Crim 2 Digests.

84. People v Ramos

Facts:
Alicia Abanilla, struggling to break away from the arms of a man known later to be accused-appellant
Benedicto Ramos y Binuya alias Bennie. Mrs. Abanilla was apparently being held hostage by a man who
was demanding ransom for her release. Ramos was able to get P200,000 as a ransom money and
proceeded to strangle Alicia to death. After trial, the court a quo convicted Ramos of two (2) separate crimes
- kidnapping for ransom and murder - instead of the complex crime charged in the Information. It held that
there was no proof that the victim was kidnapped for the purpose of killing her so as to make the offense a
complex crime.

Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in finding him guilty of the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and
murder

Ruling:
Yes. Considering the evidence extant on record, we agree with the trial court that victim Alicia Abanilla was
indeed kidnapped for ransom and then murdered by accused-appellant. But the kidnapping for ransom and
murder should not be treated as separate crimes for which two (2) death penalties must as a consequence
be imposed. Instead, under Art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 7659, accused-
appellant should be convicted of the special complex crime of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH
MURDER and impose upon him the maximum penalty of DEATH.

85. People v Ty

Facts:
Vicente Ty and Carmen Ty were charged with the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor. n
November 1987, Johanna Sombong brought her seven-month old daughter, Arabella, to Sir John Medical
and Maternity Clinic owned and operated by the accused-appellants. She could not pay the bills so she left
her daughter there but she was being charged P50.00 each day. After five years, Sombong came back to
claim her daughter. hen, a criminal case was filed against accused-appellants and an administrative case
was filed against Dr. Carmen Ty before the Board of Medicine of PRC

Issue: Whether or not the accused appellants are guilty of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor?

Ruling:
No, the Court ruled that before a conviction for kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of
the Revised Penal Code can be had, two elements must concur, namely: (a) the offender has been
entrusted with the custody of the minor, and (b) the offender deliberately fails to restore said minor to his
parents or guardians. The essential element herein is that the offender is entrusted with the custody of the
minor but what is actually punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor, as the title of the article seems to
indicate, but rather the deliberate failure or refusal of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians.
The said failure or refusal must not only be deliberate but must also be persistent as to oblige the parents
or the guardians of the child to seek the aid of the courts in order to obtain custody. The word deliberate as
used in the article must imply something more than mere negligence; it must be premeditated, obstinate,
headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong. In the case at bar, it is evident that there
was no deliberate refusal or failure on the part of the accused-appellants to restore the custody of the
complainants child to her.
86. Lamera v CA

Facts:
n owner type jeepney, driven by petitioner, hit a tricycle resulting to the damage of the tricycle, and physical
injuries to the passengers of the said tricycle. Two informations were filed against petitioner. First is reckless
imprudence resulting to damage to property and physical injuries under Article 365 of the Revised penal
Code and second, abandonment of ones victim under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The second
information was filed because the petitioner, instead of giving assistance to the victims, fled and left them.
He invoked his right against double jeopardy saying that his conviction of reckless imprudence resulting to
damage to property and multiple physical injuries is a bar for the prosecution to charge him with the crime
of abandonment of ones victim.

Issue: Whether or not there be a valid charge for alleged abandonment under Article 275, par. 2 of the
Revised Penal Code which provides as basis for prosecution

Ruling:
No. There is no double jeopardy, because these two offenses are not identical. Reckless imprudence is a
crime falling under the chapter on criminal negligence, while abandonment of ones victim is a crime falling
under the chapter on crimes against security. The former is committed by means of culpa, while the latter
is committed by means of dolo. Failure to help ones victim is not an offense by itself nor an element of
reckless imprudence. It merely Increases the penalty by one degree.

87. People v Tumbol

Facts:
The accused together with Rufino Flores, the husband of the complaining witness Francisca Garcia went
to the latters house where he was introduced by Flores to his wife, Francisca.hen they were alone, asked
her if her husband was a member of the Huks and she replied that he was not. The accused insisted that
he was and at the same time came near her with intention of kissing her. Francisca pushed him and he
threatened her that he will kill her husband if she refused. He tried to lift her skirt and touch her private parts
but she ran to the door wherein the accused held her hands and threw her to the door. He then again tried
to kiss her and embrace her.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of grave threats.

Ruling:
No.Threats were not made by the accused to Rufino Flores, but to his wife Fracisca Garcia while he was
abusing her and that such threats form part of the element of intimidation that appellant employed to
succeed in his lewd designs. Said threats, therefore, cannot be considered separate and independent from
the crime of abuse against chastity to constitute another crime of threats. Since the accused was convicted
for the crime of lasciviousness, he is then acquitted of the crime of threats for it formed part of the
intimidation exerted upon the offended party during the perpetration of the crime of lasciviousness.

88. Reyes v People

Facts:
Rosauro Reyes, was a former civilian employee of the Navy Exchange, Sangley Point, Cavite City. he led
a group of about 20 to 30 persons in a demonstration staged in front of the main gate of the United States
Naval Station at Sangley Point. The three jeeps carrying the demonstrators parked in front of Hallare's
residence after having gone by it twice Rosauro Reyes got off his jeep and posted himself at the gate, and
with his right hand inside his pocket and his left holding the gate-door, he shouted repeatedly, "Agustin,
putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita."

Issue: Whether or not in affirming the proceedings in the lower court allowing the substantial amendment
of the information for grave threats after petitioner had been arraigned on the original information.

