US V TAYONGTONG

Facts:
Driver Policarpio Tayongtong files for an appeal from the judgment of the lower
court, which found him guilty of homicide by negligence for running over
Severino Resume, while the latter was painting telephone poles along the
highway of Jaro and Iloilo.
Tayongtong was driving a large passenger automobile at the time of the incident
and was making his third trip from Iloilo to Jaro, with the vehicle loaded at its
fullest capacity (capable of carrying 35 passengers and their baggage).
Principal witness Pablo Tayson alleges that the driver was moving very fast
towards them, raising a cloud of dust, moving the steering wheel from one
direction to another, causing the vehicle to zigzag from its track, cross the other
side of the road and strike the deceased eventually creating a suction which
drew the victim under the vehicles wheel. From the testimony, the deceased did
not appear to have moved or stirred to avoid the collision.
The driver denies these, saying he was driving at a moderate speed when the
victim suddenly crossed the road.

Issue:
W/N the driver run over the victim by negligence or pure accident

Held:
Accident. Conviction was reversed and the accused acquitted because the Court
finds that the witness made unreasonable, improbable and conflicting comments
in his testimony. It was established by the Court upon fair preponderance of
evidence that the driver, having been a thoroughly qualified driver who served his
apprenticeship on the very road, using the very machine employed, was actually
driving the vehicle under a moderate speed. There was no reason to show that he
was doing otherwise, as corroborated by other disinterested witnesses, and the
fact that a vehicle so large couldnt have gone at the rate of speed described. Per

Taysons testimony, it was also unreasonable that the deceased, seeing plainly
that the vehicle was moving towards him, did not move to save himself.

D. PELAEZ // LLB-3A (Prelims Case)

People of the Philippines vs Arnel Nocum, et. al.G.R. No.179041, April 1, 2013FACTS:
On or about September 12, 1998 in Muntinlupa City, REYNALDO MALLARI
together with ARNEL NOCUM, REY JOHNNY RAMOS, CARLOS JUN POSADAS,
PANDAO POLINGPANGANDAG took and carried away one Toyota Tamaraw FX
valued at more or less ThreeHundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to the
damage and [prejudice] of its owner, LourdesEleccion. In the course of the
commission thereof, Erico Medel, the driver of the said vehicle,was killed. When
the case was called for arraignment on November 10, 2000, only Mallariappeared
as his co-accused remain at-large. He pleade
d not guilty to the charge.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecutions lone witness was Chris Mahilac (Mahilac), a self
confessed member of FXgang, a syndicate notorious for carjacking Toyota FX
vehicles. Mahilac testified that the FXgang was active in Metro Manila and
Mindanao. Nocum led the syndicates criminal activities
in Metro Manila while Pangandag, who was the head of the Land Transportation
Office inLanao Del Norte, led the Mindanao operations. Ramos, Posadas and
Mallari were membersof the gang.On December 15, 2003, the RTC rendered its
Decision finding Mallari guilty beyondreasonable doubt of carnapping with
homicide. The trial court ruled that the testimony of Mahilac that Mallari
participated in the theft of the FX taxi and the killing of its driver, Medel,
cannot be negated by Mallaris denial and uncorroborated alibi. It also found that
the
commission of the crime was a result of a planned operation with Mallari and all
the accuseddoing their assigned tasks to ensure the consummation of their
common criminal objective.On January 31, 2007, the CA rendered its Decision
affirming with modification the ruling of
the trial court. The appellate court held that Mahilacs positive identification of
Mallari as amember of the FX gang
and his participation in the theft of the FX taxi and killing of itsdriver, Medel,
sufficiently established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged. According to the CA, the fact that the prosecution presented Mahilac as
its sole witness is of no moment. His positive and credible testimony is sufficient
to convict Mallari, whose defenseof denial and alibi cannot prevail over the
straightforward testimony of the former.
ISSUE:
WON there is a lack of material evidence to justify the accused
s conviction.

