his wife.Record is also bereft of
even a single account of abnormal or bizarre behavior prior to event.Evidence of insanity after the fact may
be accorded weight only if there is also proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to
commission of crime. Appellantfailed to establish convincing evidence of alleged insanity at the time of killing
his wife.

#8. Criminal Case Digest: People vs Antonio, GR No. 144266, Nov. 27, 2002
People vs Antonio, GR No. 144266, Nov. 27, 2002
FACTS:
1.

On June 16, 1996, the accused-appellant Wilson Antonio, Jr. alias Instik was carrying a gun and went to the
victims house Sergio Mella;

2.

That the accused-appellant was seen by her sister Wife who followed and pleaded to stop him but the latter
ignored her and continued walking towards the house of the victim;

3.

That the accused-appellant kicked open the door to the bedroom where the victim was sleeping with his seven
years old son Kevin Paul Mella;

4.

That the accused-appellant aimed and fire the gun towards the sleeping victim hitting the chest, shoulder and
back that killed the latter;

5.
6.

That the victims son who witnessed the incident was also hit at the left thigh;
Immediately after firing his gun, the accused-appellant left the room eluded the arrest for more than (1)
year or until October 23, 1997.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellants defense of insanity is valid to exempt him from criminal
liability.
RATIONALE:
Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing an act. Mere
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The accused must be so insane as to be
incapable of entertaining criminal intent. He must be deprived of reason and acting without the least
discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of
the will.
HELD:
When insanity is allege to free a person from criminal liability, it must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence which must refer to the time immediately preceding the act or to the moment of its execution which
the defense failed to convince the appellate court. The decision of court a quo finding accused-appellant guilty
of murder qualified by treachery imposing a death penalty was modified considering that there is one
mitigating circumstance of mental illness of the offender.

#9. Michael Padua vs People of the Philippines GR 168546 (July 23,2008)

Facts:
Petitioner, who was then 17 years old, was involved in selling illegal drugs. Initially in his arraignment he
pleaded not guilty but re-entered his plea of guilty to avail the benefits of firs time offenders. Subsequently, he
applied for probation but was denied. In his petition for certiorari, the court said that probation and suspension of
sentence are different and provisions in PD 603 or RA 9344 cannot be invoked to avail probation. It is
specifically stated that in drug trafficking ,application for probation should be denied. As aside issue, the
court discussed the availment of suspension of sentence under RA 9344.
ISSUE
Whether suspension of sentence under RA9344 can still be invoked given the fact that the accused is now 21 years
old.

HELD
NO. The suspension of sentence under Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 could no longer Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344
provides that once a child under 18 years of age is found guilty of the offense charged, instead of pronouncing the judgment
of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence. Section 40 of
Rep. Act No. 9344, however, provides that once the child reaches 18 years of age, the court shall determine
whether to discharge the child, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a certain
specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of 21 years. Petitioner has already reached
21years of age or over and thus, could no longer be considered a child for purposes of applying Rep. Act 9344.
Thus, the application of Sections 38 and40 appears moot and academic as far as his case is concerned.

#4. G.R. No. L-67766 August 14, 1985 ISIDRO T. HILDAWA vs. ENRILE

FACTS:
Petitioners Isidro T. Hildawa and Ricardo C. Valmonte in these Special Civil Action spray that a "preliminary
injunction issue directing respondents to recall the crime busters and restraining them from fielding police
teams or any of this sort with authority/license to kill and after hearing, declaring the order of
respondents fielding crime busters null and void and making the injunction permanent." They
alleged that the formation and fielding of secret marshals and/or crime busters with absolute
authority to kill thieves, hold uppers, robbers, pickpockets and slashers are violative of the
provisions of the New Constitution under Sections 1, 17,19, 20 and 21 of Article III (Bill of Rights).
ISSUE:
Whether or not the creation and deployment of special operations team to counter there surgence of criminality is
violative of the provisions of the Constitution.
HELD:
The Supreme held that there is nothing wrong in the creation and deployment of special
operation teams to counter the resurgence of criminality, as there is nothing wrong in the formation by the
police of special teams/squads to prevent the proliferation of vices, prostitution, drug addiction,
pornography and the like. That is the basic job of the police. It is the alleged use of violence in the
implementation of the objectives of the special squads that the court is concerned about. It is our way of life
that a man is entitled to due process which simply means that before he can be deprived of his life, liberty or
property, he must be given an opportunity to defend himself. Due process of law requires that the
accused must be heard in court of competent jurisdiction, proceeded against under the orderly process of
law, and only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, with an opportunity to be heard, and a
judgment awarded within the authority of a constitutional law.