B.P. Blg 22. 2.

) Jao Yu v People
Facts:
1.) Domagsang v CA  Petitioner was charged with 19 counts of violation of BP 22
Facts:  Was sentenced to pay fines and to indemnify a Susan Andaya
> Petitioner asked financial assistance from complainant Garcia and subsidiary imprisonment in case of non payment
who was the VP of metrobank
 Was granted a loan for 573k. Issue:
 Petitioner issued 18 cheques for payment of said loan  May petitioner be imprisoned in case he is not able to pay the
 Upon presentation, the cheques were dishonored for reason fines and damages due to violation of BP 22?
“account closed”.
 Garcia called Domagsang thru phone to tell her that the Ruling:
cheques were dishonored  Yes. Even though it is a special law, the provision of the RPC for
 Despite demands, petitioner failed to pay subsidiary imprisonment applies as Art. 10 states that the RPC is
suppletory to special laws
Issue:  No provision in BP Blg. 22 for subsidiary imprisonment, thus
 Is the notice enough to create the presumption that RPC will be suppletory to it.
Domagsang had knowledge of the dishonor of cheques?  Petition Denied.

Ruling:
 Court Noted the elements of violation of BP Blg 22: 1.) The
making of the cheque for account or for value 2.) knowledge of
drawer that there was insufficient funds 3.) dishonor of the
cheque upon presentment.
 Court noted that the BP blg 22 requires that the notice of
dishonor is an essential requirement for the presumption that
petitioner had knowledge that the cheques were dishonored
 Petitioner was only given verbal notice by Garcia
 Thus, there was no presumption of Domagsang having
knowledge that the cheques were dishonored.
 Acquitted
3.) Lim v People
Facts:
 Petitioner issued 2 cheques for 100k each to Castor, Castor
used these cheques for his campaign to pay for campaign
materials but asked Lim to issue a stop-payment on it since the
materials were not delivered
 Complainant presented cheques and were dishonored for
insufficient funds
 Office of the Prosecutor issued a subpoena for Lim to pay the
amount, petitioner issued replacement cheques, thus
complainant was able to encash the cheques.
 He was filed with violation of BP 22 2 years after cheques has
been encashed
Issue:
 Is Lim guilty of violation of BP 22?
Ruling:
 Generally to extinguish criminal liability, BP 22 states that the
payment shall be made within 5 banking days from notice or
dishonor
 It is in the spirit of the law to protect the credibility and stability
of the banking system, it would defeat this purpose if people
are convicted after they had fixed their mistakes
 Even though the payment was after 5 days, they already paid it
after the subpoena.
 Payment of the cheques before the filing of the information has
already rectified the mistake of the accused, it already has
attained the purpose of the law
 Payment after information has been filed will not extinguish
liability
 Acquitted
4.) Resterio v Peopl
Facts:
 Resterio being charged with violation of BP Blg 22 for issuing a
cheque for 50k which was subsequently dishonored for reason
account closed and failed to pay the value within 5 banking days
of its dishonor.
 The cheque was issued for collateral to a loan
 Petitioner argues that he cannot be convicted for the reason
that the cheque was only a collateral and not meant to be
deposited
Issue:
 Is he guilty of violation of BP 22
Ruling:
 Three elements: 1.) Drawer issues a cheque for account or for
value. 2.) Drawer had knowledge of insufficiency. 3.) Cheque
was dishonored
 BP 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless cheque
 BP 22 is malum prohibitum
 Bank claims they sent 2 notices of dishonor thru mail
 Court noted that there should be sufficient proof that the
accused was sent and received the notice of dishonor
 The receipt of registered letters and return receipts were not
enough to prove that they sent and accused received it.
 Lack of written notice of dishonor is fatal, cannot prove second
element, no presumption of knowledge
 They should have presented the people who mailed it.
 Court reverses and acquits accused
5.) Lee v CA
Facts:
 Petitioner obtained loan for Unlad Commercial Enterprise for
900k which was co-signed by Bautista
 As payment he issued 26 cheques, 4 of which was dishonored
due to insufficient funds. Were replaced and this time cheques
were dishonored due to account closed
 Sent demand letter but refused to make payments
 Petitioner claims he did not know anything about the cheque
and only signed thereon in exchange of interest per month
Issue:
 Is Lee guilty of violation of BP 22
Ruling:
 Presumption of knowledge proven by the fact that the
petitioner received the demand letters sent by complainants
 Petitioner admits having continued investing in Unlad, thus he
has not severed ties with Bautista who is its owner
 The cheque was issued for a consideration, in this case even
though he claims it was signed in blank, it was for the 2.5%
interest on his investment
 Again, petitioner has not proven that he has severed his ties
with Bautista
 Whether the drawee bank knows or not if there is insufficient
funds at the time of the issuance is immaterial as deceit is not
an element of the crime, it is malunm prohibitum
 Decision affirmed; guilty
6.) Vergara v People
Facts:
 Perpetual Garment Corps obtained a continuing credit line for
750k
 As payment of the loan, they issued PDCs with petitioner
signing in the cheques as VP of the company
 A cheque for 150k was dishonored due to insufficient funds
 Petitioner had made cash and cheque payments which was first
applied to the interests and penalties, outstanding balance is
still 610k
 Petitioner asserts that they already paid 542k which is more
than the amount of the 150k cheque
Issue:
 Is petitioner guilty of violation of BP 22
Ruling:
 It was not proven that a notice of dishonor was given and
received by petitioner
 It was not established when the notice of dishonor was given,
thus it cannot be determined when the 5-day payment period
will start. No prima facie evidence of knowledge
 Even assuming there was notice, petitioner subsequently issued
6 cheques for 150k after 2 years which was received by LIVECOR
 1 of the cheques that was dishonored for 25k was only
encashed 3 years after its issuance, way beyond the 90 days
prescribed.