RULING:
We find no reason to deviate from these courts evaluation as to Mallaris
culpability.
G.R. No. L-11439 October 28, 1916 THE UNITED STATES, plaintiffappellee, vs.EDUARDO ELICANAL, defendant-appellant.
Francisco Villanueva, Sr., and Francisco Villanueva, Jr., for appellant. AttorneyGeneral Avancea for appellee.
MORELAND,
J.:
Related Topic:Exempting Circumstance: UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Requisites: 1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or
at least equal to, that which he is required tocommit2. That it promises an evil of
such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to
it****************************************************************************************
Ruling: Trial CourtDefendant-Appellant & others guilty BRD of the crime of murder (sentenced to
death)
Ratio:
Trial court refused to accept his defense holding that Guiloresa did not exercise
such influence over him that amounted to an uncontrollable fear or a deprivation
of his volition
SCThere being neither aggravating nor extenuating circumstances, judgment
appealed from is
REVERSED
and theaccused is hereby sentenced to
cadena perpetua
Facts:
-11 December 1914, Accused (Elicanal) was on board the Iorcha Cataluna as a
crew with Guillermo Guiloresa as theChiefmate & Juan Nomo as the Captain;
Accused is 22 years old, w/out education & physically weak.-The ship barely
leaving the mouth of Iloilo River, Guiloresa approached the accused & told him
that he would kill the captain which the accused thought as a joke since per
his knowledge, no member of the crew has any resentment towards the captainFollowing morning, Guiloresa assaulted the captain inside his cabin, attempting
to seize and hold the hands of the captain, atthe same time calling the rest of the
crew to come forward and help him-At the request of Guiloresa, the crew except
Elicanal got hold of the captain and tied his hands with a rope-At this instance,
Guiloresa struck the captain in the back of the neck with an iron bar and
immediately handed the iron bar toElicanal & ordered him to come forward and
help in disposing of the captain.-While the captain still struggling, he seized the
iron bar and struck the captain on the head which caused his death

Issue: WON,
there was a threat directed to the accused that would deprive him of his own
volition and make him a mereinstrument of the person who threatened him.
Held:
No.
US vs. quiloy Facts: Respondent Toribio is an owner of carabao, residing in the
town of Carmen in the province of Bohol. The trial court of Bohol found that the
respondent slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a carabao without a permit
from the municipal treasurer of the municipality wherein it was slaughtered, in
violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act regulating the registration,
branding, and slaughter of Large Cattle. The act prohibits the slaughter of large
cattle fit for agricultural work or other draft purposes for human consumption.
The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is (1) prohibiting is the
slaughter of large cattle in the municipal slaughter house without a permit given
by the municipal treasurer. Furthermore, he contends that the municipality of
Carmen has no slaughter house and that he slaughtered his carabao in his
dwelling, (2) the act constitutes a taking of property for public use in the exercise
of the right of eminent domain without providing for the compensation of owners,
and it is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power of the state for it
deprives them of the enjoyment of their private property.
Issue: Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding and
slaughter of large cattle, is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power.
Held: It is a valid exercise of police power of the state.
US v. PHELPS
16 Phil 440 August 11, 1910Ponente: Trent
FACTS
While in international saloon in Jolo, Homer G. Smith (the lone prosecution witne
ss)heard James O. Phelps (the accused) smokes opium in some occasions.
Smith asked the accusedif Phelps smoke opium. Phelps answered yes. Smith
said that he wanted to smoke opium. On thefirst invitation by the accused Phelps,
he was not able to prepare a room for
smoking. They made another agreement and went together at a certain house in T
ulay. AChinaman prepared the room and the pipe for smoking. Smith gave the
Chinaman P2.00. TheChinaman gave the pipe to Smith. Smith then left, with the
pipe, and reported the accused to the Justice of peace. Phelps was later
arrested. The Chinaman corroborated the testimony of the accused that Smith
visits him (Phelps)seeking where he (Smith) can smoke opium. Also, the
attending doctor testified that Phelps wasa strong, robust man and presents no
appearance of an opium smoker. The Court of First Instance convicted Phelps of
violating Act. No. 1761.Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE

Is Phelps liable?
RULING
No, because the commission of the crime was intended by Smith and Phelps was
only induced in its commission.Phelps is only charged with having smoked
opium this one time in the house of theChinaman, and the prosecution rests its
case solely upon the testimony of the witness Smith, who was an employee of
Bureau of Internal Revenue, secretly acting in that capacity in Jolo.Smith stated
to the accused that he (Smith) was desirous of smoking. He urged theaccused to
have the Chinaman make arrangements so they both could smoke.If he had, by
those means, induced the appellant to sell opium or to exhibit in his
possession either opium or any of the prohibited paraphernalia, Smiths
testimony would be
more reasonable, since the mere possession of the drug or any of the prohibited
paraphernalia isa violation of the law itself. It is not contended that the accused
had in his possession any of these things.Smith only suggested the commission
of this crime but he (Smith) stated that he desiredto commit the same offense and
would pay his part of the expense necessary for the commissionof the prohibited
act.
People V. Martin
Aniceto Martin !as accused of the co"ple# cri"e of parricide !ith a$ortion $efore
the %ourt of irst &nstanceof &locos 'orte. After trial he !as ac(uitted of a$ortion,
$ut found guilt) of parricide and !as sentenced tosuffer the penalt) of
reclusion perpetua
, to inde"nif) the heirs of the penalt) of deceased in the su" ofP*,+++, !ith the
accessor) penalties of the la!, and to pa) the costs. e appealed.he defendant, t!
ent)-eight )ears old, a far"er, !as liing in the $arrio 'o. 1* of the "unicipalit) of
/aoag,&locos 'orte. e courted the girl /aura /i0 of the sa"e $arrio for seeral
"onths and !as accepted. he) hadse#ual intercourse $efore "arriage and she
$eca"e pregnant. &n an adanced stage of pregnanc), she ca"eto lie !ith the
fa"il) of the fa"il) of the defendant and de"anded "arriage, !hich !as dul) sole"ni0ed
onJune , 1928, and the) continued to lie as hus$and and !ife. 3et!een four and
fie o4 cloc5 in the "orningof August 1, 1928, the corpse of /aura !as found
inside the fa"il) toilet, !hich !as at a certain distance fro" their ho"e, !ith a
"ague) rope, around her nec5. &n the "unicipal $uilding the defendant confessed
tothe "urder of /aura. he defendant testified that !hile he !as "o ing his $o!els in
the toilet !ith his $ac5to!ard the door of the sa"e, he left that a rope !as $eing put
around his nec5 fro" $ehind. e forth!ithsnatched the rope and !ound it
around the nec5 of the person !ho had atte"pted to strange hi" upon 5no!
ing !ho that person !as. he person fell and upon loo5ing at the sa"e he
found that it !as his !ife.Dr. 6o"an de la %uesta, resident ph)sician of the &locos
'orte Proincial ospital, perfor"ed an autops) onthe corpse of /aura and testified
that that the cause of death !as heart failure due to fright or shoc5.&ssue:7hether
or not the defendant is responsi$le for the death of /aura /i0.Decision: he
appellant contends that the death of /aura !as not due to the strangling,
$ut to her heart disease. &tshould $e noted, ho!eer that the heart failure !as
due to the fright or shoc5 caused $) the strangling, andconse(uentl), the

defendant !as responsi$le for the death, not!ithstanding the fact that the
icti" !as alread) sic5.
PEOPLE VS. RIVERA
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Faustino Rivera was being charged by the crime of Indictment of the
Innocent planned and punished under the Art 363 of the Revised Penal Code. The
Provincial Prosecutor filed a case against Rivera for filing a complaint in writing
and executing an oath accusing falsely and without probable cause Vito Sunday
and Felisa Moreno of the crime of theft.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Does Art 363 of the R.P.C apply in this case?
It does not apply since the law that the crime Rivera was accused of committing
is not explicitly stated in the R.P.C (although it is worthy to mention that the crime
of indictment of the innocent is present in the Old Penal Code)
The old penal code described it as the charge of the offense is the imputation
itself if made in front of the administrative/ judicial officer while the R.P.C defines
the offense as the act that leads (tends directly) to imputation of the offense.
The art 363 of the R.P.C was defined or described as planting of evidence.
HELD:
COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED FAUSTINO RIVERA IS NOT GUILTY OF THE
CRIME FO INCRIMINATION OF THE INNOCENT.
BENITO ASTORGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 154130-August 20, 2004

