Acc Accessibility links

Skip to main contentAccessibility help

Accessibility feedback

people vs atop

Search modes
All

Images

Videos

News

Shopping

More

SettingsTools

About 20,400,000 results (0.49 seconds)

Search Results
Web results

People vs Atop : 124303-05 : February 10, 1998 : J ...

www.chanrobles.com › ... › Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

1.
Feb 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO ATOP @ ALI,
Accused-Appellant. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death, holding that his common-law
 relationship with the victims grandmother aggravated the penalty. ... On the other hand, relationship
as an alternative aggravating circumstance under Art.

People v Atop | Rape | Common Law - Scribd

https://www.scribd.com › document › People-v-Atop

1.
2.
Aug 6, 2015 - G.R. 124303-05 | Feb. 10, 1998 | J. Panganiban. ... told her grandmother but Trinidad
wouldnt believe her. ... Since he is only a common-law husband, Court said nope.

Case 2_ People v. Atop (Pu).docx | Rape | Statutory ... - Scribd

https://www.scribd.com › document › Case-2-People-v-Atop-Pu-docx

1.
Case 2_ People v. Atop (Pu).docx - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf),
Text File (.txt) or view presentation slides online.

Peopl vs Atop Digest - University of the Philippines COLLEGE ...

 https://www.coursehero.com › ... › LAW › LAW 101

1.
G.R. No. 124303-05 | 10 FEBRUARY 1998 Case Name PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO “ALI” ATOP, accused-appellant.

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO ATOP - Lawyerly

lawyerly.ph › juris › view

1.
Feb 10, 1998 - The trial court sentenced the appellant to death, holding that his common-law
relationship with the victim's grandmother aggravated the penalty.

Atop | Definition of Atop by Merriam-Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › atop

1.
2.
Sep 23, 2019 - Atop definition is - on, to, or at the top. How to use atop in a sentence. ... Preposition
The house sits atop a cliff overlooking the ocean. .... How to use a word that (literally) drives
some people nuts. ... r · s · t · u · v · w · x · y · z · 0-9.
 Trial of Michael Jackson - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Trial_of_Michael_Jackson

1.
2.
People v. Jackson was a 2005 criminal trial held in Santa Barbara County Superior Court in ......
"Michael Jackson dances atop SUV". UPI.com. January 16, 2004.

Court: Santa Barbara County Superior Court

Judge(s) sitting: Rodney Melville

Verdict: Michael Jackson found not guilty on all ...

Atop | Definition of Atop at Dictionary.com

https://www.dictionary.com › browse › atop

1.
Jasarevic noted social mobilization—whether done on Twitter or atop a soapbox—is only a part of
the solution. Ebola Tweets Are Missing the Target|Kevin ...

How East Germans Spent Free Money After the Berlin Wall ...
 https://time.com › berlin-wall-east-germans-money

1.
Oct 31, 2019 - Crowds atop the Berlin Wall on the morning after it fell, Nov. ... rapprochement, the
measure was intended to help the few people who did manage to depart the G.D.R., .... He thinks
back to his debut game in February 1990 vs.

Analyzing Linux server performance with atop | Enable ...

https://www.redhat.com › sysadmin › analyzing-linux-server-performance-...

1.
Oct 15, 2019 - The atop command displays you a more anatomized view of your ... atop -v, Launch
with various info (e.g., PPID, user, or time). ... After reading this article, I hope more people will also
add or continue to use atop as one of ...

Page navigation

12345678910Next

Footer links

Philippines
1008, Manila, Metro Manila - Based on your past activity - Use precise location - Learn more

HelpSend feedbackPrivacyTerms

essibility links
Skip to main contentAccessibility help
Accessibility feedback

people v man

Search modes
All

News

Images

Videos

Shopping

More

SettingsTools

About 521,000 results (0.50 seconds)

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
The Trial Court found Martin Mandolado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of murder. The aggravating circumstances of (1) 'advantage was
taken of his being a draftee in the Philippine Army,' and (2) 'abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness' without the presence of any
mitigating circumstances.

Digest People vs. Mandolado - Art 14 Paragraph 4 People vs ...

https://www.coursehero.com › file › Digest-People-vs-Mandolado

 Feedback

About Featured Snippets

Web results

G.R. No. L-51304-05 - Lawphil

https://www.lawphil.net › juri1983 › jun1983 › gr_l_51304_05_1983

1.
Jun 28, 1983 - In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that
"there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and one against whom the
crime was committed and the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the crime."
(People vs. Comendador, 100 SCRA 155, 172).

Digest People vs. Mandolado - Art 14 Paragraph 4 People vs ...

https://www.coursehero.com › ... › COLLEGE OF › COLLEGE OF LLB101

1.
The Trial Court found Martin Mandolado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
The aggravating circumstances of (1) 'advantage was taken of his being a draftee in the Philippine
Army,' and (2) 'abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness' without the presence of any
mitigating circumstances.
 People vs. Mandolado | Burden Of Proof (Law) | Deviance ...

https://www.scribd.com › document › People-vs-Mandolado

1.
Nov 26, 2014 - People vs. Mandolado - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf),
Text ... Comendador, in order for abuse of confidence to be

Crim1 Digest | Robbery | Victimology - Scribd

https://www.scribd.com › document › Crim1-Digest

1.
Sep 13, 2017 - aggravating circumstance. SOMBILON v. PEOPLE PEOPLE v. ... There is nothing to
show that appellant Mandolado took advantage of his being a ... In order that abuse of
confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary ...

(PDF) CRIMINAL LAW Green Notes | Ralph John Valdez ...

https://www.academia.edu › CRIMINAL_LAW_Green_Notes
 People, G.R. No. circumstances are circumstances are 181409, February 11, 2010). taken into ....
as the true motive of The general criminal intent (malice) is the conduct (People vs.
...... Mandolado, such condition (passion or G.R. No. ...... However, the crime the accused
was abuse of confidence under paragraph 1(b).

You visited this page on 11/20/19.

Aggravating Circumstance - DOKUMEN.TIPS

https://dokumen.tips › Documents

1.
Oct 13, 2015 - Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 475 (2000) - People v. ... Lapaz, 171 SCRA 539
(1989)- ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS People v. ... Mandolado,
123 SCRA 128 (1983)- CRIME IN PALACE OR IN ...

1A Criminal Law 1 Assignment... - San Beda University ...

https://www.facebook.com › sbccollegeoflaw › posts

1.
People v. Echagaray, G.R. No. 117472, 7 February 1997, 267 SCRA 682. Corpuz v. People, G.R.
No. 180016 .... Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness. People v. Mandolado, L-51304-
05, 28 June 1983, 123 SCRA 133 6. The crime is ...
 People v. Maldonado | New York Law Journal - Law.com

https://www.law.com › newyorklawjournal › almID

Apr 2, 2019 - Election Law Which Prohibits 'Electioneering' Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague.

Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc, 22 Cal.App.5th 1308 ...

https://casetext.com › ... › 2018 › April › Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc.

1.
Apr 18, 2018 - Read the full text of Maldonado v. ... not agree with the AWS, he could leave at any
time, as there were a lot of people outside who wanted work.

People v Maldonado :: 2017 :: New York Court of Appeals ...

https://law.justia.com › cases › new-york › court-of-appeals

1.
Feb 16, 2017 - People v Maldonado 2017 NY Slip Op 01254 Decided on February 16, 2017 Court
of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting ...

Missing: abuse confidence

Searches related to people v mandolado abuse of confidence

l-30449
gr no l 34497
Page navigation

12345678910Next

Footer links

Philippines
1008, Manila, Metro Manila - Based on your past activity - Use precise location - Learn more

HelpSend feedbackPrivacyTerms

Search Results
Web results

People vs Nunag

Rape case of five men on a girl with the girl identifying 3 of the men. All five are still convicted of rape since the two
showed indispensable cooperation.

People vs Dela Cerna

Murder of father and son with the killing the son as wasn't part of the plan. Serapio acted alone in killing the son.

People vs Doria

Marijuana entrapment case. There was no evidence of participation of Gaddao because she wasn't commiting,
planning to commit, nor committed any offense.

Those who force or induce others to commit

People vs Yamson

Jeanette was swindled of fake gold bars but there was no proof that she forced or induced the abduction and killing
of the victims.

People vs Bolivar

There was no sufficient evidence to convict Barrion of inducing Canaguran to kill Callao and no evidence was
presented to show that Barrion had moral ascendancy/dominance over Canaguran that the latter would be induced
to kill.

People vs Ong Chiat Lay

The two companions of Ong Chiat Lay are acquitted of arson but Ong Chiat was found guilty. Since it was claimed
that there was conspiracy, the acquittal of one means acquittal of all.

People vs Dela Cruz

Kidnapping. The inducer need not take part in the commission of the offense, one who induces another to commit a
crime is guilty as principal even though he might have taken no part in its material execution.

People vs Indanan

Indanan was the headman of Parang. He ordered his men to kill Sariol claiming that such order was from the
governor. His men committed a crime because of his command.

People vs Kiichi Omine

One who said "stab him!" is not guilty of inducement because inducement must precede the criminal act.

Indispensable cooperation

People vs Maluenda

Legarto’s participation as a co-principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime is not proven and he is merely an
accessory. His acts such as delivery of ransom money were limited after the abduction was already consummated.
People vs Montealegre

Montealgre did not himself commit the act of stabbing but he is equally guilty for having prevented the victim from
resisting the attack against him.

People vs Eguia

A conspiracy existed between Eguia and Reyes for the withdrawal of funds of the former. Eguia had no funds at all
during that time.

Accomplices

People vs Mandolado

An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offence by previous or simultaneous acts, provided he has no
direct participation in its execution or does not force or induce other to commit it, or his cooperation is not
indispensable. Ortilliano only fired his gun every time Mandolado fired his.

People vs Doble

The owner of the banca is convicted as accomplices since they did not participate in the bank robbery and killing
per se.

People vs Doctolero

The two appellants were standing in the room ready to lend assistance to their brother who is killing the two women
and injuring a child.

People vs Elijorde
 G.R. No. L-30028 - LawPhil

https://www.lawphil.net › juri1982 › may1982 › gr_l_30028_1982

1.
No. L-30028. CRESENCIO DOBLE, ET AL defendants, CRESENCIO DOBLE,
SIMEON DOBLE and ANTONIO ROMAQUIN, defendants-appellants. This case refers to a bank
robbery committed in band, with multiple homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon
agents of persons in authority, on June 14, 1966, in Navotas, Rizal.

Missing: 3002 | Must include: 3002

G.R. No. L-41312 - LawPhil

https://www.lawphil.net › judjuris › juri1977 › jul1977

1.
SUPREME COURT Manila. SECOND DIVISION. G.R. No. L-41312 July 29, 1977.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,. vs. VICENTE C.

Missing: Doble, 3002

People v Doble | Accomplice | Conspiracy (Criminal) - Scribd

 https://www.scribd.com › document › People-v-Doble

1.
Nov 14, 2016 - G.R. No. L-30028 May 3l, 1982. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. CRESENCIO DOBLE, ET AL defendants, ...

Missing: 3002 | Must include: 3002

same can be predicated on the sources of obligations other than

delict

https://www.scribd.com › Documents › Politics & Current Affairs › Politics

1.
In support of his position, said counsel invoked the ruling of CA in People v. Castillo and ... G.R.
No. L-31665 August 6, 1975 LEONARDO ALMEDA, vs. HON.

Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the ... ...

https://books.google.com.ph › books

United States. Congress - 1919 - Law

 -—bl'l)l1_p;1)widlng tor universal transters on (see hill 11. R. a ' 51,11“; ... 3002). biggégl; extension
01' Massachusetts Avenue (sec bill 11. R. —~-— bill ... See People lint/m Sravlcn. ... DOBLE,
ALVAII IL, correct military record (sec blll ll. ... 'V. \'A., donate captured cannon to (see blll DODDS,
LILLIAN S., pension (see blll II.

PEOPLE VS. TUAZON- G.R. NO. 175783 - Philippine . - Digest

https://www.digest.ph › decisions › people-vs-tuazon-5

1.
Sep 3, 2007 - 01799 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Bernardo Tuazon y Nicolas," affirming the
Decision dated 14 October 2002 of the Regional Trial ...

Images for People v. Doble, L-3002

 View all

More images for People v. Doble, L-3002Report images

Web results
[PDF]

Untitled - ndrrmc

www.ndrrmc.gov.ph › attachments › article

Dec 26, 2013 - families in Regions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, and CARAGA coming from
DSWD. (PhP867 ... As of 21 December 2013, a total of 3,344,110 food/rice packs, 532,286L of
water, ...... 1 Doble, Ernesto. Brgy. ...... 3,002. 4,157. Talalora. 248. 1,314. 1,562. Zumarraga. 304.
1,508 ...... People in Leed NGO.

[PDF]

Untitled - ndrrmc

www.ndrrmc.gov.ph › attachments › article

Nov 24, 2013 - families in Regions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, and CARAGA coming from ...... 1
Macajito, Adriano L. 49 M ...... 1 Doble, Ernesto ...... 3,002. 4,157. Talalora. 248. 1,314. 1,562.
Catbalogan City. 119. 921 ...... Good People Intl.