 The petitioner cannot be faulted for the dishonor of the 1
cheque
 Reversed and set aside. Acquitted
7.) Young v CA
Facts:
 Young went to Ines asking for financial aid. Gave three cheques
for 50k. One of which is for 20k
 When Ines, complainant tried to encash it, it was dishonored
due to insufficient funds
 CTBC called petitioner informing her of dishonor
 Young agreed to pay and promised, but did not fulfill promise
 Ines called lawyer who sent demand letters which Young
refused to receive.
 Petitioner claims that he told complainant to call her up before
encashing the cheques as they may not have sufficient funds as
it will depend on his receivables
 With regard the subject cheque, he claims he issued a stop
order but did not give a reason why
Issue:
 Is he guilty of violation of BP 22
Ruling:
 Cheque was dishonored for two reasons: The stop payment
order and insufficient funds
 What is the element is the knowledge of the drawer of the
cheque, demand letter have been sent and he already has
promised that he would pay the dishonored cheques
 Further, he himself said that the cheques may not have
sufficient funds to cover the amount
 Admitted he issued stop payment order without any reason
 The information he provided Ines that it may not have
insufficiency of funds is immaterial as deceit is not an element
of the crime
 Elements present: Issuance for value, Knowledge of
insufficiency or stop payment with no reason, dishonor of
cheque
 Affirmed; guilty
8.) Yulo v People
Facts:
 Petitioner issued three cheques to a certain Myrna for
encashment
 1 cheque was for 40k, 1 for 16k, 1 for 40k. All postdated Nov 18
1992
 When Myrna tried to encash cheque with bank, it was
dishonored due to insufficient funds
 Told Josefina, the friend who introduced, of the dishonored
cheques but he wont provide Yulo address
 Petitioner claims it was only a show money for a jewelry
purchase which had no intention of being deposited
 Petitioner claims the complainant knows that the cheque do
not have funds
Issue:
 Is Yulo guilty of violation of BP 22 given that the cheque was
only show money and not meant to be deposited and that
Myrna knows it does not have sufficient funds?
Ruling:
 No notice of dishonor was sent
 Yulo herself admitted that when she issued the cheque, she
knew she only had 1000 at the account
 It is not the non payment the law punishes but the mere
issuance of a worthless cheque
 Josefina refused to provide address when Myrna asked for it.
 Petition denied; guilty.
9.) Josef v People
Facts:
 Josef being charged with 26 counts of violation of BP 22
 Petitioner purchased materials for shoes business, in payment
he issued 26 PDCs which was dishonored due to account closed.
 Private respondent informed of dishonor and demanded
payment, petitioner replaced the cheques which were also
dioshonored
 Petitioner argues it has already been paid in cash and that he
acted in good faith
Issue:
 Is he guilty of violation of BP 22
Ruling:
 Even though he claims it has already been paid in cash, he did
not prove that he did so within 5 days of notice
 The photocopies were also enough evidence as he himself
admitted the originals were with him and that it was enough
that account closed was stamped on it
 Good faith also cannot be used as a defense as BP 22 is malum
prohibitum. The mere act of issuance is what is being punished
by the law.
 Petition denied; guilty
10.) Mitra v People
Facts:
 Mitra was the president of a money lending corporation
 Private respondent was issued cheques for his investment and
interest signed by Mitra
 When Tarcelo tried to encash, dishonored due to account
closed. Made oral demands but unheeded. Filed complaint for
the 7 cheques worth 925k
 Mitra claims they signed the cheque in blank, no date, no name,
and no amount
Issue:
 Is he guilty of violation of BP 22
Ruling:
 BP 22 was enacted to address the problem of continued
issuance of cheques by irresponsible persons
 BP 22 punishes the issuance of a worthless cheque, not the
purpose or consideration of such issuance.
 It was positively established that the demand letter or notice of
dishonor was sent and received by petitioner during the time
they were at court trial.
 Even though the petitioner refused to sign the receipt of such
demand letter, it is already enough that he was sent and he
received it in fact.
 There is presumption of knowledge since there was notice
 Elements present: Issuance for account or for value; knowledge
of insufficiency or stop payment order with no reason; dishonor
 Petitioner guilty
Other deceits
11.) Guinhawa v People
Facts:
 Guinhawa was an owner of a buy and sell business of motor
vehicles
 One of his purchased vehicles was driven by one of his driver
who had a heart attack in transit which caused damage to the
van
 Van was repaired and offered for sale
 Spouses Silo wanted to buy the van, presumed it was brand
new upon first look and purchased it for 591k without further
inspections
 DAS was executed after downpayment
 After some days of usage, he heard a squeaking sound at the
bottom of the car, took to gas station for inspection and found
that some parts below the car was welded
 When they complained Guinhawa told them it was factory
defect, they requested for it to be replaced with two other
vehicles and stopped monthly amort on payment until it has
been replaced
 Brought to a car clinic and was found that the car had
undergone repairs.
 Petitioner now being charged with violation of 318
 Representation of the van to be brand new does not fall under
the qualifications of fraud under article 315
 There is no claim or false representation of the petitioner that
the van was brand new
 However, representation can be made not only by words but
also by conduct
 He did not refute the fact that he was dealing with brand new
cars, complainant was right to assume that the dealer was
selling brand new cars
 Service manual also stated that it was brand new
 The damage and repair was deliberately concealed from
offended party
 Fraudulent nondisclosure is the non duty to disclose the truth
when the opportunity to it was not present
 The petitioner was mandated to reveal that the car has been
repaired as he was operating as a dealer of brand new cars
 Petitioner cannot be relieved of deceitful concealment of
material facts
 Petition denied; guilty of article 318

