CASE36 A.M. No.

No. RTJ-03-1766 March 28, 2008 appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him
LINDA M. SACMAR vs. JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO administratively liable. 

FACTS: In the case filed by complainant Sacmar against Zoren

Legaspi in the MTC of Pasig City, the latter was convicted for grave
threats and was sentenced to arresto mayor and and to pay
complainant moral damages of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). CASE 37 OCA-IPI No. 06-2464-RTJ 18 September
Upon appeal by Legaspi, RTC Judge Reyes-Carpio (herein respondent) 2006
modified the decision, finding the accused guilty only of Other Light SPO3 JOSE V. FABRIQUE v. JUDGE VEDASTO B. MARCO, RTC,
Threats under Article 265 of the RPC, reducing the penalty to arresto BRANCH 81, ROMBLON, ROMBLON
menor and to pay moral damages of ten thousand pesos (P10,000).
Complainant claims that respondent judge wittingly afforded FACTS: Verified complaint of SPO3 Jose V. Fabrique charging
unwarranted benefits to the accused which caused undue injury to respondent with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Violation of Article
her as private complainant in the case. She likewise avers that 205 of the Revised Penal Code (Rendering Judgment Thru
respondent judge exhibited manifest partiality towards the accused Inexcusable Negligence or Ignorance) relative to Criminal Case No.
when she disregarded the evidence on record in modifying the 2618 (CC 2618) entitled "People of the Philippines vs. SPO4 Fernando
decision of the MTC by downgrading the conviction of Legaspi from Faigao and PO1 Joven Gaca."
Grave Threats to Other Light Threats thereby reducing the criminal CC 2618 stemmed from the criminal complaint for violation of Section
and civil liabilities of Legaspi. 3 (e) of RA 3019 instituted by complainant before the Office of the
Ombudsman against PNP police officers, SPO4 Faigao and PO1 Gaca.
ISSUE:  Whether or not Respondent Judge rendered an unjust The Information subsequently filed with RTC-Romblon by the Office of
judgment pursuant to Art. 204, RPC and for violation of Section 3(e) the Ombudsman through the Romblon Provincial Prosecution Office
of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. alleged that the accused "(gave) unwarranted benefits, through
manifest partiality in the discharge of their official function, to one
RULING: No. Case dismissed for lack of merit. Einstein Falculan, that is by refraining from filing a complaint of (sic)
As a rule, the acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial functions Violation of COMELEC Election Gun Ban against said Einstein Falculan
are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with who was arrested for possessing a firearm with the necessary
fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. To hold otherwise would be COMELEC exemption sometime [on] July 16, 2002 to the damage and
to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the prejudice of the Philippine Government."
facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can ISSUE: WON the respondent judge guilty of Gross Ignorance of the
be infallible in his judgment. Law and Violation of Article 205 of the Revised Penal Code
. Complainant failed to satisfactorily show that respondent judge (Rendering Judgment Thru Inexcusable Negligence or Ignorance)
acted in bad faith, with malice or in willful disregard of her right as a relative to Criminal Case No. 2618 (CC 2618
litigant. Although the application and interpretation of the law by RULING:
respondent judge differed from that of the judge of the MTC, Case dismissed for lack of merit.
complainant cannot sweepingly claim that respondent judge Well settled is the rule unless the acts were committed with fraud,
knowingly rendered an unjust judgment. For a charge of knowingly dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith or deliberate intent
rendering an unjust judgment to prosper, it must be shown that the to do an injustice, the respondent judge may not be held
judgment was unjust, and not that the judge merely committed an administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or
error of judgment or took the unpopular side of a controversial point incompetence of official acts or acts in the exercise of judicial
of law. He must have known that his judgment was indeed unjust. functions and duties, particularly in the adjudication of cases. Further
to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous rule
The failure of a judge to correctly interpret the law or to properly
or decision he renders would be nothing short of harassment and
would make his position doubly unbearable. To hold otherwise would
be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try
the facts or interpret the law in the process of the administration of
justice can be infallible in his judgment.
Indeed, complainant failed to adduce evidence to prove bias on the
part of respondent in dismissing Criminal Case No. 2618 by granting
the Motion to Quash. Charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation cannot be given credence. Neither could complainant
attribute bad faith, ill-will or malice to respondent in his exercise of
judicial discretion.
CASE 32 GR No. 196342 August 8, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOEL GO CAOLI ALIAS “BOY
TAGALOG”

FACTS:  Caoili kissed AAA, her daughter, who was 15 years of age,
touched and mashed her breast, inserted the fourth finger of his left
hand into her vagina, and made a push and pull movement with such
Case #33 GR No. 138033 February 22, 2006
finger for 30 minutes. AAA felt excruciating pain during and after the
RENATO BALEROS, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ordeal. An Information was filed against Caoili, charging him with the
crime of rape through sexual intercourse (Art. 266-A).
FACTS:  One evening, inside her room, Malou retired at around
The trial court however, found Caoili guilty of the crime of 10:30. Outside, right in front of her bedroom door, her maid slept on
rape by sexual assault. The CA held that the trial court should have a folding bed. Early morning of the following day, petitioner, clad in t-
directed the State Prosecutor to file a new Information charging the shirt and shorts, entered the room of Malou through its window. Once
proper offense and dismiss the original Information. However, the inside, he approached Malou and tightly pressed on her face a piece
OSG maintained that based on the variance doctrine, Caoili can be of cloth soaked with chemical and pinned her down on the bed. She
convicted of rape by sexual assault because this offense is was awakened thereby and she struggled but could not move.
necessarily included in the crime of rape through sexual intercourse. Malou continued fighting off her attacker by kicking him until
her right hand got free. With this, she was able to grab hold of his sex
ISSUE: Whether or not rape by sexual assault is necessarily included organ which she then squeezed. Petitioner let her go and escaped
in rape by sexual intercourse?
while Malou went straight to the bedroom door and roused her maid.
HENCE: No, rape by sexual assault necessarily is not included in rape
by sexual intercourse. An accused charged in the Information with ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner guilty of attempted rape?
rape by sexual intercourse cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual
assault due to the substantial distinctions between these two modes HELD: No. There is the absence of sexual intercourse or carnal
of rape. In the first mode (rape by sexual intercourse): (1) the knowledge in the present case. The pressing of a chemical-soaked
offender is always a man; (2) the offended party is always a woman; cloth while on top of Malou, does not constitutes an overt act of rape.
(3) rape is committed through penile penetration of the vagina. In the The act of pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in the mouth of
second mode (rape by sexual assault): (1) the offender may be a man Malou which would induce her to sleep as an overt act that will not
or a woman; (2) the offended party may be a man or a woman; (3) necessarily ripen into rape. The petitioner did not commence at all
rape is committed by inserting the penis into another person’s mouth the performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape
or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal Malou. He was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on his part
orifice of another person. In view of the material differences between to undress Malou, let alone touch her private part. For what reason
the two modes of rape, the first mode is not necessarily included in
petitioner wanted the complainant unconscious, if that was really his
the second, and vice-versa. (PWEDE NANG HINDI ISULAT). Hence,
immediate intention, is anybody’s guess.
Caoili can be held guilty of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness
performed on a child,  i.e., lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of
R.A. No. 7610, which was the offense proved, because it is included
in rape, the offense charged.
