Title : PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. REYDERICK LAGO, appellant.

Facts : Rosana Capacillo of 80 A.T. Reyes Street, Mandaluyong, Metro

Manila, was one of victim Benjamin Raymundos neighbors. On that fateful
morning of July 24, 1991, around 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., she was waiting
for her husband outside their house. While so engaged, [she] saw a man,
whom she [later] identified as Rainier Lisbog, come out of Raymundos
house. Rosana and this person looked at each other. Later in the evening
when Rosana and her husband came home from work, they learned that
their neighbor, Benjamin Raymundo, had been robbed and killed.

Ramon Bernardo, a refrigeration/aircon technician, testified that in the

morning of July 24, 1991, he went to the house of Benjamin Raymundo to
get a refrigeration gasket. Before reaching the gate of the compound
where Benjamin lived, he met a man whom he described as wearing a ball
cap, white T-shirt, black pants[; was] thin faced, dark skinned, of medium
buil[d] and about 16 to 20 years old. He identified that person in open
court as Jayson Diadid. When he was already inside the compound, he
called out Mang Ben, Mang Ben. A man opened the door and demonstrated
that Benjamin Raymundo was still asleep. In turn, Ramon made a sign
indicating that he [would] be back. A little later at about 9:00 in the
morning, Ramon came back and learned that Benjamin Raymundo had
been robbed and killed. Ramon Bernardo identified the man who made a
sign to him as Rainier Lisbog.

Cozette Aragon, one of appellants co-accused, was called to testify as a

witness during appellants trial. Cozette testified that he was introduced
to Jayson Diadid by a classmate named Dennis Sison. Dennis introduced
Cozette to Jayson because the latter could do whatever had to be done in
the robbery being planned by Cozette. When Jayson and Cozette were
planning the robbery, Jayson asked Cozette if he wanted to have his uncle
killed, to which Cozette replied in the negative as he merely wanted to
rob his uncle.

On the day of the robbery, Cozette, Rainier, Jayson and appellant arrived
together at the house of Benjamin Raymundo. Cozette removed one
jalousie block of a window, through which he was able to unlock the door.
They then entered the house. At first they sat on the sofa. After that,
Cozette pointed out to Jayson the room of his uncle. Jayson saw a wallet
and 3 packs of cigarettes on top of a refrigerator. He took them and
handed them to appellant. When Cozette and Jayson entered Benjamins
room, Rainier acted as a look-out posted by the door while appellant sat
on the sofa, waiting for Cozette and Jayson, just outside Benjamin
Raymundos room. During the robbery, Benjamin was repeatedly stabbed
by Jayson, leading to Benjamins death.
Dr. Alberto Reyes, a medico-legal officer of the NBI, testified that he
performed the autopsy on the cadaver of Benjamin Raymundo. According
to Dr. Reyes, the victim sustained 21 stab wounds, 7 in the front and 14
at the back. The stab wounds affected some vital organs such as the lung,
the liver and the pancreas. He gave the immediate cause of death as
severe hemorrhage resulting from stab wounds

Issue : Appellant raises a single alleged error for our consideration:

The trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Reyderick Lago of

the crime of robbery with homicide despite insufficiency of the evidence
of the prosecution

Ruling : The RTC found appellant a co-conspirator in the robbery with

homicide committed on July 24, 1991. The trial court concluded:

All considered, the quantum of proof required to establish proof beyond

any shadow of doubt is satisfactorily met by the evidence on record and
this Court is morally convinced that Reyderick Lago is equally responsible
for the offense charged.

Title : PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNULFO

ASTORGA, accused-appellant.

Facts : Prosecution witnesses extant from their testimonies categorically

assert that around 6:30 P.M. children of neighbors were near the store of
the grandparents of Yvonne Traya.

Incidentally, there was a brown out that evening hence candle was
used. The daughter and nephew of her aunt Bebeth were quarelling [sic]
about the possession of a flashlight until the glass got lost. Accused or
Boy Astorga, went near and asked her daughter Jane what
happened. Glenda or Bebeth grabbed her baby and went home.

Accused told Yvonne to go with him to buy candy. She did not answer and
accused immediately grabbed and hold [sic] her hand. Accused placed his
hand on her shoulder and covered his [sic] mouth.

Yvonne was only eight (8) years old on 29 December 1991 when she was
brought by the accused allegedly to buy candy. Some stores were closed;
others were opened. Accused never went inside the store to buy
candy. Instead she [sic] held and dragged Yvonne until they went inside
the compound of Maco Elementary School. They were walking inside the
perimeter fence, [while the accused was] holding closely the child. Later,
there being no person around the gate, accused brought her out to the
highway and walked towards the direction of Tagum.