Issue:
 Is he guilty of violation of 318

Ruling:
 318 Other deceits elements:
o False pretense, fraudulent act
o Such false pretense or fraud act must be simultaneous
with the commission of fraud. May be prior
o Offended party is injured
 It is essential that the fraud is the cause or motive by the
offended party to part with their property
12.) Villaflor v CA
Facts:
 Obtained a loan from private complainant Locsin for 1,000 to be
secured by a mortgage on a car
 Assurance that car was fully paid and free from encumbrances,
loan and mortgage was executed. Was given 1k
 Due to failure of payment of Villaflor, Locsin went to the the
office of where the car was but found out that it has already
been repossessed due to non payment of installments by
petitioner
Issue:
 Whether there was false representation or false pretenses to
obtain the loan and guilty of article 318 estafa
Ruling:
 The representation, assurance that the car has never been
encumbered and failure to disclose that the car was previously
mortgaged constitute deception
 It is normal for business to take mortgage to protect their
interests
 Knowing that the car was still owned by the seller company, he
still told complainant that it was his.
 The purposes of which was to obtain the loan, he is guilty of
false misrepresentation.
 Guilty of article 318
13.) Veloso v Sandiganbayan
Facts:
 Petitioner being charged for defrauding the govt of 982k thru
tampering of documents and unauthorized issuance of notice of
advise.
 Conspiracy between suppliers and contractors and govt
employees which the petitioner is being charged with
 Petitioner is District Auditor who had irregular processing of
approval of all vouchers and cheques in question to be
forwarded to COA
 Found that he knew that the vouchers and cheques were
illegally funded and improperly charged
 Resorted to splitting so to void review or approval of higher
authorities
 Required by COA that documents were to be approved by
higher authorities but employed splitting to avoid such
 The nature of their work should have given them the
responsibility of more scrutiny in the documents they were
handling
 Petitioner was tasked with ensuring all transactions were
regular
 Petition Denied
14.) Catiis v CA
Facts:
 Private respondents being charged with estafa under article 315
in relation to PD 1689, syndicated estafa by complainant Catiis
 Catiis has been defrauded through false representations to
deliver 123k USD on the pretense that the private respondents
through corporations registered in the SEC were engaged in the
FOREX business knowing that such corporations were not
registered
 Syndicate as per PD 1689 is 5 or more persons formed with an
intention for illegal act or defraudation or gross
misrepresentation ro defraud
Issue:
 Is the repondents guilty of syndicated estafa, are they able to
post bail?
Ruling:
 Information only had four persons charged; PD 1689 needs 5
 PD 1689 is estafa or swindling thru 315 or 316 by 5 or more
persons
 PD 1689 even though not members of a syndicate, will have the
same penalty if fraud is more than 100k php
 Petition denied; no syndicate; allow bail.
 Since there is no mitigiating or aggrav circ, the penalty is
bailable reclusion temporal medium period
15.) People v Hao
Facts:
 A certain Dy invested in the invested 10m to spouses Gracia
 Was returned and was advised to invest more
 Invested 100m
 Hao issued cheques for 114m but were all dishonored
 Despite demands, money were not returned
 Petitioners petition that PD 1689 was inapplicable in their case
and no evidence to show that business was made for the
general public, further they claim they cannot be guilty of said
crime as PD 1689 and simple estafa are two distinct crimes
Issue:
 Are they guilty of syndicated estafa?
Ruling:
 There was deceit as they represented attractive returns when in
fact. It was only to be used as capital for her husbands business
which in the end did not return the money
 Court noted the elements of violation of PD 1689:
o There is estafa or other forms of swindling as per 315
and 316
o Committed by 5 or more persons
o Misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders
or funds solicited from the general public
 Third element is missing
 Funds by the corporation was not solicited from the general
public
 Petition denied; affirmed with modification that the crime is
only simple estafa
16.) Galvex v CA  Misappropriation of funds it solicited from the general public is
Facts: established as RMSI is a bank whose fund comes from the
 RMSI claiming to do business under the name Smartnet and/or general public through deposits
SPI obtained loan from AUB.  Petition Denied; Guilty of violation of PD 1689
 To induce approval, presented articles of incorporation with
400m capitalization
 Approved 250m loan to Smartnet, RMSI’s division
 Apparatenly SPI was only a subsidiary company under RMSI
with paid up capital of 62500
 With this belief, extended loan which was unpaid despite
demands
 RMSI denied liability as SPI is a separate entity than theirs

Issue:
 Are they guilty of PD 1689?

