PEOPLE V MONTEVERDE

(PENALTIES: SPECIAL RULES: COMPLEX CRIME PROPER: EFFECT OF ACQUITAL FOR A COMPONENT
OFFENSE)

FACTS: Petitioner Aurea A. Monteverde was from 1991 to 1993 the Barangay Chairman in Tondo. In that
capacity, she received the amount of P44,800.00 from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR). The amount was spent for lighting, cleanliness and beautification programs of
the Barangay. With intent to defraud she submitted falsified Sales Invoice and misappropriated,
converted the same to her personal use and benefit, to the damage of the Government and which crime
was committed in relation to her office.

ISSUE: WON acquittal from a component offense will lead to an acquittal from the other

Held:
Acquittal from a component offense will not necessarily lead to an acquittal from the other.
Each crime will be evaluated based on its own merits, and conviction will depend on the proof of
the elements of each particular offense.
Failure of the prosecution to prove one of the component crimes and the acquittal arising
therefrom will not necessarily lead to a declaration of innocence for the other crimes.
Settled is the rule that when a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to establish one
of the component offenses, the defendant can be convicted of the others, so long as they are
proved




ECHEGARAY V SEC OF JUSTICE:
(PENALTIES: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT)

FACTS: Leo Echegaray was convicted and was to be executed by lethal injection (RA 8177) The Supreme
Court issued a temporary restraining order restraining the execution of said party. Said execution was
set for Jan. 4, 1999 but the petitioner filed his Very Urgent Motion for Issuance of TRO on Dec. 28, 1998.
The Court was in recess at the time but a Special Session was called to deliberate on said matters. It was
alleged that sinCe it is already final and executory, the Supreme Court has lost its jurisdiction with the
case.

ISSUE: Whether or not in issuing the temporary restraining order, the Supreme Court has gone beyond
its jurisdiction since the case is already final.

HELD:
It is not beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter
the same. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains its jurisdiction to execute
and enforce it.
There is a difference between the jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment and its
jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. The former continues even after the judgment
has become final for the purpose of enforcement of judgment; the latter terminates when the
judgment becomes final




PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS V DESIERTO
(EXTINCTION OF CRIM LIABILITY:TOTAL EXTINCTION: RA 3019 & PRESCRIPTION)

FACTS: What is before the Court for consideration is a special civil action for certiorari to nullify the
orders of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaint against respondents for violation of Republic Act
No. 3019). On October 8, 1992, President Fidel V. Ramos issued and AO creating the Presidential Ad Hoc
Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans. The committee was tasked to inventory all behest loans,
determine the parties involved and recommend appropriate action to be pursued.

ISSUE: WON loan transactions entered into in 1968 are the basis of criminal liability considering that the
complaint was filed twenty nine (29) years after the commission of the offense?

HELD/RATIO:
Court dismissed the petition. We agree with the Ombudsmans ruling as to lack of probable
cause and prescription
The Ombudsman may dismiss the complaint if he finds it to be insufficient in form or
substance,[15] or if he otherwise finds no ground to continue with the inquiry; or he may
proceed with the investigation of the complaint if, in his view, it is in due and proper form



DEL CASTILLO V TORREOCAMPO
(EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABLITY: TOTAL EXTINCTION: ESCAPE & PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES)

FACTS: On January 14, 1985, the RTC declared petitioner guilty by violating the 1978 Election Code, and
sentenced petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 1 year to 3 years as
maximum. During the execution of judgment, petitioner failed to appear which prompted the presiding
judge to issue an order of arrest of petitioner. However, petitioner was never apprehended. Ten years
later, petitioner filed before the trial court a motion to quash the warrant issued for his arrest on the
ground of prescription of the penalty imposed upon him.

ISSUE: WON the penalty imposed upon the petitioner has prescribed.

HELD/RATIO:
Prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of
his sentence. Pursuant to Article 157, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by
those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence.
The penalty imposed has not prescribed because the circumstances of the case at bench failed
to satisfy the second element, to wit That the convict evaded the service of the sentence by
escaping during the service of his sentence. As a matter of fact, the petitioner never served a
single minute of his sentence.



PEOPLE V GERONIMO
(SPECIAL RULES: ABSORPTION DOCTRINE:)

FACTS: On June 24, 1954 a Federico Geronimo, et al. were charged with the complex crime of rebellion
with murders, robberies, and kidnapping. THe pleaded guilty to the accusation and the trial court found
him guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE: Can rebellion be complexed with murder, robbery or kidnapping?

HELD:
No. Even if the crime is not committed in furtherance of rebellion, without political motivation,
the crime would be separately punishable and would not be absorbed in rebellion.
The decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the simple (non-complex)
crime of rebellion, and also for the crime of murder,
It cannot be taken with rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and
intent would be unrelated to each other.