Case #26 G.R. No. 224498. January 11, 2018 pull out his gun and prepare to defend himself against a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PFC ENRIQUE REYES possible assault from accused-appellant, underscores the fact
that he did not expect the attack.
FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with the murder of Danilo
Sanchez. The accused, with treachery and evident premeditation and Even if the Court were to consider accused-appellant's
with intent to kill, fired his armalite rifle at Danilo who was then contention, supposedly based on the autopsy report, that
walking home and hitting him on different parts of the body, Danilo was shot frontally, it is settled that the essence of
depriving the latter of a chance to defend himself from the attack treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim
thereby inflicting upon him mortal gunshot wounds in the different that renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend
parts of his body which wounds were the direct and immediate cause himself because of the suddenness and severity of the attack.
of his death. This criterion applies whether the attack is frontal or from
Accused-appellant invoked self-defense. RTC convicted accused- behind. Thus, a frontal attack could still be deemed
appellant of murder treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who
RTC held that the killing was attended by treachery and likewise would not be in a position to repel the attack or avoid it. It has
appreciated the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. been sufficiently established by the prosecution that accused-
CA sustained the RTC's finding that the killing was not done in self- appellant's attack on Danilo was unexpected and executed in
defense. However, finding no sufficient evidence that would establish a manner that deprived the latter of a chance to put up a
the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident defense.
premeditation, the appellate court downgraded accused-appellant's
conviction from murder to homicide. The killing having been committed with alevosia, accused-
Accused-appellant moved for reconsideration, assailing both his appellant's conviction for homicide, as determined by the CA,
conviction and the penalty imposed on him by the appellate court must be modified to one for murder.
and moved to post bail in view of the downgrading of the offense
from murder to homicide. Both motions were denied. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June
In the instant appeal, accused-appellant insists that he acted in 10, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05671 is MODIFIED in that
complete self-defense and, thus, prays for an acquittal. accused-appellant is held guilty of murder and sentenced to a
penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed is murder. minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one
RULING: (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Furthermore,
1. Yes. The Court disagrees with the CA's finding that the accused-appellant shall pay civil indemnity, moral damages
qualifying circumstance of treachery was absent. There is and exemplary damages, each in the amount of P100,000.00,
treachery when the offender, in committing any of the crimes as well as temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
against persons, employs means or methods which tend to The civil indemnity and all damages payable by accused-
directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to appellant are subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
himself arising from the defense which the offended party per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
might make. When alleged in the information and clearly
proved, treachery qualifies the killing and elevates it to the
crime of murder. Treachery was established in this case. It has
been held that treachery may still be appreciated even when
the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person. What
is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it
impossible for the victim to retaliate or defend himself, as in
this case. Furthermore, that Danilo did not find it necessary to
CASE 27 G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IRENEO JUGUETA However, the Court must make a clarification as to the nomenclature used by
the trial court to identify the crimes for which appellant was penalized. There
FACTS: Jugueta, was charged with Double Murder and Multiple Attempted is some confusion caused by the trial court's use of the terms "Double
Murder for the attack on the family of Norberto Divina which caused the Murder" and "Multiple Attempted Murder" in convicting appellant, and yet
death of the victim’s daughter, Mary Grace and Claudine. imposing penalties which nevertheless show that the trial court meant to
In Norberto’s testimony, he positively identified that Jugueta was penalize appellant for two (2) separate counts of Murder and four (4) counts
accompanied by Estores and San Miguel who were originally included in the of Attempted Murder.
second information. However, after reinvestigation, the prosecutor did not
find enough probable cause to indict and dismissed the informations against The facts, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 7698-G, and as
the two other accused prior to the arraignment. Jugueta was the only one proven during trial, show that appellant is guilty of 2 counts of the crime of
tried and found guilty for the two informations which sentenced him to Murder and not Double Murder, as the killing of the victims was not the result
reclusion perpetua. Hence, the instant petition. of a single act but of several acts of appellant and his cohorts. In the same
vein, appellant is also guilty of 4 counts of the crime of Attempted Murder
ISSUES: 1. WON Jugueta is guilty of the crime of murder and attempted and not Multiple Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G.
murder.
2. WON there is conspiracy. 2. Yes, Jugueta and the two other malefactors are equally responsible for the
death of Norberto's daughters because, as ruled by the trial court, they
RULING: clearly conspired to kill Norberto's family. Conspiracy exists when two or
1. Yes. Murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the more persons come to an agreement regarding the commission of a crime
unlawful killing of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, attended by and decide to commit it. Proof of a prior meeting between the perpetrators to
circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation. discuss the commission of the crime is not necessary as long as their
concerted acts reveal a common design and unity of purpose. In such case,
The trial court correctly ruled that appellant is liable for murder because the act of one is the act of all. Here, the three men undoubtedly acted in
treachery attended the killing of Norberto’s two children. concert as they went to the house of Norberto together, each with his own
firearm. It is, therefore, no longer necessary to identify and prove that it is
Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to the bullet particularly fired from appellant's firearm that killed the children.
put up a defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery
exists.

As to the charge of multiple attempted murder, the last paragraph of Article

6 of the Revised Penal Code states that a felony is attempted when the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and
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. In Esqueda v. People, 589 SCRA 489 (2009), the Court held: If
one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime
committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no
intention to kill the victim, or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated
murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim.
In the case at bar, if only the perpetrators were good in aiming their target,
not only Mary Grace and Claudine had been killed but surely all the rest of
the family would surely have died. Hence, perpetrators were liable for Murder
of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina but for Multiple Attempted Murder
for Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina. But
as [appellant] Ireneo Jugueta was the only one charged in this case, he alone
is liable for the crime committed.

The prosecution has clearly established the intent to kill on the part of
appellant as shown by the use of firearms, the words uttered during, as well
as the manner of, the commission of the crime.
Case No. 30 G.R. No. 173150 July 28, 2010 the performance of her official duties. Lydia was already angry when she
LYDIA C. GELIG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, entered the classroom and refused to be pacified despite the efforts of
FACTS:Lydia and private complainant Gemma B. Micarsos (Gemma), were Gemma. Gemma then proceeded towards the principal’s office but Lydia
public school teachers at the Nailon Elementary School, in Nailon, Bogo, followed and resorted to the use of force by slapping and pushing her against
Cebu. Lydia’s son, Roseller, was a student of Gemma at the time material to a wall divider. The violent act resulted in Gemma’s fall to the floor.
this case. On July 17, 1981, Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from The prosecution’s success in proving that Lydia committed the crime
Roseller that Gemma called him a "sissy" while in class. Lydia slapped of direct assault does not necessarily mean that the same physical force she
Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, thereby causing her to fall and hit a employed on Gemma also resulted in the crime of unintentional abortion.
wall divider. As a result of Lydia’s violent assault, Gemma suffered a There is no evidence on record to prove that the slapping and pushing of
contusion in her "maxillary area". However, Gemma continued to experience Gemma by Lydia that occurred on July 17, 1981 was the proximate cause of
abdominal pains and started bleeding two days after the incident. On August the abortion.
