COMPILATION OF DIGESTS People of the Philippines v. Salvador Tulagan G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 Facts: Accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of sexual assault and statutory rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraphs 2 and 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), respectively, in relation to Article 266-B. Accused-appellant allegedly inserted his finger in the private parts of AAA, a minor, then in another occasion brought AAA his house wherein he undressed, kissed, and inserted his penis in AAA’s vagina. The accused-appellant denied such allegations however the court ruled that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Accused-appellant appealed Issue: Whether or not the appeal should be granted Held: No, however modification of the nomenclature and penalty for the crime of Sexual Assault and a reduction of damages of the crime of Statutory Rape are in order. It should be Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 as R.A. 7610 must be applied to all children victims. Since AAA, the victim, is a child therefore the crime of Sexual Assault must be imposed in relation with the penalty prescribed by R.A. 7610. Disini v. Department of Interior and Local Government G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014 Facts: These are consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality of certain provisions of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The said law was enacted in order to regulate the use of cyberspace and punish wrongdoings committed in cyberspace. Petitioners however content that said law violate their Constitutional rights. Among the challenged provisions is the provision penalizing Cyberlibel. Issue: Whether or not the provision on Cyberlibel in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is unconstitutional? Held: No, however the provisions on penalizing the aiding and abetting cyberlibel are unconstitutional. Cyberlibel is a form of libel in cyberspace, it is the author of the defamatory statement which is liable and punishable by law as such is a valid regulation of free speech. The provisions of those aiding and abetting cyberlibel are not constitutional because it creates a chilling effect on the citizens’ right to free speech. As cyberspace is an incomparable medium which entails numerous parties in disseminating information, the vagueness of the participation of non-authors of the libelous statement creates a chilling effect if such is penalized by the law and will silence the netizens. Rujjeric Z. Palaganas v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 165483 September 12, 2006 Facts: During a drinking session in Tidbits Videoke in Manaoag, Pangasinan, a fight broke out between the Ferrer brothers and the Palaganas relatives because of a quarrel over the song “My Way”. After the rumble, the accused arrived in the scene and shot one of the Ferrer brothers fatally while the other Ferrer brother was hit on the shoulder. Accused claimed that he was being stoned by the brothers Ferrer however the Solicitor General posited that it was herein accused who fired the first shot. Issue: Whether or not the use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance? Whether or not such aggravating circumstance can be offset with an ordinary mitigating circumstance? Held: Yes, the use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance since the passage of R.A. 8294 and since the crime took place after the effectivity of said law then the use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance. No, a special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset with an ordinary mitigating circumstance therefore the use of unlicensed firearm cannot be offset with an ordinary mitigating circumstance. People vs. Apolonio Apduhan G.R. No. L-19491 August 30, 1968 Facts: Accused along with 5 others allegedly entered into the dwelling of the Miano family. They also hacked and inflicted injuries to two of the residents of the said dwelling afterwards they took and carried away 322 pesos. Accused was charged with Robbery with Homicide with the special aggravating circumstance of committing with band as well as other aggravating circumstances. Accused then pled guilty despite the trial court explaining to him that the death penalty may be imposed and sentenced to him. Issue: Whether or not Robbery by a Band as provided for by Article 295 is applicable to Robbery with Homicide. Held: No. According to Article 295, Robbery by a band will only qualify the last 3 subparagraphs of Article 294. Robbery with Homicide is not included as the law specifically provides that Robbery by band will only qualify the last 3 sub-paragraphs of Article 294, and Robbery with Homicide is provided for in sub-paragraph 1 of Article 294. Also, since Article 296 of the RPC is corollary with Article 295, use of unlicensed firearms shall only qualify the sub-paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Article 295. People of the Philippines v. Joseph Orilla G.R. Nos. 148939-40 February 13, 2004 Facts: On or about the dawn of September 12, 1996 in Bani, Pangasinan, accused allegedly, by force and intimidation, and armed with a knife, forcefully had sexual intercourse with his younger sister. Remilyn Orilla, against her will. Remilyn then reported to her sister the following morning. It was revealed that accused-appellant ejaculated twice inside his sister. Accused is charged with Rape with the alternative circumstance of relationship. Issue: Whether or not the alternative circumstance of relationship shall be appreciated for the imposition of the death penalty. Held: No. For the imposition of the death penalty, the law must be unequivocal in the language used for the circumstances which aggravate the penalty of a crime to death. Relationship as an aggravating circumstance is applicable to crimes against chastity however rape has been reclassified as crime against persons. Relationship is not among the aggravating circumstances as provided for by Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the law does not specifically