[PDF]

Food, Nutrition and Agriculture - FAO

www.fao.org › ...

l'alimentation et de la nutrition, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, .... involved in the
process of providing food to nourish the world's people - at the ...... nismosnacionales y
submcionale~, V laasistenda dentffica y .tecnica: ...... estar mecanografiados a doble espacio. .....
Barquisimeto C.P. 3002, Ed. Lara. Tel.
Page navigation

12345678910Next

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
Mendiola, Manila

CRIMINAL LAW I

Prescribed textbook/s:
1. Revised Penal Code Book I by Luis B. Reyes and/or
2. Commentaries on Criminal Law Book I by Atty. Maximo P. Amurao Jr.

NB: Closed book policy shall be observed during class. Only handwritten notes will
be allowed.

I. General Principles of Criminal Law

A. Nature and definition
People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 29 September 2000, 341 SCRA
493
Ient v. Tullett Prebon, G.R. No. 189158, 11 January 2017
B. Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. General (Art. 2, RPC)
2. Territorial (Art.2, RPC)
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, 30 August 2001, 364 SCRA
10
3. Prospective (Article 21 and 22, RPC)
a. Effects of repeal
C. Sources of Criminal Law
1. Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws
D. Constitutional Limitations on Criminal Law
1. Due process and Equal protection (Art. 3, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution)
White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, 20
January 2009
2. Freedom of expression (Art. 3, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution)
3. Freedom of religion (Art. 3, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution)
 Estrada v. Escritor, AM No. P-02-1651, 22 June 2006, 492
SCRA 1
4. No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
(Art. 3, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution)
People v. Echagaray, G.R. No. 117472, 7 February 1997, 267
SCRA 682
Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014
5. Non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax ( Art. 3,
Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution)
6. Bill of attainder (Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution)
People v. Ferrer, L-32613-14, 27 December 1972, 48 SCRA
382
7. Ex-post facto laws (Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution)
US v. Diaz Conde, L-18208, 14 February 1922
E. Construction and interpretation
1. Liberally in favour of the accused
2. Spanish text of the RPC prevails over the English text
People v. Abilong, L-1960, 26 November 1948.
3. Retroactive application when favourable to the accused
4. Prescribed but undeserved penalties (Art. 5, RPC)
People v. Formigones, L-3246, 29 November 1950

II. General Principles of Criminal Liability

A. Felony, defined (Art. 3, RPC)
B. Elements of criminal liability
1. Physical element (Actus reus)
a. Act
b. Omission
People v. Sylvestre and Atienza, G.R. No. 35748,
14 December 1931, 56 Phil. 353
People v. Talingdan, L-32126, 6 July 1978, 84
SCRA 19
2. Mental element (Mens rea)
a. Deliberate intent (Dolo)
i. Elements of dolo
ii. General and specific intent
People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, 17
February 1993, 219 SCRA 85
iii. Mistake of fact
US v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 5272, 19 March
1910, 15 Phil. 488
People v. Oanis, G.R. No. 47722, 27 July
1943, 74 Phil. 257
 iv. Malum prohibitum as exception to the
requirement of mens rea
Padilla v. Dizon, AC No. 3086, 23
February 1988, 158 SCRA 127
Magno v. CA, G.R. No. 96132, 26 June
1992, 210 SCRA 475
Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 157171, 14 March
2006, 484 SCRA 617
v. Intent distinguished from motive
b. Constructive intent (Culpa) Art. 3 and 365
i. Elements
ii. Imprudence or lack of skill
iii. Negligence or lack of foresight
People v. Pugay, L-74324, 17 November
1988, 167 SCRA 439
Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17
November 2010.
c. Transferred intent (Art. 4, par. 1)
i. Aberratio ictus
People v. Guillen, L-1477, 18 January
1950, 85 Phil. 307.
ii. Error in personae
People v. Sabalones, G.R. No. 123485, 31
August 1998, 294 SCRA 751
iii. Praeter intentionem
People vs. Albuquerque, G.R. No. 38773, 19
December1933, 59Phil.150
3. Concurrence
4. Resulting harm
5. Causation
Bataclan v. Medina, L-10126, 22 October 1957, 102 Phil. 181
C. Impossible Crimes (Art. 4, Par. 2)
Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992, 215 SCRA 52
People v. Saladino, L-3634, 30 May 1951, 89 Phil. 807
III. Stages of execution
A. Attempted Stage
B. Frustrated Stage
C. Consummated crimes
US v. Eduave, G.R. No. 12155, 2 February 1917, 36 Phil. 209
Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 166326, 25 January 2006, 480 SCRA 188
Baleros v. People, G.R. No. 138033, 22 February 2006, 483 SCRA 10
D. Stages of execution in relation to specific felonies
1. Theft
 Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007
Epifanio v. People, G.R. No. 157057, 26 June 2007
2. Illegal Trespass
People v. Lamahang, L-43530, 3 August 1935, 61 Phil. 703
3. Physical Injuries, Homicide, and Murder
People v. Borinaga, G.R. No. 33463, 18 December 1930, 55
Phil. 433
People v. Kalalo, G.R. No. 39303-05, 17 March 1934, 59 Phil.
715
People v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 79123-25, 9 January 1989, 169
SCRA 51
Martinez v. CA, G.R. No. 168827, 13 April 2007.
Mondragon v. People, L-17666, 30 June 1966, 17 SCRA 476
People v. Sy Pio, L-5848, 30 April 1954, 94 Phil. 885
4. Robbery
People v. Dio, L-36461, 29 June 1984, 130 SCRA 151
5. Rape
People v. Orita, G.R. No. 88724, 3 April 1990, 184 SCRA 105
People v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, 30 March 2000
E. Conspiracy and proposals to commit a felony (Art. 8)
1. Conspiracy and proposal, when punished?
2. As a manner of incurring criminal liability.