28, 1981, she was admitted in the Southern Islands Hospital and was It is worth stressing that Gemma was admitted and confined in a
diagnosed, to her surprise, to have suffered incomplete abortion. hospital for incomplete abortion on August 28, 1981, which was 42 days after
In her defense, Lydia claimed that she approached Gemma only to the July 17, 1981 incident. This interval of time is too lengthy to prove that
tell her to refrain from calling her son names. However, Gemma proceeded to the discharge of the fetus from the womb of Gemma was a direct outcome of
attack her by holding her hands and kicking her. She was therefore forced to the assault. Her bleeding and abdominal pain two days after the said incident
retaliate by pushing Gemma against the wall. were not substantiated by proof other than her testimony. Thus, it is not
The RTC rendered a decision convicting Lydia of the complex crime unlikely that the abortion may have been the result of other factors.
of direct assault with unintentional abortion. On appeal, the CA ruled that
Lydia cannot be held liable for direct assault since Gemma descended from
being a person in authority to a private individual when, instead of pacifying Case No. 31 G.R. No. L-50884 March 30, 1988
Lydia or informing the principal of the matter, she engaged in a fight with PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FILOMENO SALUFRANIA
Lydia. The appellate court also ruled that Lydia cannot be held liable for FACTS:Pedro Salufrania, son of herein appellant and of the deceased, stated
unintentional abortion since there was no evidence that she was aware of that his father Filomeno Salufrania and his mother Marciana Abuyo quarrelled
Gemma’s pregnancy at the time of the incident. However, it declared that
at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of 3 December 1974, in their small
Lydia can be held guilty of slight physical injuries.
house at a far away sitio in barrio Tigbinan, Labo, Camarines Norte; that
ISSUE:
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner is during said quarrel, he saw his father box his pregnant mother on the
liable for Slight Physical Injuries pursuant to Article 266 (1) of the Revised stomach and, once fallen on the floor, his father strangled her to death; that
Penal Code. he saw blood ooze from the eyes and nose of his mother and that she died
HELD: right on the spot where she fell.
YES. It is clear from the provision of Art. 148 of the Revised Penal Pedro Salufrania further testified that after killing his mother, the accused-
Code that direct assault is an offense against public order that may be appellant went out of the house to get a hammock; that his brother Alex and
committed in two ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public he were the only ones who witnessed how the accused killed their mother
uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the because his sister and other brothers were already asleep when the horrible
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and incident happened. The accused denied the allegations and contended that
second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall attack, his wife died due to a stomach ailment andheadache. The defense presented
employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any witnesses in favor of the accused. However, the trial court decidedand found
of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on
the accused guilty of the complex crime of parricide with intentional
occasion of such performance.
abortion.
The case of Lydia falls under the second mode, which is the more
common form of assault. Its elements are: ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the complex crime of
1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) parricide with intentional abortion.
makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance; 2. That the HELD: NO. He should not be held guilty of the complex crime of Parricide
person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent; 3. That at the time of with Intentional Abortion but of the complex crime of Parricide with
the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged in the actual Unintentional Abortion. The elements of Unintentional Abortion are as
performance of official duties, or [b] that he is assaulted by reason of the follows:
past performance of official duties; 4. That the offender knows that the one 1. That there is a pregnant woman; 2. That violence is used upon such
he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his pregnant woman without intending an abortion; 3. That the violence is
duties; 5. That there is no public uprising. intentionally exerted; 4. That as a result of the violence the foetus dies,
On the day of the commission of the assault, Gemma was engaged in either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
The Solicitor General's brief makes it appear that appellant intended to cause
an abortion because he boxed his pregnant wife on the stomach which
caused her to fall and then strangled her. We find that appellant's intent to
cause an abortion has not been sufficiently established. Mere boxing on the
stomach, taken together with the immediate strangling of the victim in a
fight, is not sufficient proof to show an intent to cause an abortion. In fact,
appellant must have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily to
cause an abortion.
The evidence on record, therefore, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that
accused Filomeno Salufrania committed and should be held liable for the
complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. The abortion, in this
case, was caused by the same violence that caused the death of Marciana
Abuyo, such violence being voluntarily exerted by the herein accused upon
his victim.
Case #42 G.R. No. 205693. February 14, 2018 Finally, anent the last element for the crime of malversation of
MANUEL VALENZUELA vs. People of the Philippines public funds, Venezuela failed to return the amount of
FACTS: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 Php2,572,808.00, upon demand. His failure or inability to return the
seeking the reversal of the Decision and Resolution rendered by the shortage upon demand created a prima facie evidence that the funds
Sandiganbayan Third Division which convicted petitioner Manuel M. were put to his personal use, which Venezuela failed to overturn
Venezuela (Venezuela) of Malversation of Public Funds under Art. 217
of the RPC, as amended.
Venezuela was the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio when a CASE 43 G.R. NO. 192330 NOV. 14, 2012
group of auditors conducted an investigation of the accounts of ARNOLD JAMES YSIDORO V PEOPLE
Pacita Costes and discovered a shortage of Php2,872,808.00 on the This case is about a municipal mayor charged with illegal diversion of food intended
joint accounts of Costes and Venezuela. The auditors discovered that for those suffering from malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconsideration projects
the 17 cash advances made by Valenzuela were illegal. He was
affecting the homes of victims of calamities.
likewise not authorized to receive cash advances.
One Marita Laquerta confirmed that the signatures appearing Facts: The Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO) of Leyte,
on 16 of the 17 illegal disbursement vouchers belonged to Venezuela. Leyte, operated a Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP) that provided construction
Costales, Officer in Charge in the Municipal Treasurer's Office, materials to indigent calamity victims with which to rebuild their homes. The
testified that the receipts presented by Venezuela, did not actually beneficiaries provided the labor needed for construction. On June 15, 2001, when the
reflect the payments claimed by Venezuela. The receipts were issued shelter project is about 70% complete, the workers stopped going to work due to lack
to different persons, in different amounts and for different purposes. of food for them and their families. Garcia, the CSAP officer in charge went together
Venezuela declared that he submitted to then Municipal
with Polinio, officer in charge of Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) to then Mayor
Treasurer Costes all the supporting documents to liquidate his cash
advances before the end of his term in June 1998. Witnesses support of Leyte, Ysidoro to realign food from SFP to CSAP worth Php 3,396.00.
Venezuela’s defense. On August 21, 2001, Doller, a former Sangguniang Bayan member filed a case
because SFP is only intended to malnourished children. On Ysidoro’s defense. It was
ISSUE: Is there malversation where the public officer fails to on good faith because it was realigned to feed the hungry and the poor. On February
return cash advances, subsequently found illegal, upon demand? 8, 2010, the Sandiganbayan found Ysidor guilty of technical malversation
Issue: WON SB erred in their decision
RULING: Yes, Venezuela is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Held: The crime of technical malversation as penalized under Article 220 of the
the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.
Revised Penal Code has three elements: a) that the offender is an accountable public
The elements of malversation are (i) that the offender is a
public officer, (ii) that he had custody or control of funds or property officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration to some
by reason of the duties of his office, (iii) that those funds or property public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property were applied is
were public funds or property for which he was accountable, and (iv) different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or
that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through ordinance.
