People v Sarcia- Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law

Facts: Accused on 1996 raped AAA, 5 years old, through luring her in the backyard
and proceeded to take of her panties and made up and down motions which was all
witnessed by AAA cousin. After confiding to parents AAA was medically examined
by DR. Manatlao to have strenuous exercise or trauma at her hymen. Accused was
24 on date of testifying March 14 1992. Victim could not recal exact date of Rape as
such persecution could not determine if accused was 18 at the time of Commission
or before commission. Victim delayed filing for 4 years. RTC ruled Reclusion
perpetua P50,000 civil indemnity, P 50,000 moral damage and payment to costs. CA
ruled death with P75,000 Indemnity, P 50,000 moral, P25,000 exemplary damages.

Issue: WON the accused is a minor during the commission of the crime?
WON the accused is entitled to the benefits under RA 9344 of Juvenile Justice
Welfare Act?

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 took effect
on May 20, 2006. The RTC decision and CA decision were promulgated on January
17, 2003 and July 14, 2005, respectively. The promulgation of the sentence by the
RTC was not suspended as he was about 25 years of age at that time, in accordance
with Article 192 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 603, The Child and Youth
Welfare Code and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, the Rule on Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law. Accused-appellant is now approximately 31 years of age. He
was previously detained at the Albay Provincial Jail at Legaspi City and transferred
to the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City on October 13, 2003.

Differentiating PD and the A.M. or Supreme court rule with RA 9344, the later does
not distinguish if a minor had committed a capital offense and those of lesser
offense and both applies to suspended of sentence unlike the PD and SC rule.

Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other

Training Facilities. —after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve
his/her sentence, in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other
training facilities controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.

Court ruled: given there was no clear proof age of accused and as such in attending
mitigating circumstance of minority al doubts resolved in favor of the accused.
Accused can be subject to suspension of sentence not prejudicial to nature of crime
whether heinous of not since intent of law is for rehabilitation, restoration and
reintegration. RA 9344 according to Sec 67 is also retroactive. RA 9344 may be
availed in suspension of sentencing according to Sec 38 even if 18 or more and
according to Sec 40 may be suspended until the aged 40 provided commission of the
crime age was a minor. Accused cant avail to suspension of sentences according to
Sec 38 and 40 due to being aged 31 passing maximum age of suspension of 21 but
can avail to Sec 51 on Confienment of convicted children of Agricultural Camps and
other Training Facility. Death penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua, P 75,000 moral
& P 30,000 exemplary damage. Civil Indemnity of P 75,000

US. V. Vincentillo- Insuperable or lawful cause-Local condition, weather conditions

Facts:
Illegal detention of accuse for 3 days. Lower courts ruled guilty and pay 625 pesetas.
But brought before a justice of the peace as soon as "practicable" after his arrest.
three days were expended in doing, at the time of the arrest neither the local justice
of the peace nor his auxiliary were in the municipality, and to reach the justice of the
peace of either of the two adjoining municipalities, it was necessary to take a long
journey by boat. The evidence discloses, moreover, that with all practicable
dispatch, the prisoner was forwarded first to one and then to the other of the
adjoining municipalities for trial, the failure to secure trial on the first occasion
being due to the fact that the written complaint, which was intrusted to the
policeman in charge of the prisoner, was either lost or stolen. It does not appear
why the prisoner was not sent to the same municipality on both occasions, but in
the absence of proof we must assume that in this respect the officers in charge
were controlled by local conditions, changes in the weather, or the like, which,
as appears from the uncontradicted evidence of record, made the journey by boats
safer and more commodious sometimes to one and sometimes to the other of the
two adjoining municipalities.

Issue: WON accused should action for detaining arrested party without evidence of
judicial authority is lawful

Ruling: YES. there is nothing in this record upon which to base a finding that his
defendant caused the arrest and the subsequent detention of the prisoner otherwise
than in the due performance of his official duties; and there can be no doubt of his
lawfully authority in the premises. 1) there was no judicial officer in the remote
community at the time of the arrest, and 2) no certainty of the early return of the
absent justice of the peace, or his auxiliary 3) absence of evidence of willful violation
or defiance of local authority. It was not necessary, or at least expedient, to make an
arrest and send the offender forthwith to the justice of the peace of a neighboring
municipality, if only to convince all would-be offenders that the forces of law and
order were supreme, even in the absence of the local municipal judicial officers.

People v. Diokno-Immediate Vindication of a graver offense-No interruption from

actual elopement

Ratio: The presence of the fifth mitigating circumstance of article 13 of the Revised
Penal Code, that is, immediate vindication of a grave offense to said accused, may be
taken into consideration in favor of the two accused. There was no interruption
from the time the offense was committed to the vindication thereof. The herein
accused belong to a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a daughter with
a man constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the peace
and tranquility of the home and at the same time spreads uneasiness and anxiety in
the minds of the members thereof.

Facts:
The deceased Yu Hiong was a vendor of sundry goods, Salome Diokno, to whom Yu
Hiong was engaged for about a year, invited the latter to go with her. Yu Hiong
accepted the invitation but he told Salome that her father was angry with him.
Salome answered him: "No matter, I will be responsible. Yu Hiong and Salome
Diokno took an automobile and went to the house of Salome's cousin, in Pagbilao
and being no one home, they went on their way up to San Pablo, Laguna. On January
5th or 6th of said year, Roman Diokno telegraphed his father Epifanio Diokno, who
was in Manila, informing him that Salome had eloped with the Chinese Yu Hiong.
And they went to San Pablo, Laguna, in search of the elopers. Upon arriving near the
house, the saw Yu Hiong coming down the stairs. and they pursued him. He was
overtaken by the accused who carried knives locally known as balisong, of different
sizes. Yu Hiong fell on his knees and implored pardon. In that situation Roman
Diokno stabbed him with the knife in the back and later in the left side. Epifanio
Diokno also stabbed him once. Yu Hiong fell on the landing of the stairs in the
balcony, and there he was again stabbed repeatedly. Juan Alcantara, who lived on
the same street, Hermanos Belen, in front of Antonio Layco's house, saw the accused
pursue Yu Hiong and fired shots for the police to come. Epifanio Diokno admitted
being the perpetrator after the police confronted him. Drs. Evangelista found that he
had five incised wounds in different parts of the body, one of them at the back and
about three and a half inches long, piercing the pleura and penetrating the lower
lobe of the right lung about an inch, which wound was necessarily mortal and which
caused the death of the victim. CFI ruled murder reclusion perpetua and indemnify
heir P 1,000

Issue: WON the accuse can avail to medicating circumstance par 5 on vindication of
grave offense?

Ruling: YES, Although elopement occurred Jan 4 and assault occur on Jan 7 Salome’s
whereabouts where unknown and marriage was still not legalize. There was no
interruption of vindication. In presence of mitigating circumstance vindication of
grave offense, passion and obfuscation, and voluntary surrender, Penalty must be
reduced Homicide and subject to prison mayor 8 years and 1 day to prison
correctional 2 years 1 day. Indemnity of P 1,000

Note: Superior Strenght not established beyong reasonable doubt due to no

evidence of accuses physical constitution, number of people alone does not
constitute Superior strength. Evident Premediation not present since carrying knifes
are customary at the time to provincial people so clear plans to kill was not
established.

Andrada v. People-Voluntary Surrender-Spontaneous & unconditional

Ratio: Evidence for the prosecution shows that petitioner, after attacking the
victim, ran away. He was apprehended by responding police officers in the waiting
shed at the corner of Cambas Road and Magsaysay Avenue. For voluntary
surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous, made in such
a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or
wishes to save them the trouble and expenses that would be necessarily incurred in
his search and capture. Here, the surrender was not spontaneous.

Facts: Teodolfo Sumabong, of the defunct Philippine Constabulary (PC), was called
up requesting police assistance by Alcate claiming that a group of persons was
suspiciously roaming However arriving to Alcate, the suspicious persons have left so
the group dropped by for a snack. While they were waiting to be served, a woman
passed by their table where the Cpl. Ugerio started talking to her. Andrada, herein
petitioner, approached and scolded him wherein Sgt. Sumabong, identifying himself
and advised petitioner to pay his bill and go home as he was apparently drunk.
Petitioner heeded advice for he paid his bill and left the restaurant with his
companions, but while Sgt. Sumabong was paying his bill, he saw Cpl. Ugerio
sprawled on the floor. Petitioner was hacking him on the head with a bolo. Sgt.
Sumabong approached and pursued but petitioner ran away. After reporting the
incident, he returned to the police station, he learned that petitioner was arrested in
a waiting shed at the corner of Camdas Road and Magsaysay Avenue.
Dr. Fernandez found that the victim suffered two (2) major injuries. The first was a
"scalping avulsion," around 5 centimeters wide, i.e., the chopping off of a part of the
victim's skull. The second was a depressed fracture, about 6 centimeters wide, found
on the right parieto occipital area of the skull. Either wound, being fatal, would
have caused the death of the victim had it not been for a timely medical
treatment..
RTC ruled Frustrated Murder with evident premeditation and treachery 8 years and
20 days as MINIMUM to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days as MAXIMUM. CA affirmed
with modification as petitioner was minor and FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2)
MONTHS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL, AS MINIMUM, TO EIGHT (8) YEARS AND
TWENTY (20) DAYS OF PRISION MAYOR, AS MAXIMUM.

Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to voluntary surrender as a mitigating

circumstance

Ruling: No, upon running away after committing crime showns petitioner surrender
was not spontaneous for interest unconditional to authorities due to guilt or wishes
to avoid expense or trouble of search.

Note: treachery present since victim was hacked at the back without warning. Self
defense not applicable since claim that victim first attacked unlikely being that
victim was facing back and sitting down. Being threatened, slapped, and poked by a
gun was not proven in allegations.
People v Montinola – Plea of Guilt – Requisite
Ratio: The trial court was correct in not crediting in favor of WILLIAM the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty, since the change of his plea from "not guilty" to
"guilty" was made only after the presentation of some evidence for the
prosecution. To be entitled to such mitigating circumstance, the accused must have
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution. The following requirements must therefore concur:
(1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt
was made in open court, that is, before a competent court trying the case; and
(3) the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for
the prosecution. The third requisite is wanting in the present case.

Facts:
Upon his arraignment on 6 January 1997, WILLIAM entered a plea of not guilty to
both charges. Joint trial of the two cases was conducted. However, on 19 February
1997, after the prosecution had presented three witnesses, WILLIAM moved to
withdraw his previous plea of "not guilty"; and when rearraigned, he pleaded
"guilty" to both charges. Nevertheless, trial on the merits continued.

In the jeep. Petitioner drew n unlicensed .380 caliber Llama pistol directing
Reteracion, victim, to hand over money or be killed. Petitioner shot consecutively at
the victims neck wherein victim slumped dead. He was pursued upon police hearing
the gun shots and arrested. RTC ruled Robbery with Homicide, reclusion perpetua
and death on illegal possession and P50,000 as death indemnity; P191,835 for the
burial and wake expenses; and P39,000 for the money taken from the victim and to
pay the victim's wife P100,000 as moral damages. OSG affirmed but modified death
penalty to our years (4) and two (2) months, as minimum, to six (6) years, as
maximum, of prision coreccional.

Issue: WON the accused change of plea to Guilty constitute mitigating circumstance
of par 7?

Ruling NO, the plea of Guilty was made after the presentation of evidence as such
the requirement of plea of guilty before presentation of evidence is not satisfied.

Note: illegal possession will not be aggravating circumstance since the penalty will
be from reclsion perpetua to death which constitute as ex post facto law. Two
indivisible penalty will be lighter than death penalty. According to Art 63 if two
grave or less grave penalties are present then the greater penalty shall apply if
accompanied with aggravating circumstance. Given that in Robbery with homicide
punishable of reclusion perpetua to death, if we where to apply special retroactive
aggravating then will result to death penalty.