Yvonne stays with her grandparents and so with her parents at Sitio
Binuangan, Maco. She asked him where they were going and accused
answered that they were going home. She told him that they were already
on the opposite direction because her grandparents house is at
Binuangan, while their route was going towards Tagum. Indeed, it was an
opposite direction. Notwithstanding the assertion of Yvonne that they
were on the wrong direction, accused placed his hands on her shoulder
and dragged her. She cried and protested that she must go home. Accused
did not heed her plea and while she was forced to walk she continued
crying.

While accused and Yvonne were walking in the situation as described,

somewhere near the Luponlupon bridge they met some group of
men. Having met on their opposite direction, the two, were noticed by the
group of youngsters. The group were bound to Maco Catholic Church to
see a drama. Having met the two and as noticed by the group accused
keep [sic] on looking back at them. The group were suspicious about the
man who was bringing a child. The group decided to follow them. Accused
hurriedly walked fast with Yvonne, and to prevent from being overtaken,
he carried the victim and ran. They were chased. After a distance of half a
kilometer they were overtaken.

Edwin Fabila declared that Jonathan, one of his companions with others
in chasing, asked the accused where they were bound. He answered
towards Binuangan. The group noticed something suspicious because
their destination was already towards Tagum which is an opposite
direction to Binuangan.

When asked who is the child, accused answered Traya. Jonathan one of
those who chased knew the family. He got from the accused Yvonne who
showed some resistance. Nevertheless, the group brought her home at
Binuangan. Likewise, accused was also brought by them to Yvonnes
home. The house of accused and Yvonne were five (5) meters
away. Accused wanted to talk to the parents of the victim, but he was
driven by her aunt and adviced [sic] to leave otherwise he will be stabbed
by Yvonnes father. He left and never talked with the family.

Issue : The trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the
prosecutions witnesses which were replete with inconsistencies and
contradictions.
The trial court erred in convicting the appellant despite the fact that
Yvonne Traya was not detained, locked-up or deprived of her liberty.
The trial court erred in convicting the appellant despite the fact that
appellant had no motive to kidnap Yvonne Traya.
Ruling : The appeal is partly meritorious. Appellant should be convicted
only of grave coercion, not kidnapping.

Title : PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES … Plaintiff vs JOHN E. KAM Chief,

Health Services Catarman, Northern Samar … Accused

Facts : That whenever the name of accused John E. Kam is mentioned in

this case or in this proceeding, accused John E. Kam admits that he is
the same John E. Kam, the accused in this case;

That during the period material to this case, accused John E. Kam was
the Officer-in-Charge Governor of Northern Samar;

That both parties admit the existence and authenticity of the

Memorandum Receipt for Equipment, Semi-Expandable and Non-
Expandable Property dated December 15, 1987 which is marked as
prosecution’s Exhibit ‘‘C” and defense’s Exhibit “1”

Issue : 1) Whether or not accused John E. Kam, as then Officer-in-Charge

Governor of Northern Samar, had the custody or control of the following
properties by reason of the duties of his office:

a) One (1) unit Smith and Wesson Airweight 38 Cal. SPL CTG with Serial
Number 647608;

b) One (1) unit Bingham Revolver with Serial Number 172478;

c) One (1) Unit Yamaha Motorcycle (DT-100) with Engine No. 229-01085;

2) Whether or not the aforementioned properties were public properties

for which accused John E. Kam was accountable;

3) Whether or not accused took and failed to return the aforementioned

properties
Ruling : in light of the foregoing, judgment is rendered finding accused
John E. Kam GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Malversation of Public Property, as defined and penalized under Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day. He shall further
suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification, and pay a fine of
P18,050.00, as well as the costs of this action. No civil liability is awarded
in view of the full payment of the properties involved.

Title : People vs Salle Case Digest

Facts : Francisco Salle, Jr. and Ricky Mengote were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and each issentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay an indemnity. The appellantsseasonably filed their
Notice of Appeal. On 24 March 1993, the Court accepted the appeal. On 6
January1994, however, appellant Francisco Salle, Jr. filed an Urgent
Motion to Withdraw Appeal. They weregranted a conditional pardon that
with their acceptance of the conditional pardon, the appellants will
bereleased from confinement, the appellants impliedly admitted their
guilt and accepted their sentence,and hence, the appeal should be
dismissed. They were discharged from the New Bilibid Prison on 28
December 1993. Atty. La’o further in
formed the Court that appellant Ricky Mengote left for his
provincewithout consulting her. She then prays that the Court grant
Salle's motion to withdraw his appeal andconsider it withdrawn upon his
acceptance of the conditional pardon. Mengote has not filed a motion
towithdraw his appeal

Issue : Whether or not Mengote’s conditional pardon is valid ?

