Aoas Vs pp

Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in affirming the
conviction of petitioner of the crime of theft.
Private complainant and witness Garcia, tanod assigned in rice section, the following as the
evidence for the prosecution:
1. Adjacent to her stall is the stall of the accused-appellant
2. accused-appellant removed the partition wall separating the mezzanines without
her consent
3. October 2, 1992: Garcia saw Aoas open the door of her stall and bring out one
sack of beans and loaded the same inside the jeep with the help of its driver.
4. October 12, 1992: Garcia saw Aoas, together with Brenda Sabado, bringing out
five sacks of beans from her stall and likewise loaded them in a vehicle with the
assistance of the driver.
5. October 15, 1992: Garcia saw Aoas appellant seated at the back of the vehicle. He
knew that the sacks loaded in the jeep were sacks of beans because he was just
thirty (30) meters away and the place was heavily lighted. He knew the size of the
beans sacks.
Accused-appellant with her witness, Imelda Bautista presented the following as evidence for
defense:
1. October 2, 1992: when she and her son dropped by the city market to check on
her stall.
2. October 12, 1992: while she was at the city market because she helped her
friends Ronda Sabado and Noli Chamos transport the sacks of mongo and peanuts
which the latter bought from Imelda Bautista.
3. October 15, 199: she was on her way to Helens Restaurant located at Abanao
Street to meet some of her friends.
4. Imelda Bautista is a friend of the accused who occupy her second floor as storage
room.
5. Imelda is engaged in the business of selling mongo beans and peanut butter.
6. Imelda said that she kept her goods at the ground floor of the stall of the
accused-appellant.
RTC rendered judgment convicting Aoas of theft. CA affirmed the decision in toto.
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant solely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence and the honorable court of appeals erred in affirming the said decision
of conviction by the trial court
RULING: Yes, the trial court and the CA erred in convicting the accused based on the
circumstantial evidence. For the aforesaid circumstantial evidence does not pass this test of
moral certainty as to warrant petitioner’s conviction.
Whether the sacks loaded in the jeepney contained beans, and if so, whether these beans
belonged to private complainant were not proven. The fact that beans were scattered on the
floor inside and in front of the stall of petitioner and in the parking lot does not necessarily lead
to the conclusion that petitioner is the perpetrator of the crime.
Conviction must rest on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
*The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.

US vs CATOLICO
FACTS: This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of the crime of malversation
of public funds.
Catolico, as justice of the peace, had before him sixteen separate civil cases commenced by Juan
Canillas against sixteen distinct individuals. Each one of the defendant in said cases appealed
from the decision of the justice of the peace and deposited P16 as required by law, at the same
time giving a bond of P50, each one of which was approved by the court.
ISSUE: WON the defendant is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds
FACTS: No, the defendant is not guilty for the many of the essential elements of the crime of
malversation of public funds is not present in this case such as:
1. The accused did not convert the money to his own use or to the use of any other person;
neither did he feloniously permit anybody else to convert it.
2. After the appeals had been dismissed and the judgments in his court had become final,
and that he delivered the said sums to the plaintiff in satisfaction of the judgment which
he held in those cases.
3. Everything he did was done in good faith under the belief that he was acting judicially
and correctly hence, there is no Criminal intent.
To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be
accompanied by a criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to
consequences, as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent.
 Actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea — a crime is not committed if the mind of the person
performing the act complained of be innocent.
RECUERDO VS PEOPLE:
FACTS: This is for the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in convicting Joy Lee
Recuerdo (petitioner) for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 on 5 counts.
Petitoner purchased pieces of jewelry from Floro and issued 17 checks for its payment. However,
only 9 of the checks were honored. Hence, Floro filed the case of Estafa against Petitioner.
Petitioner asserted that she made efforts to settle her civil obligation which indicates that she
has no intention of duping Floro, as well as the absence of deceit on her part.
ISSUE: WON Petitioner is guilty of estafa
RULING: Yes, the petitioner is guilty of estafa.
Petitioner raising her good faith is a mere afterthought for such argument was raised in her
motion for reconsideration in CA. Issues raised in motion for reconsideration of the appellate
court’s decision is considered as never raised.
Petitioner’s defense of good faith is even belied by the evidence of the prosecution and her own
evidence. She never offered to pay the amounts of the checks after she was informed by the
private complainant that they had been dishonored by the drawee banks hence, the private
complainant file the case of estafa.
PEOPLE VS AH CHONG
FACTS: Ah Chong was employed as a cook in one of the Officers’ quarters at Fort McKinley and
was living together with Gualberto, who was employed as a houseboy. Robbery was rampant in
their place hence, the defendant and Gualberto became cautious.They had an understanding
that when either returned at night, he should knock on the door and say his name. On the night
of Aug. 14, 1908, Ah Chong, who was alone in his room, was awakened by someone trying to
force open the door of the room. The defendant called out twice, asking the identity of the
person but heard no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, the defendant
called out that he would kill the intruder if he tried to enter. At that moment, the door was
forced open and the defendant was struck first above the knee by the edge of the chair. Because
of the darkness of the room, the defendant thought he was being hit by the intruder and tried to
defend himself by striking wildly at the intruder using a common kitchen knife which he kept
under his pillow. It turned out that the said intruder was actually the defendant’s roommate,
Pascual Gualberto. The roommate was brought to the military hospital where he died from the
effects of the wound the following day.
Issue:
WON the defendant was criminally liable for committing a felony.