IV. Circumstances that affect criminal liability

A. Justifying circumstances
1. Defense of self, relatives, and strangers
People v. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA
67
People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 128359, 6 December 2000, 347
SCRA 100
People v. Jaurigue, G.R. No. 384, 21 February 1946, 76 Phil.
174
People v. Narvaez, L-33466-67, 20 April 1983, 121 SCRA 389
(see also dissents of J. Abad Santos and J. Gutierrez, Jr.)
Sabang v. People, G.R. No. 168818, 9 March 2007, 518 SCRA
35
People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006, 499
SCRA 64
Palaganas v. People, G.R. No. 165483, 12 September 2006,
501 SCRA 533
2. Avoidance of greater evil
People v. Ricohermoso, L-30527-28, 29 March 1974, 56 SCRA
431
 People v. Norma Hernandez, CA-G.R. No. 22553-R, 14 April
1959, 55 OG 8465
3. Fulfillment of duty
People v. Delima, L-18660, 22 December 1922, 46 Phil. 738
People v. Lagata,L-1940-42, 24 March 1949, 83 Phil. 150
Mamangun v. People, G.R. No. 149152, 2 February 2007
People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006, 499
SCRA 64
4. Obedience to a lawful order of a superior
People v. Beronilla, L-4445, 28 February 1955, 96 Phil. 566
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103501-03, 17 February
1997, 268 SCRA 332
B. Exempting Circumstances
1. Insanity
People v. Taneo, L-37673, 31 March 1933, 58 Phil. 255
People v. Bonoan, L-45130, 17 February 1937, 64 Phil. 87
People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, 31 July 1991, 199 SCRA 860
People v. Rafanan, L-54135, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 65
People v. Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, 12 May 2000, 332
SCRA 99
People v. Robios, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002, 382 SCRA
581
People v. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, 17 March 2004, 425
SCRA 654
People v. Genosa, 341 SCRA 493, 419 SCRA 537
RA 9262 (Re: Battered Woman Syndrome)
See also: Maria Diory F. Rabajante, The Privilege of Being
Insane: An Examination of, and a Saner Alternative to the
Insane Rule on Insanity Defense, 49 San Beda L.J. 1 (March
2012)
2. Minority
RA 9344, Sec. 6
People v. Doqueña, G.R. No. 46539, 27 September 1939, 68
Phil. 580
Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085, 20 August 2008
3. Accident
US v. Tañedo, L-5418, 12 February 1910, 15 Phil. 196
People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, 29 June 2007, 526 SCRA
215
People v. Retubado, G.R. No. 124058, 10 December 2003
4. Irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of a greater injury
US v. Caballeros, G.R. No. 1352, 29 March 1905, 4 Phil. 350
People v. Loreno, L-54414, 9 July 1984, 130 SCRA 311
 People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, 14 April 1999, 305
SCRA 740
5. Insuperable cause
People v. Bandian, G.R. No. 45186, 30 September 1936, 63
Phil. 530 (see also: dissent of J. Villareal)
C. Other exculpatory causes
1. Instigation
People v. Lua Chu, G.R. No. 34917, 7 September 1931, 56 Phil.
44
People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999, 301 SCRA
668
2. Pardon (Art. 266-C and Art. 344)
3. Absolutory circumstances
a. Art. 6 (3)
b. Art. 20
c. Art. 247
d. Art. 280*
e. Art. 332
Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales v. People,
G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010.
D. Mitigating Circumstances
1. Classes of Mitigating Circumstances
a. Privileged
i. Art. 13 (2) and Art. 68
ii. Art. 13 (1) and Art. 69
People v. Jaurigue, G.R. No. 384, 21
February 1946, 76 Phil. 174
People v. Narvaez, L-33466-67, 20 April
1983, 121 SCRA 389
People v. Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, 20
September 2000
Guillermo v. People, G.R. No. 153287, 20
January 2009.
b. Ordinary
i. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
People v. Ural, L-30801, 27 March 1974,
56 SCRA 138
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 139542, 21
June 2001, 359 SCRA 352
ii. Sufficient provocation
People v. Pagal, L-32040, 25 October
1977, 79 SCRA 570
 Urbano v. People, G.R. No. 182750, 20
January 2009
iii. Vindication of a wrong
People v. Benito, L-32042, 13 February
1975, 74 SCRA 271
Bacabac v. People, G.R. No. 149372, 11
September 2007
iv. Passion or obfuscation
US v. Hicks, G.R. No. 4971, 23 September
1909, 14 Phil. 217
US v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 7094, 29
March 1912, 22 Phil. 429
People v. Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, 9
June 1993, 223 SCRA 310
People v. Bello, L-18792, 28 February
1964
v. Voluntary surrender or plea of guilt
People v. Amaguin, G.R. Nos. 54344-45,
10 January 1994, 229 SCRA 166
People v. Dela Cruz, L-45284, 29
December 1936, 63 Phil. 874
vi. Deafness, muteness, blindness, or other physical
defect which restricts the offender’s means of
action, defense, or communication
vii. Illness as would diminish the exercise of will-
power without depriving the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
viii. Analogous circumstances