FACTS
On September 1, 1997, private offended parties together with SPO3 Andres B.
Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian, were sent to the Island of Daram, Western
Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. At
around 4:30-5:00 p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18 meters in length
and 5 meters in breadth being constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they
met petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the
owner of the boats. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR
team. Petitioner called for reinforcements and, moments later, a boat bearing ten
armed men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene. The DENR team was
then brought to petitioners house in Daram, where they had dinner and drinks.
The team left at 2:00 a.m.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of Arbitrary Detention

Held: Petitioner Benito Astorga is acquitted of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on

the ground of reasonable doubt.
US vs. Taylor
FACTS:A libel case was filed against Carson Taylor, who was the acting editor,
proprietor, manager, printer andpublisher of a Manila Daily Bulletin. The
complaint alleges that he, on September 25, 1913, intended toimpeach the
honesty, virtue and reputation of Ramon Sotelo as well as to expose him to public
hatred,contempt and ridicule by composing, printing, editing, publishing,
circulating and/ or procuring tocompose an article, which they have alleged to be
false and to be a malicious defamation and libel of
Ramon Sotelo. According to the article entitled Owners fired building to collect insurance,
criminalcharges follows civil suit
, there was a conspiracy to defraud the insurance company. The house in Calle
ODonnell was intentionally burnt and claims were made from the insurance companies. In
this
conspiracy, the name of Ramon Sotello was implicated and was therefore
charged with conspiracy andfraud. Taylor was found guilty and sentenced to pay
a fine of P200.He then appealed and madeassignment of errors.ISSUES:1.
Whether or not the defendant was responsible for and guilty of alleged libel2.
Whether or not the defendant is the proprietor and publisher of Manila Daily
BulletinHELD: The court ruled in favor of the defendant and ordered that the
ruling of the lower court be
reversed. According to Act No. 277 Section Six, every author, editor or proprietor of any
book,
newspaper, or serial publication is chargeable with the publication of any words
contained in any part
of said book or number of each newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the
author of the same.
However, in this case, the Solicitor-General said that no one is represented to be
the author, editor andproprietor.
Inovero vs. coronel
Coronel v. CA
Facts:
The case arose from a complaint for specific performance filed by private
respondent Alcaraz against petitioners to consummate the sale of a parcel of land
in Quezon City.

On January 19, 1985, petitioners executed a Receipt of Down Payment of

P50,000 in favor of plaintiff Ramona Alcaraz, binding themselves to transfer the
ownership of the land in their name from their deceased father, afterwhich the
balance of P1,190,000 shall be paid in full by Alcaraz. On February 6, 1985, the
property was transferred to petitioners. On February 18, 1985, petitioners sold the
property to Mabanag. For this reason, Concepcion, Ramonas mother, filed an
action for specific performance.
Issue:
Whether the contract between petitioners and private respondent was that of a
conditional sale or a mere contract to sell
Held:
Sale, by its very nature, is a consensual contract because it is perfected by mere
consent. The essential elements of a contract of sale are the following: a)
Consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in
exchange for the price; b) Determinate subject matter; and c) Price certain in
money or its equivalent.
Tavera vs valdez
Facts:
The defendant is the editor of Miau, a periodical published and circulated in
Manila, and that an article containing the alleged injurious matter was published
in the issue of that periodical of September 15, 1901. The article is couched
throughout in grossly abusive language, and in terms not capable of being
misunderstood; charges the private prosecutor, who had been then recently
appointed a member of the United States Philippine Commission, with having
displayed cowardice at the time of the murder of his mother and sister and with
having subsequently entered into intimate political relations with the assassin.
The article contains other statements and imputations of a derogatory character.
Issue: W/N the offense is injuries grave and punishable under Article 458 of the
RPC.
Held: It is urged by counsel that the official position of the private prosecutor
should be considered as an aggravating circumstance under Penal Code, article
10, No. 20.
People vs romualdo
FACTS:
The People of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commissionon Good
Government (PCGG), filed on July 12, 1989 an information before theanti-graft
court charging the accused with violation of Section 5, Republic ActNo. 3019,5 as