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. The appropriation approved by the Sangguniang Bayan ng Leyte has two
Verily, in the crime of malversation of public funds, all that is separate funds for SFP and CSAP for their annual budget. The target clients of SFP are
necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had only those malnourished among its people and in urgent need of the government
received the public funds and that he failed to account for the said
assistance. Ysidoro disregarded the guidelines for SFP.
funds upon demand without offering a justifiable explanation for the
shortage. Good faith cannot be appreciated as a defense in technical malversation
The prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of the because criminal intent is not an element of such crime. The law punishes the act of
crime. Venezuela was a public officer, being the mayor in the period diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public
relevant to the time of the crime charged. During his term as mayor, purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the
he incurred unliquidated cash advances amounting to prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because
Php2,872,808.00 that constituted funds belonging to the Municipality positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order,
of Pozorrubio, and earmarked for use by the said municipality.
and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the
character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has been
violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
Case 44 G.R. No. 221418 January 23, 2019 medicines, and gravel and sand. They also used said fund for the
JOSE T. VILLAROSA, CARLITO T. CAJAYON and PABLO I. ALVARO maintenance of a PNP vehicle and other service vehicle, for bus rentals, and
vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN and ROLANDO C. BASILIO, various other municipal activities. Therefore, respondents' participation in
respondents. the processing and disbursement of the Tobacco Fund for the purposes in
question contravened their duties. As accountable officers, there is probable
FACTS: Rolando C. Basilio filed complaints with the Ombudsman against cause to believe that respondents are guilty of technical Malversation and
petitioners Villarosa, Municipal Mayor; Alvaro, Municipal Accountant; and are personally liable therefor.
Cajayon, Municipal Treasurer; all of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, for The crime of Technical Malversation has three (3) elements: "(a) that
Malversation of Public Funds; violation of Section 3 (a), (e), (g) and (i) of R.A. the offender is an accountable public officer; (b) that he applies public funds
No. 3019; violation of R.A. No. 8240; grave abuse of authority; grave or property under his administration to some public use; and (c) that the
misconduct; dishonesty; and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public use for which such funds or property were applied is different from the
service. Basilio alleged that petitioner Villarosa, together with petitioners purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance."
Alvaro and Cajayon, approved the use of the municipality’s “Trust Fund” Clearly, from the findings of the Ombudsman, the elements of the
derived from tobacco excise taxes (Tobacco Fund) under R.A. No. 8240 to crime are present in this case. It must be remembered that owing to the
finance the regular operations of the municipality which were not within the nature of a preliminary investigation and its purpose, all of the foregoing
purpose for which said fund was created. elements need not be definitively established for it is enough that their
Petitioner Alvaro argued that his participation was ministerial in nature presence becomes reasonably apparent. This is because probable cause —
considering his lack of discretion in disallowing purchases that passed the determinative matter in a preliminary investigation — implies mere
through the required procedure and claimed that the use of the Tobacco probability of guilt; thus, a finding based on more than bare suspicion, but
Fund did not constitute a violation of any law and the absence of any less than evidence that would justify a conviction, would suffice.
prohibition in R.A. No. 8240 regarding the treatment of funds derived from
the Tobacco Fund as part of the “General Fund,” the issue is already moot. 2 This Court, however, finds no probable cause to charge petitioners with
Petitioner Cajayon also claimed that his act was ministerial considering that violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
he signed the disbursement vouchers after confirming that the supporting The elements of Section 3 (e), R.A. No. 3019 are as follows: (1) the
documents were complete, and the municipality had funds available. offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public
For his defense, Villarosa asserted that the Tobacco Fund came from Rep. officer's official, administrative or judicial functions; (3) the act was done
Villarosa as Occidental Mindoro’s congressional share in the Tobacco Fund, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
pursuant to R.A. No. 8240. According to Villarosa, given that the statute negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party,
contained no prohibition for treating funds derived therefrom as part of the including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
“General Fund,” there was no violation to speak of. preference.
The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioners for Technical For an act to be considered as exhibiting "manifest partiality," there
Malversation and violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. Petitioners filed must be a showing of a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to
their motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Ombudsman. favor one side rather than the other. "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias"
Hence, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for
Court with the Supreme Court. rather than as they are." "Gross negligence has been so defined as
ISSUES: negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting
1. Whether or not there was a crime of technical malversation. to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully
2. Whether or not there was a violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 3019. and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as
RULING: 1. Yes. Pursuant to RA 8240, the local government unit's share in other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even
the proceeds should be used solely for cooperative, livelihood and/or agro- inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property."
industrial projects that enhance the quality of agricultural products, develop In this case, the finding of the Ombudsman falls short of that
alternative farming systems, or enable tobacco farmers to manage and own quantum of proof necessary to establish the fact that petitioners acted with
post-harvest enterprises like cigarette manufacturing and by-product manifest partiality or there was a failure to show that there was a clear,
utilization. notorious or plain inclination or predilection on the part of the petitioners to
Notwithstanding the mandate of the law and the circular, favor one side rather than the other. It must always be remembered that
respondents applied the fund to the purchase of vehicles, Christmas lights, manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence are not elements in the
meals and snacks of newly-elected Barangay Captains and SK Chairpersons, crime of Technical Malversation and simply alleging one or both modes would
not suffice to establish probable cause for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A.
No. 3019, for it is well-settled that allegation does not amount to proof. Nor
can we deduce any or all of the modes from mere speculation or hypothesis
since good faith on the part of petitioners as with any other person is
presumed. The facts themselves must demonstrate evident bad faith which
connotes not only bad judgment, but also palpably and patently fraudulent
and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for
some perverse motive or ill will.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court dated December 1, 2015 of petitioners Jose T. Villarosa, Carlito T.
Cajayon and Pablo I. Alvaro is PARTLY GRANTED. The Joint Resolution dated
March 23, 2015 and Order dated July 29, 2015 of the Office of the
Ombudsman are AFFIRMED only insofar as its finding of probable cause
against petitioners for the crime of Technical Malversation.
Case #45 G.R. No. 161133. February 8, 2012 It must be noted that full restitution of the lent public funds cannot
MELCHOR M. MALLARE and ELIZABETH GOSUDAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE exonerate Mallare and Gosudan from the crime charged because payment
PHILIPPINES does not extinguish criminal liability. It bears stressing that the full restitution
of the amount malversed will not in any way exonerate an accused, as
FACTS: On October 4, 1999, an Information was filed before the payment is not one of the elements of extinction of criminal liability. At most,
Sandiganbayan charging Melchor M. Mallare and Elizabeth M. Gosudan, then, payment of the amount malversed will only serve as a mitigating
Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of the Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan circumstance akin to voluntary surrender, as provided for in paragraph 7 of
with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, to wit: 1) ₱995,686.09 for Article 13 in relation to paragraph 10 of the same Article of the Revised Penal
unlawful personal loans to several municipal officials and employees Code.