E. Aggravating Circumstances
Art. 14 and 62 of the RPC.
People v. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, 20 April 2001
1. Classes of Aggravating Circumstance
a. Generic
b. Qualifying
c. Specific
d. Inherent
e. Special
2. Taking advantage of public office
People v. Capalac, L-38297, 23 October 1982, 117 SCRA 874
People v. Gapasin, G.R. No. 73489, 25 April 1994, 231 SCRA
728
3. Insult to public authority
 People v. Tiongson, L-35123-24, 25 July 1984, 130 SCRA 614
People v. Magdueño, L-68699, 22 September 1986, 144 SCRA
210
People v. Tac-an, G.R. Nos. 76338-89, 26 February 1990.
4. Disregard of rank, age, or sex, and dwelling;
People v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-24002, 21 January 1974.
People v. Arizobal, G.R. No. 135051-52, 14 December 2000,
348 SCRA 143
People v. Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, 20 November 1978
5. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness
People v. Mandolado, L-51304-05, 28 June 1983, 123 SCRA
133
6. The crime is committed in the palace of Chief Executive, in his
presence, where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties, or place dedicated to religious worship;
7. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band;
People v. Garcia, L-30449, 31 October 1979, 94 SCRA 14
People v. Rodas, G.R. No. 175881, 28 August 2007
People v. Damaso, L-30116, 20 November 1978, 86 SCRA 370
(uninhabited)
8. Crime committed on the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune;
9. Aid of armed men or persons who afford impunity;
10. Recidivism
People v. Baldera, L-2390, 24 April 1950, 86 Phil. 189
11. Reiteracion
12. Habitual delinquency (Art. 62, par. 5);
People v. Melendrez, G.R. No. 39913, 19 December 1933, 59
Phil. 154
13. Quasi- recidivism (Art. 160)
14. Price, reward, or promise;
15. Inundation, fire, poison, etc.
16. Evident premeditation;
US v. Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292, 28 August 1909, 14 Phil. 77
People v. Ilaoa, G.R. No. 94308, 16 June 1994, 233 SCRA 231
People v. Bibat, G.R. No. 124319, 13 May 1998, 290 SCRA 27
17. Craft, fraud, or disguise;
People v. Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, 14 May 1993, 222 SCRA
59
18. Taking advantage of superior strength, or means employed to
weaken the defense;
People v. Bigcas, G.R. No. 94534, 2 July 1992, 211 SCRA 631
19. Treachery;
 People v. Sangalang, L-32914, 30 August 1974, 58 SCRA 737
People v. San Pedro, L-44274, 22 January 1980, 95 SCRA 306
People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 120282, 20 April 1998, 289 SCRA
213
People v. Arizobal, G.R. No. 135051-52, 14 December 2000,
348 SCRA 143
People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, 4 April 2003, 400 SCRA
603
People v. Villonez, G.R. Nos. 122976-77, 16 November 1998,
359 Phil. 95, 1998
People v. Guzman, G.R. No. 169246, 26 January 2007
20. Ignominy;
People v. Torriefel CA-GR. No. 659-R, 29 November 1947, 45
OG 803
People v. Jose, L-28232, 6 February 1971, 37 SCRA 450
People v. Butler, L-50276, 27 January 1983, 120 SCRA 281
People v. Saylan, L-36941, 29 June 1984, 130 SCRA 159
People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 132470, 27 April 2000, 331 SCRA
216
21. Unlawful entry;
22. Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door, or window;
23. Aid of persons under fifteen years old, use of motor vehicles,
airships, or other similar means;
24. Cruelty;
25. Organized or syndicated crime group;
26. Use of illegal firearms or explosives – see RA 10591
People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, 19 September
2000
Celino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170562, 29 June 2007
27. Use of dangerous drugs while committing a felony – Sec. 25 of RA
9165
F. Alternative Circumstances
1. Relationship
People v. Atop, G.R. No. 124303-05, 10 February 1998, 286
SCRA 157
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of Instruction
People v. San Pedro, L-44274, 22 January 1980, 95 SCRA 306
V. Persons Criminally Liable
A. Principals – Art. 17
People v. Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. No. 133527-28, 13 December
1999, 320 SCRA 584
 People v. Maluenda, G.R. No. 115351, 27 March 1998, 288 SCRA
225
B. Accomplices – Art. 18
Abejuela v. People, G.R. No. 80130, 19 August 1991, 200 SCRA 806
People v. Doble, L-30028, 31 May 1982, 114 SCRA 131
People v. Doctolero, G.R. No. 34386, 7 February 1991, 193 SCRA
632
People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, 18 August 1999, 312 SCRA 640
Garces v. People, G.R. No. 173858, 17 July 2007
C. Accessories – Art. 19 and 20 (RPC); PD 1612
People v. Talingdan, L-32126, 6 July 1978, 84 SCRA 19
VI. Complex Crimes (Art. 48)
People v. Sanchez, G.R No. 131116, 27 August 1999, 313 SCRA 254
People v. Mallari, G.R. No. L-58886, 13 December 1988
People vs. Hernandez, L-6025-26, 18 July 1956, 99 Phil. 515
Enrile vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 92163, 5 June 1990, 184 SCRA 217
Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010.
People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, 11 March 1999
VII. Penalties
A. Imposable penalties
1. Principal penalties
a. Capital punishment – Sec. 19, Art III of the 1987
Constitution; RA 7659, RA 8177; RA 9346; Art. 40 and
47 Revised Penal Code
Harden v. Director of Prisons, L-2349. 22
October 1948, 81 Phil. 741
b. Afflictive penalties
i. Reclusion perpetua – RA 7659, Art. 27 of
Revised Penal Code
People v. Lucas, G.R. No. 108172, 25 May 1994;
People v. Lucas, G.R. No. 108172, 9 January
1995;
People v. Latupan, G.R. No. 112453, 28 June
2001
ii. Reclusion temporal
iii. Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification – Article 30
iv. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
– Art. 31
v. Prision mayor – Art. 27
c. Correctional penalties – Art. 27, 39, and 44
i. Prision correccional
ii. Arresto mayor
 iii. Suspension
iv. Destierro
d. Light penalties – Art. 27, 39, and 44
i. Arresto menor
ii. Public censure
e. Common penalties – Art.25
i. Fines – Art. 26, 39, and 66
ii. Bond to keep the peace – Art. 27 and 35
2. Accessory penalties – Art. 40 -45
a. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
b. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
c. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the profession or calling
d. Civil interdiction
e. Indemnification
f. Forfeiture or confiscation of the instruments and
proceeds of the offense
g. Payment of costs
3. Subsidiary penalty – Art. 39
B. Application and computation of penalties
1. General rules – Art. 5, 21, 28, 29 (see also RA 10592), 46, 73-77
2. Specific Rules
a. Complex Crimes (Art. 48)
b. Crime different from that which was intended – Art. 49
c. Effect of degree of participation and stage of
commission – Art. 50 -57, 60-61
d. Additional penalty for certain accessories – Art. 58
e. Impossible crimes – Art. 59
f. Effect of mitigating, aggravating, and qualifying
circumstances – Art. 62-66
g. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances –
Art. 67 and 69
h. Minors – RA 9344
3. Indeterminate Sentence Law
People v. Lanuza, G.R. No. 188562, 17 August 2011
Talampas v. People, G.R. No. 180219, 23 November 2011
People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, 17 December 2008.
See CJ Puno Dissent and J. Corona Separate Opinion
C. Execution and service of penalties
1. General rules – Art. 47, 70, 78, and 86-88,
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus, Pete Lagran, G.R. No.
147270, 15 August 2001, 363 SCRA 275
2. Probation Law (PD 968 as amended)
 See also: RA 10707
3. Suspension of sentence
a. In cases of insanity – Art. 79
b. Minors
i. Section 31-35 of AM No. 02-1-18-SC
ii. RA 9344
VIII. Extinction of criminal liability
A. Total – Art.89-93
Republic v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136506, 23 August 2001, 363 SCRA
585
B. Partial – Art. 94-99; See also: amendments under RA 10592
IX. Civil Liability arising from criminal liability – Art. 100-113

nant is the president and general manager of the company.2 In his Complaint3 dated March 7, 2006,
he narrated that he engaged the legal services of respondent in relation to a case for illegal dismissa
l 4 filed against him and the company. All the pleadings and orders were directed to respondent
because the company no longer had active presence in Bacolod, save for the stockpile of
construction equipment found in Barangay Mansilingan.5 Sometime in February 2000, complainant
signed the verification page of the position paper for the case and sent it to respondent for his
signature. However, respondent filed the position paper without signing it.6 The labor arbiter noticed
the unsigned pleading and directed respondent to sign it within 10 days from notice.7 Respondent did
not comply with the directive.

In a Decision8 dated October 21, 2004, the labor arbiter ruled against the company and noted that:
"[the company J filed an unsigned position paper which cannot be considered as such. Despite the
order to Atty. Salvador Sabio to sign said position paper, the order was deemed to have been taken
for granted " 9

Respondent received a copy of the Decision on January 13, 2005 but he did not

The Facts

Petitioner Ricardo N. Azuelo (Azuelo) was employed by the respondent ZAMECO II Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO) as a maintenance worker. It appears that sometime in March 2006,
Azuelo filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch (R
G.R. No. 192573 October 22, 2014

RICARDO N. AZUELO, Petitioner,

vs.
ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

REYES, J.:

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set as
December 15, 2008 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 052567-07.