Ruling : No. Since pardon is given only to one whose conviction is final,
pardon has no effect until theperson withdraws his appeal and thereby
allows his conviction to be final and Mengote has not filed amotion to
withdraw his appeal.

WHEREFORE, counsel for accused-appellant Ricky Mengote y Cuntadois

hereby given thirty (30) days from notice hereof within which to secure
from the latter the withdrawal of his appeal and to submit it to this Court.
The conditional pardon granted the said appellant shall bedeemed to take
effect only upon the grant of such withdrawal. In case of non-compliance
with thisResolution, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections must exert
every possible effort to take back into hiscustody the said appellant, for
which purpose he may seek the assistance of the Philippine
National Police or the National Bureau of Investigation.

Title : PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIVIC

GENOSA, appellant.
Fact : The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the
prosecution’s version of the facts in this wise:

“Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on November 19,

1983 in Ormoc City. Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben in
their house at Isabel, Leyte. For a time, Ben’s younger brother, Alex, and
his wife lived with them too. Sometime in 1995, however, appellant and
Ben rented from Steban Matiga a house at Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte
where they lived with their two children, namely: John Marben and Earl
Pierre.

“On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after
receiving their salary. They each had two (2) bottles of beer before
heading home. Arturo would pass Ben’s house before reaching his. When
they arrived at the house of Ben, he found out that appellant had gone to
Isabel, Leyte to look for him. Ben went inside his house, while Arturo
went to a store across it, waiting until 9:00 in the evening for
the masiao runner to place a bet. Arturo did not see appellant arrive but
on his way home passing the side of the Genosas’ rented house, he heard
her say ‘I won’t hesitate to kill you’ to which Ben replied ‘Why kill me
when I am innocent?’ That was the last time Arturo saw Ben alive. Arturo
also noticed that since then, the Genosas’ rented house appeared
uninhabited and was always closed.

“On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her close friend
and neighbor living about fifty (50) meters from her house, to look after
her pig because she was going to Cebu for a pregnancy check-up.
Appellant likewise asked Erlinda to sell her motorcycle to their neighbor
Ronnie Dayandayan who unfortunately had no money to buy it.

“That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida was waiting
for a bus going to Ormoc when he saw appellant going out of their house
with her two kids in tow, each one carrying a bag, locking the gate and
taking her children to the waiting area where he was. Joseph lived about
fifty (50) meters behind the Genosas’ rented house. Joseph, appellant and
her children rode the same bus to Ormoc. They had no conversation as
Joseph noticed that appellant did not want to talk to him.

“On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told him about
the foul odor emanating from his house being rented by Ben and
appellant. Steban went there to find out the cause of the stench but the
house was locked from the inside. Since he did not have a duplicate key
with him, Steban destroyed the gate padlock with a borrowed steel saw.
He was able to get inside through the kitchen door but only after
destroying a window to reach a hook that locked it. Alone, Steban went
inside the unlocked bedroom where the offensive smell was coming from.
There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben lying on his side on the bed covered
with a blanket. He was only in his briefs with injuries at the back of his
head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the house and sent word to the
mother of Ben about his son’s misfortune. Later that day, Iluminada
Genosa, the mother of Ben, identified the dead body as that of [her] son.

“Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo Acodesin, then
assigned at the police station at Isabel, Leyte, received a report regarding
the foul smell at the Genosas’ rented house. Together with SPO1 Millares,
SPO1 Colon, and Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3 Acodesin proceeded to the
house and went inside the bedroom where they found the dead body of
Ben lying on his side wrapped with a bedsheet. There was blood at the
nape of Ben who only had his briefs on. SPO3 Acodesin found in one
corner at the side of an aparador a metal pipe about two (2) meters from
where Ben was, leaning against a wall. The metal pipe measured three (3)
feet and six (6) inches long with a diameter of one and half (1 1/2) inches.
It had an open end without a stop valve with a red stain at one end. The
bedroom was not in disarray.

“About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because of its
stench, had to be taken outside at the back of the house before the
postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the presence of
the police. A municipal health officer at Isabel, Leyte responsible for
medico-legal cases, Dr. Cerillo found that Ben had been dead for two to
three days and his body was already decomposing. The postmortem
examination of Dr. Cerillo yielded the findings quoted in the Information
for parricide later filed against appellant. She concluded that the cause of
Ben’s death was ‘cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial
hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture of the occipital [bone].’

“Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going home after work
on November 15, 1995, she got worried that her husband who was not
home yet might have gone gambling since it was a payday. With her
cousin Ecel Araño, appellant went to look for Ben at the marketplace and
taverns at Isabel, Leyte but did not find him there. They found Ben drunk
upon their return at the Genosas’ house. Ecel went home despite
appellant’s request for her to sleep in their house.

“Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even

challenging her to a fight. She allegedly ignored him and instead attended
to their children who were doing their homework. Apparently
disappointed with her reaction, Ben switched off the light and, with the
use of a chopping knife, cut the television antenna or wire to keep her
from watching television. According to appellant, Ben was about to attack
her so she ran to the bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and whirled
her around. She fell on the side of the bed and screamed for help. Ben left.
At this point, appellant packed his clothes because she wanted him to
leave. Seeing his packed clothes upon his return home, Ben allegedly flew
into a rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom towards a drawer
holding her by the neck, and told her ‘You might as well be killed so
nobody would nag me.’ Appellant testified that she was aware that there
was a gun inside the drawer but since Ben did not have the key to it, he
got a three-inch long blade cutter from his wallet. She however, ‘smashed’
the arm of Ben with a pipe, causing him to drop the blade and his wallet.
Appellant then ‘smashed’ Ben at his nape with the pipe as he was about to
pick up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter ran inside the bedroom.

“Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband by
shooting him. She supposedly ‘distorted’ the drawer where the gun was
and shot Ben. He did not die on the spot, though, but in the
bedroom.”[7] (Citations omitted)

Issue : Appellant assigns the following alleged errors of the trial court
for this Court’s consideration:

“1. The trial court gravely erred in promulgating an obviously hasty

decision without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-defense.

“2. The trial court gravely erred in finding as a fact that Ben and Marivic
Genosa were legally married and that she was therefore liable for
parricide.

“3. The trial court gravely erred finding the cause of death to be by
beating with a pipe.

“4. The trial court gravely erred in ignoring and disregarding evidence
adduced from impartial and unbiased witnesses that Ben Genosa was a
drunk, a gambler, a womanizer and wife-beater; and further gravely erred
in concluding that Ben Genosa was a battered husband.
“5. The trial court gravely erred in not requiring testimony from the
children of Marivic Genosa.

“6. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that Marivic’s flight to
Manila and her subsequent apologies were indicia of guilt, instead of a
clear attempt to save the life of her unborn child.

“7. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that there was an
aggravating circumstance of treachery.

“8. The trial court gravely erred in refusing to re-evaluate the traditional
elements in determining the existence of self-defense and defense of
foetus in this case, thereby erroneously convicting Marivic Genosa of the
crime of parricide and condemning her to the ultimate penalty of
death.”[13]

In the main, the following are the essential legal issues: (1) whether
appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus; and (2) whether
treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.

Ruling : The appeal is partly meritorious.

Title : KYLE ANTHONY ZABALA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Facts : That on or about the 18th day of June 2007 in San Jose del Monte
City, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to gain and
without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away with
him, one envelope containing cash amounting to SIXTY EIGHT
THOUSAND PESOS (PhP68,000.00) belonging to Randolph V. Alas, to the
damage and prejudice of the said owner in the amount of PhP68,000.00.
Issue : WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER’S CONVICTION BY GIVING FULL WEIGHT
AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES’
TESTIMONIES.cralawred
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING
THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD FAILED TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION.
Ruling : We reverse the findings of the RTC and the CA. We agree with
petitioner, and find that the evidence presented below does not constitute
proof beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient to convict petitioner of theft.
Thus, he must be acquitted.

Title : PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
HERMOGENES DE GUZMAN @ Mong, Accused-Appellant.

Facts : De Guzman was charged with the crime of Murder in the

Information,3 dated November 12, 2002, the accusatory portion of which
reads:

That on or about the 20th day of April, 2002 at around 11:00 o’clock in
the evening, in Brgy. San Francisco, Municipality of Sablayan, Province of
Occidental Mindoro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused being then armed with a sharp bladed
instrument, with intent to kill, with treachery, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said
weapon one Noriel Rosales Urieta, thereby inflicting upon the latter
serious wounds which caused his untimely death.

Issue : The trial court gravely erred in giving full credence to the
inconsistent and doubtful testimony of the prosecution’s eyewitness.

the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of murder despite the eyewitness' failure to
positively identify the former.

the trial court gravely erred in finding that treachery attended the subject
killing.

Ruling : On May 2, 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding that the
prosecution was able to establish with certitude, through the credible
testimony of prosecution witness Flores, that De Guzman stabbed and
killed Urieta on that fateful night of April 20, 2002. The RTC rejected the
unsubstantiated defense of alibi proffered by De Guzman in the face of the
positive identification of Flores pointing him as the perpetrator of the
crime. It held that treachery attended the commission of the crime which
qualified the killing to murder. The RTC adjudged:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused HERMOGENES DE GUZMAN
alias "Mong" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and
with neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance and in line with the
mandate of Republic Act No. 9346, hereby imposes the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua.