ALEJANDRO VS PEOPLE

PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN

HARDEN VS DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

GR NO. L-2349
JULY 12, 1941

FACTS:
Petitioner was confined in prison for contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order
arising from a civil case between him and his wife.

ISSUE:
WON the detention violates the petitioner’s constitutional right against cruel and unusual
punishment?

RULING:
No. the penalty is neither cruel, unjust, or excessive. It is suitable to its objective; and in
accordance with the Sec. 27 Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which provides that when contempt
consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the accused to perform, he may
be imprisoned by order of a superior court until he performs it.

ANG BENG VS COMMISSIONERS OF IMMIGRATION

GR NO. L-9621
JAN 30, 1957

FACTS:
The Chinese petitioners were convicted by the CFI of Manila for violation of the Import Control
Law and were also charged before the deportation board. While the appeal is pending, the said
law expired, and the petitioners’ motion for dismissal was subsequently granted. But the
deportation board through the President still issued an order of deportation.

ISSUE:
WON the deportation is valid when the law defining the crime of which they were convicted had
already expired?

RULING:
Yes. The benefit of retroactivity and liberal construction accrues when penal laws are repealed.
In the case at bar, there was no subsequent repealing of the law that the petitioner could
mention. The law expired on the virtue of its own force.
PEOPLE VS DE LEON
GR NO. 180762
MARCH 4 2009

FACTS:
De Leon, et al. were charged with arson for burning the inhabited house of Rafael Mercado.

ISSUE:
WON the petitioners are criminally liable for arson?

RULING:
Yes. According to Sec. 3 of P.D. 1613 the elements of arson are: (a) there is an intentional burning
and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Although intent may be
an ingredient of the crime, it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused. There is a
presumption that one intends the natural consequences of his act; and when it is shown that one
has deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is not bound to produce further evidence
of his wrongful intent.

PEOPLE V OANIS
GR NO. L-47722
JULY 27, 1943

FACTS:
Oanis and Gallanta were instructed to arrest Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or
alive. They went to the suspected house and there saw a man whose back is against the door
who resembles Balagtas. They then fired at him, not knowing that the person was Tecson, an
innocent man, and not Balagtas.

ISSUE:
WON the accused are justified in killing the victim?

RULING:
No. Although it was held that an officer is justified in using such force as it may be necessary, he
is never justified in using unnecessary force when the arrest could be effected otherwise.

PEOPLE VS GACOGO
FACTS:
Gacogo and the victim had fist blows when the latter started to run away. Gacogo then went
after him and struck him with a fist blow at the back of the head causing the victim to lost his
balance, his head hitting the cement pavement. The victim suffered from cerebral hemorrhage.

ISSUE:
WON Gacogo is liable for the death of the victim?
RULING:
Yes. Because intent to kill is not a defense when the victim die. The best evidence of intent to kill
is the fact that the victim was killed. But the accused will be given the benefit of a mitigating
circumstance of not intending to commit so grave a wrong as that committed, as a consequence
of praeter intentionim because of the notable disparity between the means employed and the
resulting felony.

PEOPLE VS SY PIO
GR NO. L-5848
APRIL 30, 1954

FACTS:
Sy Pio was charged with frustrated murder. The accused held that he should only be guilty of a
less serious physical injury.

ISSUE:
WON the accused must only be charged with less serious physical injury?

RULING:
No. to be a frustrated murder, it is not necessary that all acts are executed, but it is sufficient that
he believes that he committed all the acts, in the case at bar, the accused know that he did not
actually killed the victim when he saw him escaping. Thus, the accused should only be held guilty
of an attempted murder.

PEOPLE V ESPIRITU
GR NO. 2107

FACTS:
The defendants were accused of removing nine pieces of hospital lines from the pile and took
them to their truck where they were caught by a corporal of the MP guards when they tried to
pass through the checkpoint.

ISSUE:
WON the accused were liable for consummated theft?

RULING:
Yes. They were able to take or get hold of the hospital linen and that the only thing that was
frustrated, which does not constitute any element of theft, is the use or benefit that the thieves
expected to derive from the commission of the offense.
PEOPLE VS LAURIO
GR NO. 9535
AUG 9 1991

FACTS:
Brothers Jimmy and Dominador were charged with murder and conspiracy for killing Ely Barculo.

ISSUE:
WON Jimmy is liable for conspiring with his brother to kill the victim?

RULING:
No, conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances attending the commission of the crime,
but like any other ingredient of the offense, it must be established by clear and convincing
evidence. In the case at bar, there was no evidence presented that Jimmy had really conspired
with his brother to kill the victim.

PEOPLE V BARTOLAY
GR NO. 93436

FACTS:
Bartolay was accused of killing Corpuz moments after their heated argument. In addition to the
complaint charged, the accused was found out to be a recidivist, having been convicted of the
crimes ill treatment by deed and grave threats in 1965 and 1968, respectively.

ISSUE:
WON the aggravating circumstance in the case was reiteracion and not reidencia or recidivism?

RULING.
Recidivism. In recidivism, the offender shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced I the same title in the RPC. In the case at bar, Bartolay was previously
convicted for ill treatment by deed and grave threats, both under the same title. While in
reiteracion, the offender commits a crime different in kind from that for which he was previously
convicted.

PEOPLE VS GAYETA
GR NO. 171654

FACTS:
The accused was found guilty as a principal of the special complex crime of robbery with rape
and was sentenced to death. The accused appealed to the SC contending that his guilt wasn’t
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:
WON the accused should be acquitted?
RULING:
No. The following are necessary to convict an offender for the complex crime of robbery with
rape: (a) the taking of the personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is done with animo lucrandi;
and (d) the robbery is accomplished by rape. All of the elements were properly established in the
case at bar.

BAXINELA VS PEOPLE
GR NO 149652
MARCH 24 2006

FACTS:
Baxanela was charged with homicide for killing Lajo. In his defense, he contended that he was
merely acting out of self-defense because Lajo faced him while drawing his gun.

ISSUE:
WON Baxinela is justified in killing Lajo for self-defense?

RULING:
No. In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. The attack must be real or
at least imminent. In the present case, the accused shot Lajo when the he was safely behind the
victim and holding his arm. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor, Lajo being at a
disadvantage.

US VS MATEO

FACTS:
While the accused was sleeping, her sister and brother in-law went home after watching a movie.
Her brother in-law went upstairs first and started feeling in the dark since the room was dark,
believing that her honor was at stake when she felt someone touching her arm, she grabbed a
pair of scissors and stab the man. The accused raised self-defense to be free from criminal
liability.

ISSUE:
WON the accused is criminally liable?

RULING:
Yes, touching the arm could not produce such danger as would really be imminent to the honor
of a woman.
PEOPLE VS RIVERA
GR NO.182347
OCT 7, 2008

FACTS:
Rivera was charged for violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 when he was
caught selling and delivering shabu during a buy-bust operation.

ISSUE:
WON the court erred in convicting the accused despite the failure of the prosecution to
overthrow the presumption of innocence in his favor?

RULING:
No. He was arrested in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation which is a form of entrapment.
In a buy-bust operation, ways and means were employed for the purpose of trapping and
capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan. The idea to commit a crime originates from
the offender, without anybody inducing him to commit the offense.

PEOPLE VS LOPIT
GR NO 177742
DEC 17, 2008

FACTS:
The accused was charged of raping his 14-year-old daughter and was sentenced to death. He
then pleaded guilty for a possible reduction of penalty.

ISSUE:
WON the accused is entitled to a lesser penalty because of his admission of guilt?

RULING:
No. Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure was not complied with. The trial court
should have taken the necessary measures to see to it that the accused really and freely
understood the consequences of his plea of guilt. The court likewise failed to explain to him that
the penalty attended by the qualifying circumstance of minority and filiation, is death, whether
he pleads guilty or not and regardless of other mitigating circumstance.

PEOPLE VS COLLADO, ET AL.

GR NO 88631
APRIL 30, 1991

FACTS:
The accused were charged of robbery with homicide for stealing the victim’s, who is an old
woman 5,570 pesos and a Seiko watch worth 500 pesos.
ISSUE;
WON the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age and sex is present:

RULING:
No. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of age and sex may be taken into account only in
crimes against persons or honor and not against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a
crime against property, the latter being a mere incident of the former.

PEOPLE VS HERMOSILLA
GR NO L-58414
JAN 24, 1983

FACTS:
Hermosilla and several others, including Macario Plone Sr, were accused of killing Leopoldo
Lagradilla because of the victim’s altercation with the former’s sister, who is also the wife of one
of the accused. Macario Plone Sr. was given death penalty because he is a recidivist.

ISSUE:
WON the penalty is proper?

RULING:
No. Recidivism is not alleged in the information. To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the
same in the information and to attach thereto certified copies of the sentences rendered against
the accused to be presented in the trial. The same should actually be submitted as evidence with
the knowledge of the accused.

PEOPLE VS VIOLIN
GR NO 114003-06
JAN 14, 1997

FACTS:
Violin and his two other companion were convicted for murder and frustrated murder of
Dioscoro Astoraga Jr. and Darmo Astoraga. The killing was said to be politically motivated
because the accused were avid supporters of the Dioscoro Astoraga Jr.’s rival for the mayoral
race.

ISSUE:
WON the killing was attended by treachery?

RULING:
Yes. The victim was not afforded the opportunity to defend himself while assailants themselves
ensured that the crime would be consummated with the least risks to their persons. The three
conspirators pounced upon the victim as soon as he stepped out of the house, and the latter had
no inkling at all that he would be assaulted. And when treachery qualifies the crime of murder,
the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength absorbed in the former.

PEOPLE VS ELLADO
GR NO 124684
MARCH 5, 2001

FACTS:
Appellant was convicted of murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for killing Rogelio Morillo because of a disagreement. In his defense, the appellant contended
that it was only Bakunawa, his co-accused, who actually killed the victim, and his presence in the
crime scene is just a coincidence.

ISSUE:
WON the appellant’s defense is proper?

RULING:
No. the acts of the appellant indicates that he and Bakunawa had planned the attack in a manner
that would catch the victim unaware. Their move initially was in the guise of a conciliatory
overture. Even if it was only Bakunawa who had inflicted the fatal wound, liability also exists on
his part notwithstanding non-participation in every detail in the execution of the crime. An
unexpected attack which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason
of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitute aleviosa.

PEOPLE VS BELGAR
GR NO 92155
MARCH 11. 1991

FACTS;
The accused, a young man who is a habitual drug addict, was charged of raping a mentally
retarded 12-year-old girl. The defense contended that the accused deserves compassion for
being an abandoned child which resulted to him using drugs which prompted the crime.

ISSUE:
WON the defense presented is valid?

RULING:
No. His drug addiction should not be an excuse to commit rape. And According to Sec. 17 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, when a crime is committed by an offender who is under the
influence of dangerous drugs, such will be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
the definition of the crime and application of the penalty provided in the RPC.
PEOPLE VS ILAGAN
GR NO L-25796
JAN 29, 1974

FACTS:
The accused while drinking beer inside a bar had an argument with the manager whom he
threatened with a gun. When charged with illegal possession of firearms, his defense was he had
no animus possidendi since he was just carrying the gun home to his wife from the place where
it was supposed to have been repaired.

ISSUE:
WON the accused should be acquitted because of his lack of animus possindendi?

RULING:
No, absence of animus possidendi becomes absolutely unavailing in the face of his belief and
contention, vehemently urged for acceptance, that with his filing of an application to possess the
firearm in question he could not be held guilty of illegal possession thereof.

PEOPLE VS AGAPINAY
GR NO 77776
JUNE 27, 1990

FACTS:
Romeo, Alex, Fortunato, Dante, Delfin and Cirilo, all surnamed Agapinay, were charged of murder
for killing Virgilio Piano. The trial court held all of them as “all principals by participartion.”

ISSUE:
WON all of them are principals by participation?

RULING:
No. It is only Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunato that should be held liable as principals. Romeo is guilty
by direct participation, while Delfin and Fortunato are liable as principals by cooperation. In
holding the victim by his arms, both allowed Romeo to inflict upon him stab wounds. Alex, Dante
and Cirilo are simple accomplices for their acts of petting the victim with rocks. Since the
deceased had already sustained two stab wounds, the act of hurling rocks at him was not
indispensable to justify holding them legally liable as principals.

PEOPLE VS BUENAFLOR
GR NO 93752
JULY 15, 1992

FACTS:
The accused was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for raping a girl. The
defendant testified that he was “a little bit drunk” when he committed the crime.
ISSUE:
WON intoxication can be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the case at bar?

RULING:
No. Intoxication can either be a mitigating or aggravating circumstance depending on the
circumstances of the crime. The person pleading intoxication must present proof that he had
taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to blur his
reason. It must not also be habitual and not intended to fortify his resolve to commit a crime.
However, in the present case, no record was shown that the appellant had taken an alcoholic
beverage prior to raping the victim.