Petitioner Ricardo N. Azuelo (Azuelo) was employed by the respondent ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAME
payment of benefits against ZAMECO. The complaint was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB III-03-9912-06 and was

On July 14, 2006, Azuelo, instead of submitting his position paper, moved that the submission of his position paper b
said date, Azuelo, instead of submitting his position paper, moved for the issuance of an order directing ZAMECO to

On November 6, 2006, LA Bactin issued an Order,7 which reads:

Record shows that respondent has already filed its position paper while complainant, despite ample opportunity given

WHEREFORE, let this case be, as it is hereby dismissed for lack of[merit].

SO ORDERED.8

Azuelo received a copy of LA Bactin's Order dated November 6, 2006 on November 17, 2006. On November 21, 200
docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-11-10779-06 and was assigned to LA Reynaldo V. Abdon (LA Abdon).
On December 20, 2006, ZAMECO filed a Motion to Dismiss9 the second complaint filed by Azuelo on the ground of r
Bactin. ZAMECO likewise averred that Azuelo should have appealed from LA Bactin's Order dated November 6, 200

Azuelo opposed ZAMECO's motion to dismiss,10 alleging that the dismissal of his first complaint by LA Bactin was wit
of his first complaint was without prejudice, his remedy was either to file a motion for reconsideration or to re-file the c

On March 12, 2007, LA Abdon issued an Order,11 which dismissed Azuelo's second complaint for illegal dismissal on
complaint was to appeal from the same and not to file a second complaint for illegal dismissal.

On appeal, the NLRC, in its Decision12 dated September 22, 2008, affirmed the Order issued on March 12, 2007 by L
the dismissal of his first complaint, which is deemed to be with prejudice, unless otherwise stated. Considering that th
dismissal is already barred by the prior dismissal of Azuelo' s first complaint.

Azuelo sought reconsideration13 of the Decision dated September 22, 2008 but it was denied by the NLRC in its Reso

Azuelo then filed a petition for certiorari15 with the CA, alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling th
without prejudice, the remedy available to him, contrary to LA Abdon's ruling, was to re-file his complaint, which he di

On February 26, 2010, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision,16 which denied the petition for certiorari filed by
which was with prejudice, bars the filing of a subsequent complaint for illegal dismissal based on the same allegation

Azuelo's Motion for Reconsideration17 was denied by the CA in its Resolution18 dated June 10, 2010.

Hence, the instant petition.

Essentially, the issue set forth by Azuelo for the Court's resolution is whether the dismissal of his first complaint for ill

The petition is denied.

At the outset, it should be stressed that in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, such as the instan
certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; the Court has to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it corr
discretion' is well-defined in our jurisprudence. It exists where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricio
or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason

After a thorough review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds that the CA did not commit any reversible e
dismissed the first complaint filed by Azuelo, was an adjudication on the merits.

At the core of the instant petition is the determination of the nature of the dismissal of Azuelo's first complaint, i.e., wh
Azuelo's failure, despite ample opportunity afforded him, to submit his position paper.

Ultimately, the question that has to be resolved is this - whether the dismissal of a complaint for illegal dismissal due

The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC (2005 Revised Rules), the rules applicable at the time of the cont
thereof, provides for the suppletory application of the Rules of Court to arbitration proceedings before the LAs and the
Section 3. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. - In the absence of any applicable provisions in these Rules,
convenient, be applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. (Emphases ours)

The unjustified failure of a complainant in arbitration proceedings before the LA to submit his position paper is akin to
in their respective complaints. Accordingly, the Court sees no reason not to apply the rules relative to unreasonable f

In this regard, Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides that:

Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. – If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the
defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim

"The dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily under
adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only exception is when the order o

Thus, in arbitration proceedings before the LA, the dismissal of a complaint on account of the unreasonable failure of

LA's order of dismissal expressly states otherwise.

As already stated, the Order dated November 6, 2006, which dismissed Azuelo's first complaint due to his unreasona
LA Abdon' s dismissal of the second complaint for illegal dismissal. Azuelo' s filing of a second complaint for illegal di

"Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclus
principle bars a subsequent suit involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The rationale for the

Azuelo's insistence that the dismissal of his first complaint by LA Bactin was without prejudice since he was not remis
Court. In any case, the Court finds Azuelo's failure to file his position paper, despite ample opportunity therefor, unjus

That complainant failed to prosecute his action for unreasonable length of time before Labor Arbiter Bactin is support
until August 4, 2006 within which to submit his position paper x x x. Came August 4, 2006, complainant failed to subm
submit his position paper on due date. Instead, what complainant submitted on August 22, 2006 is a Motion For the I
than one (1) month has already lapsed from the time complainant was first required to submit his position paper on Ju

It is also worth stressing that under Section 7, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, parties are directed to submit
in the original)

If indeed Azuelo could not prepare his position paper due to the alleged refusal of ZAMECO to furnish him with its inv
report on the due date of the third extension of time granted him by LA Bactin to submit his position paper. It is thus a

Nonetheless, Azuelo contended that technical rules of procedure, such as the rule on dismissals of actions due to the
dismissal.

The Court does not agree.

Indeed, technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. The LAs and the NLRC are mandated to use eve
1âwphi1

they are necessary for an effective and expeditious administration of justice.25

The non-applicability of technical rules of procedure in labor cases should not be made a license to disregard the righ
extensions granted him. He cannot now be allowed to raise anew his supposed illegal dismissal as it would be plainly
It should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of the inhere
over the interests of management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer, J

Lastly, the Court notes that Azuelo sought the wrong remedy in assailing the Order dated November 6, 2006 issued b
Pampanga within 10 calendar days from receipt of the said order pursuant to Section 1, Rule VI of the 20

AB) of the NLRC in San Fernando City, Pampanga a Complaint6 for illegal dismissal and non-
payment of benefits against ZAMECO. The complaint was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB III-03-
9912-06 and was assigned to Labor Arbiter (LA) Mariano" L. Bactin (LA Bactin). After several
mediations, LA Bactin ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers on July 14,
2006.

On July 14, 2006, Azuelo, instead of submitting his position paper, moved that the submission of his
position paper be extended to August 4, 2006, which was granted by LA Bactin. On August 4, 2006,
Azuelo again failed to submit his position paper. LA Bactin then directed Azuelo to submit his
position papers on August 22, 2006. On the said date, Azuelo, instead of submitting his position
paper, moved for the issuance of an order directing ZAMECO to furnish him with a complete copy of
the investigation report as regards his dismissal. ZAMECO opposed the said motion, asserting that it
has already furnished Azuelo with a copy of its investigation report.

On November 6, 2006, LA Bactin issued an Order,7 which reads:

Record shows that respondent has already filed its position paper while complainant, despite ample
opportunity given him, failed to file his[,] leaving this office with no option but to dismiss this case for
lack of interest.

