LADONGA VS PEOPLE

Evangeline Ladonga vs. People of the Philippines

GR no. 141066, February 17, 2005

Facts:

In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga, petitioner, became the regular
customer of Alfredo Oculam in his pawnshop. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses
obtained a loan from him, guaranteed by check of United Coconut Planters Bank, issued by
Adronico. On last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990 the spouses
obtained additional loan guaranteed by UCPD. And between May and June 1990, the spouses
obtained the third loan guaranteed by UCPD. The three checks bounced upon presentment for
the reason that the account was closed. When the spouses failed to redeem the check, despite
repeated demands, Oculam filed a criminal complaint against them.
While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because there was no
sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the spouses claim that the checks were issued
only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks
when they mature, and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no
participation in the issuance thereof.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner, who was not the issuer of the three checks that bounced,
could be held liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator.

Ruling:

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a conspiracy exist when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
To be held liable guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to
have perform an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.
It was not proven by direct evidence; petitioner was merely present at the time of the
issuance of the checks. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with
the criminal design. Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and
conclusive evidence.

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Pugay

No. L-74324 17November1988

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
murder of Bayani Miranda and sentencing them to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prison mayor)
as mimimum to 20 years (prison temporal) as maximum and for samson to be sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.

Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they used to
sleep together. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario
Cavite. Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived (they
were drunk), and they started making fun of Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the Bayani,
took a can of gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not
to do the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. They were arrested
the same night and barely a few hours after the incident gave their written statements.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime? If not what are the criminal
responsibilities of the accused?

There is no:
CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit
it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more
specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the
existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of
the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.
Since there was no animosity between miranda and the accused, and add to the that that the meeting
at the scene of the incident was purely coincidental, and the main intent of the accused is to make fun
of miranda.
Since there is no conspiracy that was proven, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and
Samson arising from different acts directed against miranda is individual NOT collective and each of
them is liable only for the act that was committed by him.

**Conspiracy may be implied from concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim.

Criminal Responsibilities:
PUGAY: Having failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising
from any act committed by his companions who at the same time were making fun of the deceased. -
GUILTY OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE

SAMSON:Since there are NO sufficient evidence that appears in the record establishing qualifying
circumstances (treachery, conspiracy). And granted the mitigating circumstance that he never
INTENDED to commit so grave a wrong. - GUILTY OF HOMICIDE

HELD:
JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. JUDGEMENT FOR GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR MURDER WAS LOWERED TO THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS.

PEOPLE vs. OANIS

June 19, 2012 Leave a comment

People vs. Oanis

July 27, 1943 (74 Phil 257)

PARTIES:

Plaintiff and appellee: People of the Philippines

Defendants and appellant: Antonio Oanis, Alberto Galanta

FACTS:

Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal and escaped convict,

Anselmo Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They went to the suspected house then

proceeded to the room where they saw the supposedly Balagtas sleeping with his back towards the door.

Oanis and Galanta simultaneously or successively fired at him which resulted to the victims death. The

supposedly Balagtas turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man.

ISSUE:

1. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of

their official duties.

2. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the performance of their duty.

HELD:
1. No. Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. Ignorance facti excusat applies only

when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. The fact that the supposedly suspect was

sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked whether it is the real Balagtas.

2. No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the

fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are 2 requisites to justify this: (1)

the offender acted in teh perfomance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, (2) that the

injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the

lawful exercise of such right or office. In this case, only the first requisite is present.