Ruling:
 Estafa elements present:
o There must be false pretense or misrepresentation or
fraudulent means
o It was executed prior to or simultaneously with the
fraud
o Offended party relied on the fraudulent means to part
with property
o Offended party suffered damage
 Gilbert Guy made it appear that SPI and RMSI are one and the
same and AUB relied on the fact of the articles of incorporation
and paid up capital of RMSI
 Circumstances show deceit
 3 elements of PD1689
o Article 315 or 316 is committed
o By 5 persons
o Money from the general public or stockholders
 The five officers established the corporations to carry out illegal
and unlawful act of misrepresenting SPI as a mere division of
RMSI
17.) People v Acosta 18.) People v Oliva
Facts: Facts:
 Appelant’s clothes and applicances were burned by friend  Ferigel Oliva was seen burning the roof of the house of Avelino
 Afterwhich he was seen carrying a stove and a knife proceeding  Occupants shouted for help; neighbor Benjamin was getting
to the house of the complainant water from the river when Oliva shot him at close range
 He tried to burn house the first time but fire was easily put out  Died
 The next morning, he was seen in front of the burning house of  Charged with separate charges of murder and arson
the private complainants
 He is being charged with arson Issue:
 What crime is he guilty of?
Issue:
 Is he guilty of arson? Ruling:
 PD 1613 punishes if the house was burned and there are
Ruling: inhabitants in it immaterial to the fact that the accused had
 Circumstancial evidence show he was guilty of the crime knowledge if there are persons inside or not
 First appellant had motive; this is for revenge for the burning of  Elements of arson:
his things o There is intentional burning
 Intent was established in his previous attempt o What is intentionally burned is a house or a dwelling
 He was present while the fire was burning  It was proven that when Oliva burned the house, Avelino and
 He made a statement after the incident “so what if I burned family were inside sleeping
your house?”  Found guilty of separate charges of arson under PD 1613 and
 What the law punishes is not the value of the property murder
destroyed but the danger to human lives
 Acosta guilty; sentenced to reclusion perpetua
19.) People v Malngan
Facts:
 Edna Malngan being charged with Arson with multiple homicide
or arson resulting to 6 deaths
 Edna Malngan who was working as a maid, was seen leaving the
premises by boarding a pedicab to go to Balasan Street
 30 minutes later, Barangay Chairman’s group found that her
employer’s house was gutted with fire
 Shouts were heard inside
 Accused was caught and interrogated and admitted that she set
the house on fire as year salary has not been paid for a year.
 She asked if she could go home to her province and her
employer insulted her
 She admitted to crumpled newspapers, setting it on fire using a
lighter, and throwing it at a table
 Fire resulted to the burning of the house and adjoining houses
and the death of 6 people
 Interviewed by ABS CBN and narrated the events
Issue:
 What crime is she guilty with?
Ruling:
 Court noted that there is no complex crime of arson with
multiple homicide
 PD 1613 states that if by reason or on occasion of the arson, a
death occurs reclusion perpetua is the punishment
 PD 1613 whether destructive or otherwise punishes so long as
death results therefrom
 When burning was done to kill someone, it is murder only; but
if the main objective is burning and death results, the homicide
will be absorbed and specially complexed with arson; But also if
the person has been killed and he decided to burn the house
still, the crimes are separate
 What is key is the objective of the burning, whether for killing
or for burning
 In this case, her intent was to destroy the house only
 Circumstances show she was guilty:
o She boarded the pedicab nervously
o Unsure of intended direction
o After some minutes of leaving, the house was gutted by
fire
o She confessed the crime when interviewed
 She further argues that the identity of the people burned were
not established thus she should be acquitted
o It is not an element of the crime that the persons killed
be identified
o It only needs to be proven the two. Elements
That there was intentional burning
And what was burned was a house or a dwelling
 Two kinds of arson:
o Article 320: Strucures both public and private that is
used for gathering of people or the public. Destructive
arson