Ruling:
After a careful consideration of the original information, we find that all the elements of the crime of grave
threats as defined in Article 282 1 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized by its paragraph 2 were alleged
therein namely: (1) that the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of a
wrong; (2) that such wrong amounted to a crime; and (3) that the threat was not subject to a condition.

89. Timoner v People

Facts:
Jose Timoner, the petitioner, was convicted by the Municipal Court of Daet with the crime of Grave
Coercion, as penalized under Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. Timoner, then mayor, wanted to close
among other structures that were along the sidewalk, the barbershop of Dayaon and store of Rabustillos.
Timoner filed a complaint in the CFI of Camarines Norte against Rebustillos and others for judicial
abatement of their stalls, alleged that the stalls constituted public nuisances as well as per se.

Issue: Whether or not Timoner committed Grave Coercion.

Ruling:
No. e did not commit Grave Coercon as the elements of Grave Coercion required that he acted not under
the authority of the law. As the then Mayor of the City, Timoner had the authority to act on behalf of the
recommendation and his constituents right to public order and safety, and that such stalls along the
sidewalk affected the community and general public, as it is in a public place, and was annoying to all who
come within its sphere.

90. Dee vs Ca

Facts:

the petitioner confronted the complainant about a forged Midland National Bank Cashier Check No.
3526794, which the latter allegedly deposited in the account of Honorio Carpio. During the said
confrontation, the petitioner Francis Lee was shouting at her with piercing looks and threatened to file
charges against her unless and until she returned all the money. Accordingly, the complainant was caused
to sign a prepared withdrawal slip, and later, an affidavit prepared by the bank's lawyer, where she was
made to admit that she had swindled the bank and had return the money equivalent of the spurious check.

Issue: whether or not the acts of petitioner in simply "shouting at the complainant with piercing looks" and
"threats to file charges against her" are sufficient to convict him of the crime of grave coercion.

Ruling:
No. In the light of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner's demand that the private respondent return the
proceeds of the check accompanied by a threat to file criminal charges was not improper. There is nothing
unlawful on the threat to sue. The allegation that she did so because of petitioner's threats came from the
complainant herself. She has not been able to present any other witness to buttress her claim. coercion did
not exist in this case. Consequently, the petitioner should be acquitted. ACCORDINGLY, the decision
appealed from is hereby REVERSED and a new one hereby entered ACQUITTING the accused of the
crime of grave coercion.

91. People v Reyes

Facts:
While the pabasa was going on the evening of April 10, 1933, between 11 and 12 o'clock, the defendants
Procopio Reyes, Policarpio Nacana, Florentino Clemente, Hermogenes Mallari, Marcelino Mallari, Castor
Alipio, and Rufino Matias arrived at the place, carrying bolos and crowbars, and started to construct a
barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. Alfonso Castillo, who was chairman of the committee in charge of
the pabasa, tried to persuade them to refrain from carrying out their plan, by reminding them of the fact that
it was Holy Week and that it was highly improper to construct a fence at that time of the evening. A verbal
altercation ensued.

Issue: Whether the defendants are guilty of unjust vexation.

Ruling:

YES

It is urged upon us that the act of building a fence was innocent and was simply to protect private property
rights. The fact that this argument is a pretense only is clearly shown by the circumstances under which the
fence was constructed, namely, late at night and in such a way as to vex and annoy the parties who had
gathered to celebrate the pabasa and is further shown by the fact that many of the appellants saw fit to
introduce as their defense a false alibi.

Appellants are therefore acquitted of a violation of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code but found guilty
of a violation of article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.

92. People v Anonuevo

Facts:

Rosita Tabia, 16 years old, was attending a religious service at a church. She alleged that during the
service, Teodulo Anonuevo approached her from behind, forcibly embraced her, kissed her left cheek, and
held her breasts. She rebuked him in a low voice and struggled to break free. He then tried to drag her out,
but having failed, he decided to leave. Rosita Tabia reported the incident to her parents, who then notified
the police. She also presented a witness who saw the events that transpired. CFI convicted him of abusos
deshonestos (abuse against chastity).

Issue: WON his crime was abusos deshonestos.

Ruling:

No. His crime was unjust vexation. Anonuevo declared guilty of unjust vexation with aggravating
circumstance of committed in a place of religious worship. Under Article 287 of the RPC, sentenced to
imprisonment for one month and a fine of two hundred pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency. Because of the religious atmosphere and the presence of people in this case, it would be error,
in the absence of proof of motive, to ascribe his actions to lust.
The view should be taken that he instead intended to show an act of bravado against Ibarbia, or to force
Rosita to accept him as a lover.
93. Napolis v CA

Facts:
accused Nicanor Napolis and some other men conspired and armed with Grease Gun, pistols and
revolvers, assaulted and hit Ignacio with the gun causing him to fall on the ground and rendering him
unconscious, he tied Igancio's hands and feet and then leave him. Then the accused approached Casimira,
threatened her at gun point and demanded money. He tied the hands of Mrs Penaflor and her two sons.
Nicanor searched and ransacked the place and carried away cash and articles belonging to the said
spouse.

Issue: Whether or not it is a crime of robbery.

Ruling:
HELD:
CA affirmed the decision of the conviction of Napolis for the crime of robbery committed by armed persons,
in an uninhabited house, as provided in Article 299 (a). In addition, however, to performing said acts, the
malefactors had, also, used violence against Ignacio Peaflor , and intimidation against his wife, thereby
infringing Article 294 of the same Code, under conditions falling under sub-paragraph (5) of said article,
which prescribes the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period, which is lighter than that prescribed in said Article 299, although, factually, the crime committed is
more serious than that covered by the latter provision.