amended. That on or about and during the period from July 16, 1975 to July 29,
1975, inMetro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan,Alfredo T. Romualdez, brother-in-law of Ferdinand E. Marcos,
former Presidentof the Philippines, and therefore, related to the latter by affinity
within thethird civil degree, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, and with
evidentbad faith, for the purpose of promoting his self-interested and/or that
of others, intervene directly or indirectly, in a contract between
the NationalShipyard and Steel Corporation (NASSCO), a government-owned
andcontrolled corporation and the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering
Company(BASECO), a private corporation, the majority stocks of which is owned
byformer President Ferdinand E. Marcos, whereby the NASSCO sold,
transferredand conveyed to the BASECO its ownership and all its titles
and interests overall equipment and facilities including structures, buildings,
shops, quarters,houses, plants and expendable and semi-expendable assets,
located at theEngineer Island known as the Engineer Island Shops including some of
itsequipment and machineries from Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte neededby
BASECO in its shipbuilding and ship repair program for the amount
of P5,000,000.00.
ISSUE:
Whether the constitutional right of the petitioner to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him was violated for notspecifying the acts
of intervention that he supposedly performed.
HELD:
The Court did not agree with the petitioner's contention.
PEOPLE vs. Lacson, October 7, 2003
FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive application of penal laws should also
cover procedures, and that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the
accused. Petitioner
asserts that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to provide relief to the
accused in line with the constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 5 Associate Justices inhibit themselves from deciding in the
Motion for Reconsideration given they were only appointed in the SC after his
Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments.

The rule should be applied prospectively. The court upheld the petitioners
contention that while Sec.8 secures the rights of the accused, it does not and
should not preclude the equally important right of the State to public justice. If a
procedural rule impairs a vested right, or would work injustice, the said rule may
not be given a retroactive application.

2. WON the application of the time-bar under Section 8 Rule 117 be given a
retroactive application without reservations, only and solely on the basis of its
being favorable to the accused.

The Court is not mandated to apply rules retroactively simply because it is

favorable to the accused. The time-bar under the new rule is intended to benefit
both the State and
the accused. When the rule was approved by the court, it intended that the rule be
applied prospectively and not retroactively, for to do so would be tantamount to
the denial
of the States right to due process. A retroactive application would result in
absurd, unjust and oppressive consequences to the State and to the victims of
crimes and their heirs.
People vs Hernandez
Facts: Defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of Congress
of Labor Organizations. CLO is an affiliate of Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, a
known group performing rebellious activities. Hernandez was charged and
convicted of the crime of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robbery
and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Prosecution maintains that capital
punishment may be imposed for the crime he was convicted of. Defense
contends that there is no complex crime in the crime of rebellion. It was deemed
best not to disturb the course of action taken by the lower court, which denied
bail to Hernandez, hence the motion to post bail.
Issue: Whether or not equal protection was observed in the administration of
justice?
Decision: Motion for bail granted. The ingredients of a crime form part and parcel
thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either
separately there from. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there
can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one
of said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense
be, in such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no
other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the
penalties for each offense, if imposed separately.