o PD 1613-repeal to Article 321- Simple Arson where what
is burned includes burning of houses or dwelling or
establishments even not for public use or fore groups of
people
 What was burned in this case is a house which spread to 7 other
houses
 Guilty of Simple Arson in violation of PD 1613; reclusion
perpetua to death
20.) Caballes v DAR
Facts
 Spouses Caballes bought a land which was part of a larger
parcel of land
 Tenant of the other portion of land constructed a house therein
prior to Caballes buying the land
 Caballes spouses wanted to construct a poultry farm on their
bought land when they bought it and asked Abajon to vacate
the premises as his house and his farm was occupying their land
 Refused and failed to make an agreement
 Caballes reprimanded Abajon for harvesting the crops within
their property, and afterwards Abajon cut down the banana
plants planted thereon
 Caballes is filing for charges of malicious mischief against
Abajon
 DAR respondent in this case certified that Abajon was a bona-
fide tenant of the land which is devoted for bananas
 That Abajon has the right to. Construct and harvest there as it
was a zone for bananas, industrial zone
Issue:
 Is Abajon guilty of malicious mischief?
Ruling:
 Court noted the elements of malicious mischief:
o Offender deliberately damaged the property of another
o Damage was not arson or crimes involving destructions
o There was malicious intent from the offender
 The first element is not present as the damage was not the
property of another
 HE was the authorized occupant or possessor of the land
 He was allowed by the previous owners to plant on the land
 He was the one who planted and cultivated the crops, thus he is
the owner and not the landowner
 First element absent, no malicious mischief
 Ruling: Dismissed
21.) Beltran v People
Facts:
 Petitioner was married to a Charmaine Felix
 Filed for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity
 Charmaine the wife filed criminal complaint for concubinage as
he claims Beltran lived with another woman.
 Petitioner argues that the decision in the nullity of marriage is a
prejudicial question that should merit the suspension for the
charge of concubinage
Issue:
 Should the nullity of marriage be answered first before a charge
for concubinage be filed?
Ruling:
 Declaration of nullity is not a prejudicial question to the charge
of concubinage
 Article 40, the nullity of previous marriage may be invoked for
the purposes of remarriage
 For other uses as such in a case of concubinage, the only legally
acceptable basis is a judicial declaration that the marriage is
void
 For purposes other than remarriage, other evidence may be
adduced
 Petitioner need not present a final judgement of nullity of
marriage as he can use other evidence other than the judicial
declaration
 Previous case has noted that he who contracts second marriage
before the first one is declared void assumes the risk for bigamy
 Must wait for judicial declaration before contracting another
marriage
 Parties should not judge for themselves the nullity of their
marriage
 Thus he w ho cohabits before declaration assumes the risk of
charge of concubinage; petition dismissed
 22.) Tibong v People
DIGEST
FACTS:
AAA, 18 year old and a student of Benguet State U, was at the
house of the petitioner where where was boarding. One of the
rooms was occupied by petitioner and his wife. Days before the
incident, petitioner’s wife left the house after a misunderstanding
with him. Sometime on April 2006 before midnight, AAA was
awakened when she felt that someone was undressing her. She
then saw her cousin wearing only briefs and crouching over her on
top of bed and pulling down her pajamas and panties. Since AAA
struggled and resisted, petitioner went towards the compact disc
player to watch bold movies. Finding opportunity to escape, she
grabbed her cellphone and bag and ran out of the house.
The following day, AAA, accompanied by her uncle, reported the
incident to the authorities.
with a woman, whereas in acts of lasciviousness, this element if
absent.
Attempted felony: When the offender commences the commission
directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
During the defense’s cross examination of AAA, the existence of
petitioner’s overt acts showed his intent to lie with AAA was put to
light.
Petitioner’s acts, as narrated by AAA, far from being mere obscene
or lewd, indisputably show that he intended to have, and was bent
on consummating, carnal knowledge of AAA.