Held:
Defendant was not criminally liable and exonerated.
In order for mistake of fact to be held as a valid defense, there has to be several requisites. One,
that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to
be. Two, that the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful, and lastly, that
the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
In the case at bar, had the intruder been a robber as the defendant believed him to be, then Ah
Chong acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent, and would have been wholly
exempt from criminal liability and that he cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or
recklessness.
* Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make man guilty unless his
intention were so;" Actus me incito factus non est meus actus, "an act done by me against my
will is not my act;" and others of the like sort. In this, as just said, criminal jurisprudence differs
from civil.
PEOPLE VS PUNO:
Both Mrs Sarmiento and her husband has a driver of their own. January 13, 1988, the accused
Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband (who was then away in Davao
purportedly on account of local election there) arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop. He told
Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency so Isabelo will
temporarily take his place.
On their way home, the car stopped after turning on a corner of Araneta Ave and a young man,
accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car beside the driver. He declared hold up and demanded
a 100,000 additional to the 7,000 Mrs Sarmiento handed. Mrs. Sarmiento drafted 3 checks: two
P30,000 checks and one P40,000 check.
According to her, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of the car then, crossed to the other side of the
superhighway and was able to flag down a fish vendor's van, her dress had blood because
according to her, she fell down on the ground and was injured when she jumped out of the car.
ISSUE: WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom as charged
RULING: No, there is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, nurtured prior to
or at the time they committed the wrongful acts against complainant, other than the extortion
of money from her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation.
For this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactors
was to deprive the offended party of her liberty.
In the case, the restraint of her freedom of action was merely an incident in the commission of
another offense primarily intended by the offenders
This does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention.

PEOPLE VS HASSAN:
Facts: This is a pauper's appeal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court which "finds the
accused USMAN HASSAN y AYUN guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the Crime of
Murder.
Usman Hassan, assumed as 18 yrs. Old of Samal Tribe in Zambo City was convicted of murder of
Pichel. Pichel was stabbed to death at fruit paradise while sitting at his red honda motorcycle,
waiting for friend Jose Samson who was buying fruits.
Usman was convicted on the bases of the testimony of a lone eyewitness for the prosecution
and the sloppiness of the investigation conducted by the police investigator.
ISSUE: WON conviction is valid
HELD: No. Conviction reversed. Acquitted. The Medico Legal found two stab wounds from front
but the Samson claimed that Pichel was stabbed once from behind. Procedure followed was also
improper. The accused was presented to the witness alone and in confrontation, not police line
up. He was also denied right to counsel, particularly when identification took place—this
qualifies for uncounselled confession. The witness was also questioned 2 days after incident and
sworn 4 days after. The fruit vendor as well as the companion of the accused was not
investigated. In fact, they did not pursue other suspect. Also, the knife was not tested.
The Court noted the total absence of motive ascribed to Usman for stabbing Ramon, a complete
stranger to him. Furthermore, the accused did not run away and that he had no motive which, in
People vs. Verzo was considered important when there is doubt in the identity of culprit and
reiterated in People vs. Pervelo which stated that identification is tenuous.
While, as a general rule, motive is not essential in order to arrive at a conviction, because, after
all, motive is a state of mind, however, for purposes of complying with the requirement that a
judgment of guilty must stem from proof beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of motive on the
part of the accused plays a pivotal role towards his acquittal.