including themselves; 2) ₱291,421.31 for payments without the requisite
appropriation; and 3) ₱200,000.00 for withdrawals recorded as cash
disbursements. The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding Mallare and
Gosudan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of
Public Funds. Mallare and Gosudan filed their Motion to Re-Open Proceedings The Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan’s ruling that there was
arguing that their counsel committed a misjudgment by not presenting more than enough evidence to prove that Gosudan abused her position as
Mallare at the witness stand. Such circumstance justified re-opening of Municipal Treasurer of Infanta, Pangasinan, by committing the crime of
proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The Ombudsman Prosecutor Malversation of Public Funds when she gave out loans in the total amount of
filed his Comment/Opposition contending that the subject motion to re-open ₱774,285.78 to several co-employees including herself. When COA Auditor
proceedings was without merit because it was filed late and after the Emilie S. Ritua (Ritua) requested Gosudan to immediately produce the
decision convicting the accused had already attained finality. The missing funds and to explain why there was a shortage in the accounting of
Sandiganbayan issued its Resolution granting the Motion To Re-open municipal funds, she failed to immediately do so. The best that she could do
Proceedings and allowing the reception of Mallares testimony. Hence, this was to explain that the subject amount was lent to the said municipal
petition. officials and employees. Clearly, the subject loans that Gosudan extended to
the said municipal officials and employees including herself were unofficial
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan was correct in finding Mallare and and unauthorized loans and, therefore, anomalous in nature. The
Gosudan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Sandiganbayan was correct in ruling that said loans were nothing but
Public Funds. personal loans taken from the cash account of the Municipality of Infanta,
Pangasinan. Gosudan unlawfully disbursed funds from the coffers of the
RULING: Yes. The elements of Malversation of Public Funds under municipality and, therefore, guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. That the offender is a public Funds.
officer; 2. That he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of
the duties of his office; 3. That those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable; and 4. That he appropriated, took,
misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them.
Unquestionably, the source of the subject funds taken by Mallare and
Gosudan came from the municipal funds. As Municipal Mayor and Treasurer,
respectively, they had the sworn duty to safely keep said funds and disburse
the same in accordance with standard procedure because the subject funds
belong to the municipality and must only be used for the benefit of the
municipality. The standard practice in the disbursement of public funds is
that they cannot be released and disbursed without the signatures of the
Mayor and the Treasurer. In this case, the written approvals of Mallare and
Gosudan were essential before any release and disbursement of municipal
funds could be made. Hence, any unlawful disbursement or misappropriation
of the subject funds would make them accountable.
CASE 20 GR NO. 217022 JUNE03, 2019
PP v. SALVE GONZALES Y TORNO
FACTS: Salve Gonzales y Torno was charged with parricide that on or about
the 16th day of September, 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused,
being then the mother of the victim, with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and employ personal CASE 21 GR NO. 211062 JANUARY 13, 2016
violence upon the person of RONALD GONZALES y TORNO, a minor, 13 years PP v. MANUEL MACAL Y BOLASCO
of age, by then and there hit her son’s head broomstick ("walis tambo"), FACTS: Angeles, the mother of Auria, narrated that Auria and the accused-
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal injuries which were the direct appellant got married in March 2000 and that out of their union, they begot
and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of two (2) children. Angeles claimed that, at the time of the incident, they were
the heirs of the said RONALD GONZALES y TORNO. Rhey and Racel Gonzales all living together in a house located in V & G Subdivision, Tacloban City. The
positively testified that appellant severely beat up their brother Ronald first said house was entrusted to Angeles by her brother, Quirino Ragub, who was
with a hanger until it broke, and then, with the broom's wooden handle. then residing in Canada.
Angeles testified that at around 1:20 in the morning of February 12,
ISSUE: 2003, she, her children Catherine, Jessica, Auria and Arvin were walking
1.) Whether or not the accused is guilty of parricide. home after playing bingo at a local peryahan. Some friends tagged along
2.) Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to with them so that they could all feast on the leftover food prepared for the
commit so grave a wrong must be appreciated in her favor. fiesta that was celebrated the previous day. Along the way, Angeles and her
group met Auria's husband, the accused appellant. The latter joined them in
RULING: walking back to their house.
1.) Yes, the accused is found guilty of parricide. Parricide is committed When they arrived at the house, the group proceeded to the living
when (1) a person is killed; (2) the accused is the killer; and (3) room except for Auria and the accused-appellant who went straight to their
deceased is either the legitimate spouse of the accused, or any bedroom, about four (4) meters away from the living room. Shortly
legitimate or illegitimate parent, child, ascendant or descendant of thereafter, Angeles heard her daughter Auria shouting, "mother help me I am
the accused. Here, the presence of the third element is undisputed. going to be killed". Upon hearing Auria's plea for help, Angeles and the rest
Accused is Ronald's mother. Ronald's birth certificate (Exhibit "C") of her companions raced towards the bedroom but they found the door of the
showed this fact. room locked. Arvin kicked open the door of the bedroom and there they all
saw a bloodied Auria on one side of the room. Next to Auria was the accused-
As for the first and second elements, appellant's minor children appellant who was then trying to stab himself with the use of an improvised
Rhey and Racel Gonzales categorically identified appellant as the bladed weapon (belt buckle). Auria was immediately taken to a hospital, on
person who killed Ronald. They each gave an eyewitness account of board a vehicle owned by a neighbor, but was pronounced dead on arrival.
how appellant inflicted multiple blows on Ronald's head and body. Angeles declared that the accused-appellant jumped over the fence and
The physical evidence, which is a mute but eloquent manifestation managed to escape before the policemen could reach the crime scene.
of truth, in this case is compatible with the testimonies of the
witnesses. These testimonies, therefore, must prevail. ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of the crime Parricide?

2.) No, the accused’s cruelty toward her young child wickedly defies RULING: All the essential elements of Parricide were duly established and
human nature especially the mother's protective instinct toward her proven by the prosecution.
own. In the words of the Court of Appeals, "it is inexplicably tragic Among the three requisites, the relationship between the offender
that the very person who brought Ronald into this world, with the and the victim is the most crucial. This relationship is what actually
natural and unconditional obligation to protect and nurture him, was distinguishes the crime of parricide from homicide. In parricide involving
also the one who brought his life to a premature end at the very spouses, the best proof of the relationship between the offender and victim is
young age of thirteen (13)." Plainly, appellant's brutish acts their marriage certificate. Oral evidence may also be considered in proving
sufficiently produced, and did actually produce, her son's death. The the relationship between the two as long as such proof is not contested.
accused, therefore, cannot be credited with the mitigating In this case, the spousal relationship between Auria and the accused-
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. appellant is beyond dispute. As previously stated, the defense already
admitted that Auria was the legitimate wife of the accused-appellant during
the pre-trial conference. Such admission was even reiterated by the accused-
appellant in the course of trial of the case. Nevertheless, the prosecution
produced a copy of the couple's marriage certificate which the defense
admitted to be a genuine and faithful reproduction of the original. Hence, the
key element that qualifies the killing to parricide was satisfactorily
demonstrated in this case.
 one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non-
(CASE 38) G.R. No. L-58652, May 20, 1988 performance of duty. The arrangement with a lady friend should have
ALFREDO RODILLAS v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE aroused the petitioner’s suspicion because the only pretext given by the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prisoner was that she was going to answer the call of nature. It was,
Article 224. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners therefore, unnecessary for her to be accompanied by anyone. Despite this,
FACTS: Alfredo Rodillas is a policeman specially charged with the duty of the petitioner allowed the two to enter the comfort room without first
keeping under his custody one Zenaida Sacris Andres, a detention prisoner establishing for himself that there was no window or door allowing the
being tried for violation of RA 9165. possibility of escape. He even allowed the prisoner's companion to leave the
After the hearing, Rodillas allowed Zenaida to have lunch with her husband. premises with the excuse that there was a need to buy sanitary napkins. And
While eating, Zenaida’s husband asked Rodillas if he could accompany his he patiently waited for more than ten minutes for the companion to return.
wife to the comfort room as she was not feeling well and felt like defecating. This was patent negligence on the part of the police officer.