RTC: Guilty of attempted rape

CA: Affirmed

Petitioner contention:
“Act of lying on top, embracing and kissing, mashing her breast,
inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual organ
do not constitute attempted rape absent any showing that
petitioner actually commenced to force his penis into the
complainant’s sexual organ. Rather, these acts constitutes acts of
lasciviousness.1

ISSUE: WON petitioner is guilty of attempted rape.

HELD: YES!
While rape and acts of lasciviousness have the same nature, they
are fundamentally different. For in rape, there is the intent to lie

1
Perez vs. CA
23.) People v Dadulla 24.) People v Collado
Digest DIGEST
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Likewise, it found him guilty of three (3) counts of acts of
lasciviousness and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of six (6)
years of prision correctional in its maximum period for each count.
It also ordered him to indemnify the private complainant in the
amount of P50,000.00, and P100,000.00 for moral damages.
HELD:
The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of
three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness. The SC took however to
its finding that statutory rape was committed by him on 5 June
1993. A thorough evaluation of the records will show that accused-
appellant should only be convicted for acts of lasciviousness and
not for consummated rape.
The SC held that absent any showing of the slightest penetration
of the female organ, i.e. touching of either the labia of the
pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at
most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
The SC found accused guilty of 4 counts of acts of lasciviousness,
aggravated by obvious ungratefulness. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, accused-appellant was sentenced to an
indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and twenty (20) days
of arresto mayor maximum as minimum, to four (4) years six (6)
months and ten (10) days of prision correccional maximum as
maximum, in each count of Acts of Lasciviousness. Accused-
appellant was further directed to pay the private complainant
P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P40,000.00 for moral damages,
P20,000.00 for exemplary damages, in each of the four (4) counts
of Acts of Lasciviousness, and to pay the costs.
25.) People v Javier