People vs OSO
Facts:
On June 1, 1996 the accused stabbed one Mary Ann Arrojado with a
knife with treachery andevident premeditation on the different parts of her
body inflicting serious and mortal wounds which werethe direct and immediate
cause of her death.The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced him to
imprisonment of 30 years of reclusion perpetua.The trial court held that there was
a circumstantial evidence to convict accused-appellant for thedeath of the
victim. Appelant argued that the victim committed suicide. He claimed that
most of the victims woundswere inflicted after she committed suicide to make it
appear that she was murdered. He also stated thathe only saw one wound in the
victims stomach.
Issue:Whether or not the victim was murdered by the accused-appellantWhether
or not the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence can appreciated
andwould elevate the penalty of murder from reclusion perpetua to death
eventhough it was notalleged in the said information.Ruling: Yes.
People vs. Quitain
Facts: the peculiar nature of rape is that conviction or acquittal depends almost
entirely upon the word of the private complainant because it is essentially
committed in relative isolation or even in secrecy, and it is usually only the victim
who can testify of the unconsented coitus. Thus, the long standing rule is that
when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has indeed been committed. Since the participants
are usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature and the accused's
conviction or acquittal virtually depends on the private complainant's testimony,
it must be received with utmost caution. It is then incumbent upon the trial court
to be very scrupulous in ascertaining the credibility of the victim's testimony.
Judges must free themselves of the natural tendency to be overprotective of
every woman claiming to have been sexually abused and demanding punishment
for the abuser. While they ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation
the rape victim goes through as she demands justice, judges should equally bear
in mind that their responsibility is to render justice according to law.
Ruling:
Decision of the Court of Appeals, finding appellant FELIMON PATENTES y
ZAMORA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Forcible Abduction with Rape, is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. FELIMON PATENTES y ZAMORA is ACQUITTED on
the ground of reasonable doubt. His immediate release from confinement is
hereby ordered unless he is being detained for some other charge.

People v. Jaime Jose, G.R. No. L-28232

Subject Matter: Conspiracy
Facts:
On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Eduardo
Aquino and Rogelio Caal conspired together, confederated with and mutually
helped one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena Maggie dela Riva, 25 years old and
single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four
principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon,
have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to the
Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape.
Having established the element of conspiracy, the trial court finds the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape and
sentences each of them to the death penalty.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court made a proper ruling of the case considering the
element of conspiracy.

Held:
No, the trial courts ruling was not proper. The SC ruled that since the element of
conspiracy was present, where the act of one is the act of all, each of the accused
is also liable for the crime committed by each of the other persons who conspired
to commit the crime. The SC modified the judgment as follows: appellants Jaime
Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., and Eduardo Aquino are guilty of the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape and each and every one of them is likewise
convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape.
People vs San pedro
Facts:Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason
Ivler (petitioner) was chargedbefore the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City
(MTC), with two separate offenses: (1) RecklessImprudence Resulting in Slight
Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L.Ponce
(respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
and Damage toP r o p e r t y f o r
t h e d e a t h o f r e s p o n d e n t P o n c e s h u s b a n d N e s t o r
C . P o n c e a n d d a m a g e t o t h e spouses Ponces vehicle.Petitioner posted bail
for his temporary release in both cases. On 2004, petitioner pleaded guiltyto the

charge on the first delict and was meted out the penalty of public
censure. Invoking thisconviction, petitioner moved to quash the
Information for the second delict for placing him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence. The MTC refused
quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases. The petitioner elevated
the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC), in a petition
forc e r t i o r a r i w h i l e I v l e r s o u g h t f r o m t h e M T C t h e s u s p e n s i o n o f p r
o c e e d i n g s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e , including the arraignment his arraignment as a
prejudicial question.Without acting on petitioners motion, the MTC proceeded
with the arraignment and, because of petitioners absence, cancelled his bail and
ordered his arrest.Seven days later, the MTC issued a resolution denying
petitioners motion to suspend proceedingsand postponing his arraignment until
after his arrest. Petitioner sought reconsideration but as of the filing of
this petition, the motion remained unresolved.ISSUES:1. Whether petitioner
forfeited his standing to seek relief from his petition for certiorari when theMTC
ordered his arrest following his non-appearance at the arraignment in Reckless
ImprudenceResulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by
respondent;
and2 . W h e t h e r p e t i t i o n e r s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t u n d e r t h e D o u b l e J
e o p a r d y C l a u s e b a r s f u r t h e r proceedings in Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the deathof respondent
Ponces husband.HELD:(1) Petitioners non-appearance at the arraignment in
Criminal Case No. 82366 did not divest himof personality to maintain the petition
in S.C.A. 2803; and(2) The protection afforded by the Constitution shielding
petitioner from prosecutions placing himin jeopardy of second punishment for
the same offense bars further proceedings in Criminal CaseNo. 82366
People vs jose

Facts:
Jaime Jose and George Tillman was acquitted in the crime of robbery but
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape in a criminal case and both are sentenced in the penalty of death but
with recommendation to be commuted to life imprisonment
Jose and Tillman to pay jointly and severally the amount of P6,000 to Zenaida
dela Cruz
July 4th 1966, Jose and Tillman along with John Doe and Roy, Peter and and
Richard Roe, armed and with a vehicle abducted Dela Cruz and with carnal
knowledge, raped her. (the other four guys are actually unidentified and the
whereabouts are unknown, the names were just stated in the facts)
The facts has two sides the prosecutor side and the defendant side:
Prosecutor: Dela Cruz whilst riding a golden taxicab driven by Osmundo delacruz
(no relation) was forcibly taken by five men in a Mercedes benz and the same five
men divested her jewelries. She was then taken to Queens Motel where she got
raped along with another woman named Araceli Sy.

Defendant side: A man named Crisologo along with his two companions went to
Jaime Jose and Tillman to borrow Joses mercedez benz but the latter refused
stating that him and Tillman are going to party and that they should tag along so
that after the party they can go to the bayside. Whilst on the road they were hailed
by two women, dela cruz and Sy, and joined them inside the mercedez benz and
went to the Queens motel. The defendants stated that there was no forcible
abduction.
The Judge took emphasis and credibility on dela Cruzs sworn statement.
Prosecutor has evidence while the defendants failed to present evidence and
their statement is much more improbable.
During the pendency of this case, Jose died
Issue: W/ON civil liabilities are extinguished
Held: Yes, the court ruled that accused is relieved in this case of all personal and
pecuniary penalties attendant to his crime, his death occurring before rendition of
final judgment herein. (The ruling was different in the case of Torrijos vs CA)
People vs. Maingan
From the personal account of Remigio Bernardo, the
Barangay Chairman in the area, as well as the personal
account of the pedicab driver named Rolando Gruta, it was
at around 4:45 a.m. on January 2, 2001 when Remigio
Bernardo and his tanods saw the accused-appellant EDN A,
one hired as a housemaid by Roberto Separa, Sr., with her
head turning in different directions, hurriedly leaving the
house of her employer at No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut,
Tondo, Manila. She was seen to have boarded a pedicab
which was driven by a person later identified as Rolando
Gruta. She was heard by the pedicab driver to ha ve
instructed that she be brought to Nipa Street, but upon her
arrival there, she changed her mind and asked that she be
brought instead to Balasan Street where she finally
alighted, after paying for her fare.
Thirty minutes later, at around 5:15 a.m. Barangay
Chairman Bernardos group later discovered that a fire
gutted the house of the employer of the housemaid.
Barangay Chairman Bernardo and his tanods responded to
the fire upon hearing shouts from the residents and
thereafter, firemen from the Fire District 1-NCR arrived at
the fire scene to contain the fire.
Ruling: Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 2 September 2005, in
C A G.R. CR HC No. 01139, is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the
conviction of accused-appellant EDN A M ALNG AN Y M AYO is
concerned. The sentence to be imposed and the amount of damages