The accused accompanied Zenaida and a lady companion to the ladies’ The petitioner further contends that he cannot be convicted because there
comfort room while he stood guard along the alley facing the door, without was no connivance between him and the prisoner. However, the petitioner is
first ascertaining for himself whether said comfort room is safe and without not being charged with conniving under Article 223 but for evasion through
any egress by which the said detention prisoner could escape. Not long after, negligence under Article 224. It is, therefore, not necessary that
the lady companion of Zenaida came out and told him that she was going to connivance be proven to hold him liable for the crime of infidelity in
buy sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After ten minutes elapsed without the lady the custody of prisoners.
companion of Zenaida coming back, the accused entered the comfort room. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision of
To his surprise, he found Zenaida no longer inside the comfort room. He the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED.
noticed that the window of said comfort room was not provided with window
grills. Rodillas formally reported the matter to his superior officer at the City (CASE 39) Tad-y vs People G.R. No. 148862. August 11, 2005
Jail. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the FACTS: Petitioner Ruben Tad-y was accused direct bribery of demanding and
crime of Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner Thru Negligence under Article receiving P4,000.00 from Encabo on July 24, 1995 in consideration for his
224 of the RPC. signing a certificate of occupancy, which he also signed on the said date.
ISSUE: WON Rodillas is liable for Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner. Tad-y was also charged with violation of Section 3(c ) of RA3019 He was
RULING: Yes. The elements of the crime under Article 224 are: a) that the convicted by the MTC of violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 210 of the Revised
offender is a public officer; b) that he is charged with the conveyance or Penal Code, which decision was upheld by the RTC with modifications as to
custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; penalty, and the RTC decision was affirmed in toto by the CA. while the RTC
and c) that such prisoner escapes through his negligence. denied the motion for reconsideration, however, it agreed with Tad-y’s
There is no question that the petitioner is a public officer. Neither is there contention that what the latter signed was a certificate of final inspection and
any dispute as to the fact that he was charged with the custody of a prisoner not a certificate of occupancy, in connection with which he was acquitted of
who was being tried for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The charges of violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019.
only disputed issue is the petitioner’s negligence resulting in the escape of
detention prisoner Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred to is such ISSUE: Whether the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt of
definite laxity as all but amounts to a deliberate non-performance of his guilt for direct bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the
duty on the part of the guard. Revised Penal Code.
It is evident from the records that the petitioner acted negligently
and beyond the scope of his authority when he permitted his charge to RULING: The MTC convicted the petitioner of direct bribery on its finding
create the situation which led to her escape. As a police officer who was that the petitioner demanded P4,000.00 from Wong, through Encabo, in
charged with the duty to return the prisoner directly to jail, the deviation consideration of signing a certificate of occupancy, and that on July 24, 1995,
from his duty was clearly a violation of the regulations. In the first place, it the petitioner received the said amount from Encabo and signed the said
was improper for the petitioner to take lunch with the prisoner and her family certificate for the Atrium building.
when he was supposed to bring his charge to the jail. He even allowed the There is no iota of competent and credible evidence to support these
prisoner and her husband to talk to each other at the request of a co-officer. findings. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner and Encabo met
It is the duty of any police officer having custody of a prisoner to take on April 24, 1995. In fact, it was only on April 25, 1995 that Encabo arrived
necessary precautions to assure the absence of any means of at the OCE to make arrangements for the final inspection of the building by
escape. A failure to undertake these precautions will make his act the officers concerned, the signing of the certificate of inspection by said
officers, and the signing of the certificate of occupancy by the building
official. There is also no dispute that what was signed by the petitioner, on
July 24, 1995, following his final inspection of the building, was the certificate
of final inspection and not a certificate of occupancy of the building. Even
Encabo admitted that the petitioner refused to sign the said certificate
because as of July 24, 1995, there had been no final inspection of the
building, and not because he was demanding P4,000.00 from Encabo.
There is also no credible evidence on record that the petitioner
demanded P4,000.00 from Wong, through Encabo, in exchange for the
signing of the certificate of occupancy. Indeed, it is incredible that the
petitioner would demand the said amount as a precondition to his signing a
certificate, considering that, under Section 309 of P.D. No. 1096, the
authority to sign said certificate is vested specifically on the building official,
and not on the petitioner:
Petition granted; decisions of the MTC, RTC and CA reversed and
set aside. Petitioner is acquitted.
Case 34 G.R. No. 187495               April 21, 2014 HELD: YES. The Supreme Court held that husbands do not have property rights over
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDGAR JUMAWAN, Accused-Appellant. their wives’ bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not
TOPIC: Marital rape consensual, is rape.
  Violation of equal protection clause
FACTS: Accused-appellant and his wife, KKK, were married and have four children. The Court ruled that to treat marital rape cases differently from non-marital
On February 19, 1999, KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit, alleging that her husband, rape cases in terms of the elements that constitute the crime and in the rules for their
the accused-appellant, raped her at 3 :00 a.m. of December 3, 1998 at their residence proof, infringes on the equal protection clause. The Court found that there is
in Cagayan de Oro City, and that on December 12, 1998, the accused-appellant boxed no rational basis for distinguishing between marital rape and non-marital rape. The
her shoulder for refusing to have sex with him. As to the charge of rape according to various rationales which have been asserted in defense of the exemption are either
KKK, conjugal intimacy did not really cause marital problems between her and the based upon archaic notions about the consent and property rights incident to
accused-appellant. It was, in fact, both frequent and fulfilling. He treated her well and marriage or are simply unable to withstand even the slightest scrutiny. The Court
she, of course, responded with equal degree of enthusiasm. However, in 1997, he declared the marital exemption for rape in the New York statute to be
started to be brutal in bed. He would immediately remove her panties and, sans any unconstitutional. Said exemption states that a husband was endowed with absolute
foreplay, insert her penis in her vagina. His abridged method of lovemaking was immunity from prosecution for the rape of his wife. The privilege was personal and
physically painful for her so she would resist his sexual ambush but he would threaten pertained to him alone. He had the marital right to rape his wife but he will be liable
her into submission. when he aids or abets another person in raping her. Moreover, Section 1 of RA 8353
One night, in the spouse’s bedroom, KKK changed into a daster and fixed the penalizes the crime without regard to the rapist’s legal relationship with his victim.
matrimonial bed but she did not lie thereon with the accused-appellant and instead,
rested separately in a cot near the bed. Her reclusive behavior prompted him to ask Case 35 G.R. Nos. 136592-93               November 27, 2003
angrily: “Why are you lying on the cot?”, and to instantaneously order: “You transfer PP vs.MANOLITO PANCHO
here to our bed.” KKK insisted to stay on the cot and explained that she had headache Facts: Michelle, who was then only ten years old, went home after spending the night
and abdominal pain due to her forthcoming menstruation. Her reasons did not at her aunt's house. While she was about to undress, appellant suddenly dragged her
appease him and he got angrier. He rose from the bed, lifted the cot and threw it and forced her to lie down on the floor. Although... frightened, she struggled by
against the wall causing KKK to fall on the floor. Terrified, KKK stood up from where kicking and boxing him. Appellant started kissing and holding her breast and
she fell, took her pillow and transferred to the bed. The accused-appellant then lay eventually had carnal knowledge of her. 1995 at the family's new residence at Bayugo,
beside KKK and not before long, expressed his desire to copulate with her by tapping Meycauayan, Bulacan, appellant arrived from work. When Michelle opened the door
his fingers on her lap. She politely declined by warding off his hand and reiterating and saw him, she got scared. While he was approaching her, she managed to hit him.