WHEREFORE, let this case be, as it is hereby dismissed for lack of[merit].

SO ORDERED.8

Azuelo received a copy of LA Bactin's Order dated November 6, 2006 on November 17, 2006. On
November 21, 2006, Azuelo again filed a complaint with the RAB of the NLRC in San Fernando City,
Pampanga for illegal dismissal with money claims against ZAMECO, containing the same
allegations in his first complaint. The case was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-11-10779-06
and was assigned to LA Reynaldo V. Abdon (LA Abdon).

On December 20, 2006, ZAMECO filed a Motion to Dismiss9 the second complaint filed by Azuelo on
the ground of res judicata. ZAMECO pointed out that Azuelo had earlier filed a similar complaint,
which was dismissed by LA Bactin due to his unreasonable failure to submit his position paper
despite ample opportunity given to him by LA Bactin. ZAMECO likewise averred that Azuelo should
have appealed from LA Bactin's Order dated November 6, 2006 instead of filing a complaint for
illegal dismissal anew.

ground of due process in order to procure the publication of several Presidential

Decrees in the Official Gazette.

STATCON ISSUE: Whether or not the phrase “unless otherwise provided”

disregards the requirement of publication
HELD (for statcon issue): The phrase “unless otherwise provided,” does not
disregard the requirement for publication. If publication was dispensed there would
be no basis for Article 3 of the Civil Code. Other than that, non-publication would
be violative of due process since it deprives people of the opportunity to be notified
of newly enacted laws.
 Unless laws are published, there will no basis for the rule that ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith. (Article 2, Civil Code).
- The basis that is mentioned here is the CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE that the provisions of the law are
ascertainable from the public and official repository where they are duly published.

Section 6, Article IV (1973 Constitution) – right to be informed

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – A group of inmates from the New Bilibid Prison
(NBP) filed the first petition before the Supreme Court seeking to nullify provisions of the
new Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 10592 or what is now
better known as the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law.

The petitioners are a group of inmates convicted in the 90s for crimes such as rape,
murder and homicide.

The inmates filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition on September 24, which
sought to invalidate provisions of the new IRR that excluded heinous crime inmates
from the benefits of GCTA and other time allowances like special time allowance for
loyalty (STAL.)

The petitioners said that excluding heinous crimes from GCTA, STAL and Time
Allowance for Study, Teaching and Mentoring (TASTM) should be "invalid..for going
beyond the law and for being tantamount to executive legislation."

NB: Closed book policy shall be observed during class. Only handwritten notes will
be allowed.

X. General Principles of Criminal Law

A. Nature and definition
People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 29 September 2000, 341 SCRA
493
Ient v. Tullett Prebon, G.R. No. 189158, 11 January 2017
B. Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. General (Art. 2, RPC)
2. Territorial (Art.2, RPC)
 People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, 30 August 2001, 364 SCRA
10
3. Prospective (Article 21 and 22, RPC)
a. Effects of repeal
C. Sources of Criminal Law
1. Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws

Ordinance and resolution, distinguished: An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the
sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent
character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are enacted differently a third reading is
necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian
members.

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Original action for expropriation before the Pasig RTC.

FACTS

 October 13, 1994, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaluyong City (MANDA) issued Resolution
No. 396, S-1994 authorizing then MAYOR Benjamin ABALOS to institute expropriation
proceedings over the property of Alberto SUGUITAN.



power of eminent domain is necessary prior to the filing by the latter of the complaint with the
proper court, and not only after the court has determined the amount of just compensation to
which the defendant is entitled.
NO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN LGC & LGC-IRR

 Manda: A resolution is enough under the LGC-IRR. Art. 36 (a), Rule VI provides that if the LGU fails to
acquire a private property for public use, purpose, or welfare through purchase, it may expropriate said
property through a resolution of the sanggunian authorizing its chief executive to initiate expropriation
proceedings.
 SC: This has been settled in Mun. of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty: “§ 19 of RA 7160, the law itself, surely
prevails over said rule which merely seeks to implement it. It is axiomatic that the clear letter of the law
is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its implementation. Besides,
what the discrepancy seems to indicate is a mere oversight in the wording of the implementing rules, since
Art. 32, Rule VI thereof, also requires that, in exercising the power of eminent domain, the chief executive
of the LGU must act pursuant to an ordinance.”
SC remains aware of the constitutional policy of promoting local autonomy, but judicial sanction cannot be granted
to a LGU's exercise of its delegated power of eminent domain in contravention

CASE 7. GERARDO VILLASENOR and RODEL DE MESA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and

Special Prosecutor LOUELLA OCO-PESQUERRA
Facts:

In the wee hours of Aug 18, 2001, the Quezon City Manor Hotel went ablaze resulting to
the death of 74 people and injuries to others.

Petitioners Villasenor and De Mesa, are facing criminal charges of multiple homicide
through reckless imprudence and violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Policies
Act). Aside from that, being public officials, they were also charged administratively with gross
negligence, gross misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. The
cases were filed before the Sandiganbayan.

In line with the administrative case, the petitioners were preventively suspended for 6 mos.

During the pendency of the criminal case, respondent prosecutor Oco-Pesquerra filed a
motion for suspension.

Petitioners opposed the motion, contending that they had already been suspended for 6
mos relative to the administrative case. They argued that any preventive suspension in the
criminal case would be absorbed by the 6-month preventive suspension in the admin case.

Respondent court granted the prosecution’s motion and ordered the preventive
suspension of petitioners for 90 days.

Issue: WON the preventive suspension in line with the criminal case considered as penalty?

Ruling: No

RULING:
 Assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is acquitted of the
ten counts for insufficiency of evidence but is ordered to pay P500,000 to the private respondent, with
12% interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment.

RATIO:
1. NO. The court did not err in not granting retroactive effect to R.A. 7691.

A penal law, is an act of the legislature that prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. It also
defines crime, treats of its nature and provides for its punishment. R.A. No. 7691 does not prohibit certain acts or
provides penalties for its violation; neither does it treat of the nature of crimes and its punishment. Consequently,
R.A. No. 7691 is not a penal law, and therefore, Art. 22 of the RPC does not apply in the present case.
R.A. No. 7691 which took effect on June 15, 1994, amended B.P. Blg. 129, and vested on the Metropolitan, Municipal
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts jurisdiction to try cases punishable by imprisonment of not more than six (6)
years. Since R.A. No. 7691 vests jurisdiction on courts, it is apparent that said law is substantive.

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. R.A. No. 7691 was not yet in force at the time
of the commencement of the cases in the trial court. It took effect only during the pendency of the appeal before
the Court of Appeals. There is therefore no merit in the claim of petitioner that R.A. No. 7691 should be retroactively
applied to this case and the same be remanded to the MTC. The Court has held that a "law vesting additional
jurisdiction in the court cannot be given retroactive effect”.