to be awarded, however, are MODIFIED. In accordance with Sec. 5 of

Presidential Decree No. 1613, accused-appellant is hereby sentenced
to RECLUSION PERPETUA . Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to
pay the heirs of each of the victims P 50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
People vs. Bayotas
FACTS:
In Criminal Case filed before RTC Roxas City, Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova wascharged with
Rape and eventually convicted. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas diedat
the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to
hepaticencephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently,
theSupreme Court in its Resolution, dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal.
However, itrequired the Solicitor General to file its comment with regard to
Bayotas' civil liability arisingfrom his commission of the offense charged. In his
comment, the Solicitor General expressedhis view that the death of accused-appellant
did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense
charged. The Solicitor General, relying on the case of Peoplev. Sendaydiego
insists that the appeal should still be resolved for the purpose of reviewinghis
conviction by the lower court on which the civil liability is based.Counsel for the
accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view of the Solicitor General
arguing that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is
pendingappeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties. In support of
his position, saidcounsel invoked the ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v.
Castillo and Ocfemia whichheld that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes
root in the criminal liability and,therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused
should die before final judgment isrendered.
I
SSUE/HELD:
WON death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
hiscivil liability? AFFIRMATIVE
RAT
IO
D
I
C
I
DEND
I
:
'ART. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is
totallyextinguished:1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to the pecuniary penaltiesliability therefor is extinguished only
when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
People vs Tamayo
Facts:

That on October 25, 1994 at 7:30 oclock in the evening, more or less, at sitio
Tubod, Cerdea, Municipality of Malabuyoc, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one another, with deliberate
intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot Leodegario Fuentes
and Renante Fuentes, with the use of unknown caliber handgun, thereby inflicting
upon them multiple gunshot wounds which caused their instantaneous death.
Ruling WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accusedappellant Florencio Patalinghug, Jr. is convicted as an accomplice, not as a
principal, in the crime of murder. He is therefore sentenced to an indeterminate
prison term of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years 8
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each of the two counts
of murder. He shall also, jointly and severally with the other accused, pay as civil
indemnity the amount of P50,000 for each count.
Francisco vs CA
F AC T S :
Petitioner, the legal wife of private respondent Eusebio Francisco (Eusebio) by
hissecond marriage filed a suit for damages and for annulment of general power
of attorneyauthorizing Conchita Evangelista (Eusebios daughter in his first
marriage) to administer thehouse and lot together with the apartments allegedly
acquired by petitioner and Eusebio duringtheir conjugal partnership. The
trial court rendered judgment in favor of private respondents dueto petitioners
failure to establish proof that said properties were acquired during the existence
of the second conjugal partnership, or that they pertained exclusively to the
petitioner. As such, theCA ruled that those properties belong exclusively to
Eusebio, and that he has the capacity toadminister them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellate court committed reversible error in affirming the
trialcourt's ruling that the properties, subject matter of controversy, are not
conjugal but the capitalproperties of Eusebio exclusively.
RULING:
SC resolved the issue of the nature of the contested properties based on
theprovisions of the New Civil Code. Indeed, Articles 158 and 160 of the New Civil
Code have beenrepealed by the Family Code of the Philippines. Nonetheless, SC
cannot invoke the new law inthis case without impairing prior vested rights
pursuant to Article 256 in relation to Article 105(second paragraph) of the Family
Code. Accordingly, the repeal of Articles 158 and 160 of theNew Civil Code does
not operate to prejudice or otherwise affect rights which have becomevested or
accrued while the said provisions were in force.
People Vs, DeguzMan

At around 8 pm on March 9, 1992, Luciano de Guzman and two others entered the
house of the Calamnos. Luciano and the two others let the victims face the wall
then after fired upon them. They even surrounded the victims. The accused were
later convicted for murder.
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and treachery
be appreciated.
HELD: The aggravating circumstance of nighttime as well as abuse of superior
strength (as the accused outnumbered and out armed the victims for they used
high powered guns) are absorbed by treachery. The means and ways employed
by the accused ensured them impunity as they fired upon the victims while the
victims were facing the wall giving the victims no means to defend themselves.