that she was not feeling well. The accused-appellant again asserted his sexual Then she attempted to jump out of the window,... but he dragged her by her feet. At
yearning and when KKK tried to resist by holding on to her panties, he pulled them that instance, her uncle (Tito Onio) suddenly arrived. So, she turned to her
down so forcefully they tore on the sides. KKK stayed defiant by refusing to bend her grandmother Natividad Lacanilao,
legs. The accused-appellant then raised KKK’s daster,41 stretched her legs apart and Issues: ATTEMPTED RAPE
rested his own legs on them. She tried to wrestle him away but he held her hands and Ruling: The prosecution failed to prove that appellant started to rape the victim and
succeeded in penetrating her. As he was carrying out his carnal desires, KKK continued had commenced the performance of acts of carnal knowledge. He did not force her to
to protest by desperately shouting: “Don ‘t do that to me because I’m not feeling lie down or remove her garment. In short, there was no showing that he did
well.” Accused raised the defense of denial and alleged that KKK merely fabricated the commence at all the... performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt to
rape charges as her revenge because he took over the control and management of rape the victim. What he did was to "drag" her and hold her feet. At this juncture, we
their businesses, and to cover up her extra-marital affairs. can not safely conclude that he was attempting to rape her.

ISSUE: Whether or not there can be a marital rape.

 
CASE 28 G.R. No. L-36234. February 10, 1981 CASE 29 GR NO 141080 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO CORPUZ, PEOPLE VS ANECITO UNLAGADA
HERNANIE SOTO, DANILO CHICO, PABLITO ABASULA, ROGELIO CORPUZ, Facts: Danilo Laurel left his house together with Edwin Selda, a visitor from
REYNALDO GODOY, RICARDO MABALOT, VICTOR BANGAYAN, FELIPE ALCERA, Bacolod City, to attend a public dance at Negros Occidental. After two hours,
and MIGUEL CORO , defendants-appellants. Danilo asked Edwin to take a short break from dancing to attend to their personal
necessities outside the dance hall. Once outside, they decided to have a drink and
Facts: Appellant prisoners at the New Bilibid Prison, were charged with murder bought beer.
and frustrated murder for the killing of two prisoners and the physical injuries Not long after, Danilo, halfway on his first bottle, left to look for a place to relieve
inflicted on three other as a consequence of a stabbing incident between the two himself. According to Edwin, he was only about three meters from Danilo who
rival groups. One of the death victims suffered three stab wound while the other was relieving himself when a short, dark bearded man walked past him,
sustained two. All the accused pleaded not guilty and later repudiated their approached Danilo and stabbed him at the side. Danilo retaliated by striking his
extrajudicial confessions for having allegedly been extracted under duress. In the assailant with half- filled bottle of beer. Almost simultaneously, a group of men
course of the trial, however, four accused changed their pleas to that of guilty and numbering of seven (7), ganged up on Danilo and hit him with assorted weapons.
assumed sole responsibility for the stabbings. The trial court gave weight to the Edwin, who was petrified, could only watch helplessly as Danilo was being mauled
extrajudicial confessions and upon a finding of conspiracy found all the accused and overpowered by his assailants. Danilo fell to the ground and died before he
guilty as charged and sentenced them to the maximum penalty of death as quasi could be given medical attention.
recidivists for the crime of murder, and to indeterminate sentences for the Edwin Selda confirmed the identity of the suspect who was then in the custody of
frustrated murders. the police. Thereat, he executed an affidavit and affirmed before the police
authorities, that the man under detention, Anecito Unlagada, was the same man
Issue: W/N the crime was committed in a tumultuous affray (claimed by who stabbed his friend Danilo. The accused assails his conviction.
defendants)
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Unlagada guilty of murder
Ruling: NO, The quarrel was between 2 well-known groups of prisoners. There instead of tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code?
was no confusion. There is no crime of death in a tumultuous affray if the quarrel
is between 2 well-known groups. The evidence shows that only Rogelio, Ricardo, Held: No, a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several
and Pablito inflicted the wounds of Leodegracio, which were healed within a persons who engage in a confused and tumultuous manner, in the course of
period of 9 days. The intent to kill was not proven. Therefore, the said defendants which a person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be
who inflicted injuries on Leodegracio are liable only for slight physical injuries. ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case is between a distinct group of
individuals , one of whom was sufficiently identified as the principal author of the
killing, as against a common, particular victim. It is not, as the defense suggests, a
―tumultuous affray‖ within the meaning of Art. 251 of The Revised Penal Code,
that is, a melee or free- for- all, where several persons not comprising definite or
identifiable groups attack one another in a confused and disorganized manner,
resulting in the death or injury of one or some of them.
CASE 22 GR NO. 184343, MARCH 2, 2009 CASE 23 GR NO. 182750, JANAURY 20, 2009
People vs Jesus Domingo People vs Urbano
Facts: On September 28, 1993 at around 8:00 pm Brigido Tomelden and Rodel Urbano
Facts: Around 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. of March 29, 2000 Raquel Indon and her minor with their co-worker were at the compound of Lingayan Water District. While inside
children Melissa, Michelle, Marvin and Jeffer was sleeping inside their house, Raquel the compound, Tomelden and Urbano engaged in verbal conflict, Tomelden hurled
was awakened when Domingo kicked the door of the house. Raquel recognized the insults and challenged Urbano to a fistfight, which later led to an exchange of blows.
assailant as "Doser" since his face was illuminated by the kitchen light. Armed with the Urbano delivered a lucky punched which caused Tomelden's nose bleed and rendered
screw driver and knife he mercilessly attacked Raquel and her children. Marvin and him unconscious. Tomelden was brought to the office of the LIWAD general manager.
Melissa died due to injuries they suffered, while Raquel, Michelle, Jeffer and her sister The following day Tomelden complained to his wife pain in his nape, head and ear. He
in law who came after hearing the disturbance suffered various injuries. Jesus "Doser" was immediately examined and treated his lacerated left index finger, contusions and
Domingo was subdued and rendered unconscious by Ronaldo Galvez, who came to hematoma to the right cerebrum. On a later date Tomalden went back to the hospital
the rescue. complaining of dizziness, head ache and other pains. he was observed to be in a state
Domingo was arrested by the police. During the trial it was determined that Domingo of drowsiness and frequent vomiting. However on October 10 1993 due to financial
suffers from mental illness called schizophrenia, Domingo showed symptoms restraints he was discharged despite not showing signs of improvement. Upon
indicated that he suffered from the illness six months before National Center for reaching their house, Tomelden complained of extreme head pain, he was again
Mental Health examined him on August 2004. admitted to the hospital however he appeared to be semi-conscious, sleepy,
uncooperative and not responding to any stimulant. Tomelden died on the same day,
Issue: Won Domingo should be acquitted his death was attributed to cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral consussion
with resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident. A case was filed against
Ruling: No, Domingo should not be acquitted. Domingo's defense of insanity is Urbano for the death of Tomelden. Urbano argued that the death of Tomelden was
without merit. The law presumes every man to be of sound mind. Otherwise stated, caused by the hypertension with no relation to the mauling incident.