2. NO. The appellate court did not err in construing B.P. Blg. 22.

Petitioner: That because penal statutes must be strictly construed and resolved in favor of the accused, the
“insufficiency” of funds referred to in B.P. Blg. 22 must not be made to cover those accounts that are “closed” or
declared to have “no funds.” Post-dated checks, not being drawn payable on demand but rather on a fixed date,
should also be considered as ordinary and not special bills of exchange.

 Lozano v Martinez: Thrust of the Bouncing Checks law is to prohibit the making of worthless
checks and putting them in circulation as their effects directly affect public interest. Such intent
is reiterated in Cueme v People and in Recuerdo v People.
 Claim on “closed accounts” not being included in the coverage of the B.P. has no merit in view of
the legislative intent of the law which is to protect the interest of the community at large.
 People v Nitafan: The law does not distinguish but merely provides that any person who
makes/draws and issues any check knowing that he does not have enough funds shall be
punished.

3. YES. The notice of dishonor to the drawer is important.

Petitioner: That no notice of dishonor had been given to her as drawer of the dishonored checks, pursuant to the
requirement expressly provided in B.P. Blg. 22.

 Elements for conviction of violation of B.P. Blg. 22:

a) Accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value.
b) Accused knows at the time of issuance that he/she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit
with, the drawee bank for payment of the check in full upon its presentment.
c) The check is subsequently dishonored.

 For liability to attach, it is not enough for prosecution to simply prove that the checks were
subsequently dishonored. Prosecution must also prove awareness/knowledge of the accused at
the time of issuance.
- Basis of Yu Oh’s awareness of the lack/insufficiency was a line in her Counter-Affidavit where she
declares that she told the general manager that “the actual status of the checks that the same
might not be able to cover the amount of the said checks so stated therein [sic].”
 Presumption (provided in Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. 22) of knowledge cannot arise if such notice of non-
payment by the bank is not sent to the maker/drawer.
Jurisprudence has shown that notice of dishonor is vital insomuch as Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. 22
provides

STRICTLY CONSTRUED
PENAL LAWS

1. INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG v

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and WILLIAM SATO

ART. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;

2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall
have passed into the possession of another; and

3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living

together.

For purposes of the aforementioned provision, is the relationship by affinity created between the
husband and the blood relatives of his wife (as well as between the wife and the blood relatives
of her husband) dissolved by the death of one spouse, thus ending the marriage which created
such relationship by affinity?

Does the beneficial application of Article 332 cover the complex crime of estafa thru falsification?

Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of petitioner intestate estate of her
deceased mother Manolita Gonzales, filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law,
William Sato, a Japanese national.

Mediatrix alleged that Sato, by means of deceit, defraud MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE
CARUNGCONG. The said accused induced said Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong who was already
then blind and 79 years old to sign and thumbmark a special power of attorney dated November
24, 1992 in favor of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, daughter of said accused, making her believe that said
document involved only her taxes, accused knowing fully well that said document authorizes Wendy Mitsuko C.
Sato, to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of to any person or entity of her four properties all located at
Tagaytay City.

And once in possession of the proceeds of the sale of the above properties,

said accused, misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to his own personal use and benefit, to
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong who died in 1994.
 Sato moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code, his relationship to the person allegedly defrauded, the deceased Manolita who was his mother-
in- law, was an exempting circumstance.

The prosecution disputed Sato’s motion in an opposition dated March 29, 2006.

In an order dated April 17, 2006, the trial court granted Sato’s motion and ordered the dismissal of the
criminal case.

Dissatisfied with the trial courts rulings, the intestate estate of Manolita, represented by Mediatrix, filed a
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which, however dismissed it.

CA: There is a dearth of jurisprudence and/or commentaries elaborating on the provision of Article 332 of
the Revised Penal Code. However, from the plain language of the law, it is clear that the exemption from
criminal liability for the crime of swindling (estafa) under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code applies
to private respondent Sato, as son-in-law of Manolita

Meaning of "at the time of his trial for one crime."

The phrase "at the time of his trial" should not be restrictively construed as
to mean the date of arraignment. It is employed in its general sense,
including the rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include everything
that is done in the course of the trial, from
ARTICLE/TOPIC CASE/DOCTRINE
General Principles People vs Genosa (Battered
Woman Syndrome)
Characteristics of Criminal Law
General NCC Art.14 – applicable to all
who live and sojourn the PH
Territorial Art. 2
People vs Tulin (Piracy – in high
seas)
Prospective Art 22 – exception.
effects of repeal
Constitutional Limitations White Light vs Manila (hotels)
Estrada vs Escritor (Jehovah’s
witness conjugal arrangement)
People vs Echagaray (raped
10yr old daughter – death
penalty– not excessive
People vs Ferrer
US vs Diaz Conde (usury law.
Prospectively. Not liable.)
Construction and Interpretation Pro reo doctrine
HELD/MEANING
(?) Classical Theory – basis:
free will. Presumed to have
acted with freedom, intelligence
and intent.
BWS 2 cycles of 3 phases:
1. tension-building
2. acute battering
3. tranquil, loving
-insufficient evidence on 3rd
Self-defense
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable means
3. Lack of provocation
-no unlawful aggression
1. General
2. Territorial
3. Perspective
Exceptions:
1. Treaties
2. Law of preferential app
3. Public International Law
offense while on a Philippine
ship?
piracy is an exemption to the
territoriality rule
retroactive when it favors the
accused unless habitual
delinquent
1. Due process and equal
protection
2. freedom of expression
3. freedom of religion
4. no excessive fines/ inhumane
punishments
5. non-imprisonment for
debt/poll tax
6. Bill of attainder
7. Ex-post facto laws
1. liberally in favor of the
accused

ART 1 Effectivity
ART 2 Territoriality
ART 3 Felonies
ART. 4 Criminal Liability
ART.5 Acts which should be
repressed but are not covered
by the law
ART. 8 Conspiracy
People vs Abilong (destierro.
“imprisonment”
People vs Formigones (killed his
wife. Not an imbecile)
January 1, 1932
Dolo
Culpa
People vs Guillen (tried to kill
President but killed other ppl)
He who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil
caused
Nullum crimen nulla poena sine
lege
Dura lex sed lex
Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Proposal to commit a felony
2. Spanish over English text
3. Retroactive
4. Prescribed but undeserved
penalties
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Intent (Criminal
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Negligence/Imprudence
In culpable felonies, the injury
caused to another should be
unintentional, it being merely the
incident of another act
performed without malice
there is no crime when there is
no law punishing it
the law may be harsh but the
law is the law
-2 or more persons aimed acts
towards the accomplishment of
an unlawful act
although independent but
actually connected
TRIC-SM
DEAR ATe
TRIC