the law presumes that all acts are voluntary, and that it is improper to presume that
acts are done unconsciously. Thus, a person accused of a crime who pleads the Issue: Won there was mitigating circumstances to be appreciated in Urbano's favor
exempting circumstance of insanity has the burden of proving beyond reasonable
doubt that he or she was insane immediately before or at the moment the crime was Ruling: Yes, there exists a mitigating circumstance. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Art. 13, RPC
committed. his sleeplessness, lack of appetite, nervousness and his hearing imaginary provide as follows: “Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances.––The following are mitigating
voices, while suggestive of an abnormal mental condition, cannot be equated with a circumstances: 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
total deprivation of will or an absence of the power to discern. Further, Medical that committed. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
findings of mental disorder, referring to a period after the time the crime was party immediately preceded the act.”
committed, will not exempt him from criminal liability. Tomelden’s insulting remarks directed at petitioner and uttered immediately before
the fist fight constituted sufficient provocation. The mitigating circumstance that
petitioner had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should also
be appreciated in his favor. Petitioner landed a lucky punch at Tomelden’s face while
their coworkers were trying to separate them is a compelling indication that he never
intended so grave a wrong as to kill the victim.
21 G.R. No. L-75160 March 18. 1988 essential elements of Article 211 or Indirect Bribery is
Leonor Formilleza vs Sandiganbayan and People of the that the public office concerned must have accepted the
Philippines gift of material consideration. There must be a clear
intention on the part of the officer to take the gift so
Facts: Petitioner Formilleza has been in government offered and consider the same as his own property from
service for around 20 years as personnel supervisor of the then on, such as putting away the gift for safekeeping or
regional office of the National Irrigation Administration in pocketting the same. Mere physical receipt
Tacloban, Leyte from 1982, and it includes processing of unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstances or act
appointment papers of employees. to show such acceptance is not sufficient to lead the
Mrs. Estrella Mutia was also employed with NIA and court to conclude the commission of the crime. To hold
co-terminous with one of its project but pursuant to the otherwise will encourage unscrupulous individuals to
verbal instructions of the regional director she continued frame up officers by simply putting within their physical
working, and she alleges that she took steps to obtain custody some gift, money or other property.
either a permanent or at least a renewed appointment. In the case at Bar, the petitioner was only in
When she approached the director, she was advised to physical possession of the alleged bribe money. Thus, no
see the petitioner but the latter refused to attend unless clear and convincing proof of accepting the same. Thus,
she was given money. On 1984, Mutia reported her one element of the crime was absent.
problem to the Philippine Constabulary, who in return
arranged an entrapment with marked money bills worth
P100 as equipment. On February 29, 1984, the petitioner
and Mutia agreed to meet at the canteen and Mutia
informed the PC about it. The arrangement ensued with 41 GR NO. 156685 JULY 27, 2004
one of the PC authorities bringing a camera to document Nazario Marifosque vs People of the Philippines
the entrapment. Mutia says that after taking the snacks
she handed the marked money under the table to the
petitioner who received the money with her left hand. Facts: Spouses Arsenio and Hian Hian Sy went to Alberto Salvo, Chief of the
Right then, the PC officials approached the petitioner and Intelligence and Operating Division in Region V to report the robbery of
held her hand holding the money. The PC took Shellane tanks of his father's gasoline station, and the alleged extortion of the
photographs of the event prompting the arrest of the petitioner to recover the lost items. Hian Hian Sy alleges that in exchange of
petitioner. The Sandiganbayan found the petitioner guilty the recovery, petitioner asked for P7,200 as pay-off money but petitioner
of Indirect Bribery, and was suspended from public testified that the police asset who told him about the robbery asked if he
officer, profession, including the right to suffrage. could get P350 per tank as his reward, and not him asking for bribery.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner accepted the The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner of direct bribery and his motion
supposed bribe money. for reconsideration has been denied.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner committed a violation penalized by

Held: No, thus the petitioner was acquitted. One of the
Article 210 constituting Direct Bribery.

Ruling: Yes, he committed direct bribery. The petitioner cannot feign

innocence and profess good faith since all indicia point to his guilt and
malicious intent. In fact, one of the arresting CIS officers testivied that
petitioner attempted to give back the money to private respondent when they
were about to arrest him, which indicates he is aware of the illegality of the
transaction he made.
Case 24 G.R. 168050 September 19, 2008 Melchor and Percival survived due to medical assistance but Antonio
People v Bernardino Gaffud, Jr. and Emiliano died due to mortal wounds inflicted by the accused. Emiliano
Facts: Gaffud, Jr was found guilty of two counts of murder for killing Manuel was also struck by a long bolo by the accused.
Salvador and his daughter, Analyn Salvador by means of fire. On May 10, Issue: WON the court erred in its decision on the two counts of complex crime
1994, around 8pm Orly Salvador heard two gunshots from the house of his of qualified direct assault
uncle and saw the said house on fire. Dan Dangpal, the neighbor testified the
same. The medico legal reported that there was a hole in the burnt body, Held: Direct assault may be committed in two ways: first, by any person or
which is probably gunshot wound. However, the cause of death is cremation persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for
or burned to death. the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of
The RTC rendered that Gaffud, Jr is guilty of two counts of murder. rebellion and sedition; and second, by any person or persons who, without a
The case was elevated to the CA because conspiracy was not proven by the public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any
prosecution. The CA modified the verdict, making him guilty of complex crime person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of
of double murder stating that the prosecution’s failure to prove conspiracy in official duties.
the case is not fatal. The crime whose victim is the barangay chief tanod(Recto), it was
Issue: WON Gaffud, Jr. is liable for complex crime of double murder lowered due to two reasons, first he is not in his duty according to the finding
Held: He is liable for the complex crime of double murder. There are two or of the court, second, he is not a target of Robea, and merely a bystander. The
more crimes committed but they only result to one objective, the murder. The attack on the back of the victim was targeted in the lower backside. It shows
burning of the abode of the Salvados is only the means to commit the murder, that there is no intention to kill the victim. The penalty that is lower by two
the main objective of Gaffud, Jr. Hence there should only be one penalty. degrees than that prescribed by law for consummated homicide shall be
imposed upon appellant. After applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it
shall be taken from the medium period, since there were no aggravating or
mitigating circumstances proven. The crime committed was lowered to
attempted homicide only and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for an
Case 6 G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to
People v Julio Recto four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum.
On the crime who the victim is Percival, the Supreme Court validated the
Facts: The accused was found guilty by the RTC of Romblon of four crimes, lower court’s ruling. A barangay captain is a person in authority. He is on the
two counts of complex crime of qualified direct assault with frustrated performance of his duty when attacked because he was trying to pacify the
homicide, a complex crime of qualified direct assault with murder and assailant. He is convicted of complex crime of qualified direct assault with
homicide. attempted homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
On April 18, 1994, the accused, with treachery commenced an attack penalty, of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to six (6) years of
with intent to kill by using a shotgun locally called “pugakang” to Melchor prision correctional as maximum.
Recto with the knowledge that the target is the barangay chief tanod of
Ambulong, Magdiwang, Romblon, Percival Orbe, the barangay captain of the
same place, Antonio Macalipay, a barangay kagawad of the same place and
Emiliano Santos, a barangay kagawad of the same place.