provide that relationship as an aggravating circumstance in rape, then such circumstance cannot be appreciated to impose a higher penalty of death. However, for the imposition of damages, relationship may be appreciated. People of the Philippines v. Ireneo Jugueta April 5, 2016 G.R. No. 202124 Facts: Accused-appellant allegedly fired with an unnamed caliber gun upon Norberto Divina and his family which led to the death the latter’s daughters; this happened in Divina’s home. Norberto Divina is the accused’s brother-in-law and they previously had an altercation stemming from a complaint filed by Divina against the accused’s brothers as they allegedly molested Divina’s daughter. Accused-appellant denied being the perpetrators of the act. The accused was subsequently charged double murder and multiple attempted murder. Issue: Whether or not the lower court imposed the proper damages Held: No. The attendant modifying circumstances must be put in to account by the Courts in imposing damages. The Supreme Court ruled that aggravating circumstances must be contemplated in imposing damages to address the Court and the public’s outrage over such crimes. The presence of an aggravating circumstance allows the imposition of exemplary damages, whether ordinary or qualifying as aggravating circumstance in the Civil Code is construed in its broad definition. Also, aggravating circumstance not alleged in the complaint but proved during trial does not bar the Court from imposing exemplary damages furthermore, exemplary damages may be awarded due to the reprehensible conduct of the accused despite the lack of aggravating circumstance. People of the Philippines v. Luzviminda Valdez G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 08, 2015 Facts: Private respondent was the former mayor of Bacolod city. It was alleged that she altered disbursement vouchers in order to receive an excess amount. She was then charged for violation of R.A. 3019 and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents. Respondents now argue that posting of bail is a matter of right. Issue: Whether or not private respondent is entitled to bail as a matter of right Held: Yes, private respondent is entitled to bail as a matter of right. For bail to be a matter of right, the prescribed penalty must not be reclusion perpetua, death or life imprisonment not the imposable penalty as contemplated in the instant petition. The penalty of private respondent is reclusion temporal in its maximum to reclusion perpetua. The private respondent is thus entitled to bail as a matter of right. The imposable penalty is the penalty of the crime wherein the modifying circumstances are put into account. The word “punishable” is construed as the same as “prescribed” for purposes of the provisions of bail as a matter of right. People of the Philippines v. Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. G.R. No. 140756. April 4, 2003 Facts: The accused a boarded a passenger bus routed to go to Pangasinan from Pasay City. During the trip they then commenced in robbing the passengers of the bus by firing shots with their handguns. A policeman aboard the bus was discovered by the accused who thereafter shot the policeman to death while the policeman pleaded for his life. The accused was later apprehended as he was impersonating the deceased police officer while driving a cab with no plate. Issue: Whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in Robbery with Homicide Held: Yes, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in Robbery with Homicide even though such is a crime against property because the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Treachery increases the penalty for the crime because it is a generic aggravating circumstance. Aristotel Valenzuela v. People of the Philippines G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007 Facts: Petitioner was charged with consummated theft in relation to an incident wherein he along with Calderon carried boxes of detergent from SM North EDSA to a haled taxi. The security guard of SM stopped the taxi when it was about to leave to ask for an official receipt from herein petitioner however the petitioner fled on food but was nonetheless apprehended. Petitioner contends that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft because he was not put in a position to freely dispose of the stolen articles. Issue: Whether or not there is a crime of frustrated theft Held: No, there is no crime of frustrated theft. Once a person unlawfully takes personal property of another, with intent to gain and without violence or intimidation or force upon things, then theft is consummated. Being able to freely dispose of the stolen personal property is not an element of theft. Unlawful taking is the act which consummates the theft and without it an element is lacking so it is only in the attempted stage. There is no frustrated theft as contemplated by law. People of the Philippines v. Felipe Mirandilla, Jr. G.R. No. 186417 July 27, 2011 Facts: AAA was grabbed and detained by accused and his gang while AAA was buying candies. She was then detained for 39 days and was raped multiple times however she escaped. Accused denied the allegations and claims that AAA is his live-in partner. Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is Kidnapping with Rape Held: Yes. The special complex crime of Kidnapping with Rape is the crime committed no matter how many rapes have been committed during the illegal detention. In comparison, Forcible abduction with rape is committed when the offender takes the victim with lewd designs and then rapes her, the subsequent rapes after the first rape will then be separate offenses. People of the Philippine Islands v. Silverio Daos G.R. No. L-40331 April 27, 1934 Facts: Accused along with his companions boarded a taxicab owned by Malate Taxi Cab Co., with the intention of robbing the chauffer. After driving around Manila to Rizal, they attacked the chauffer and strangled him, however they were only able to take 2 pesos. The accused cites that the lower court erred in convicting them of Robbery with Homicide and that the proper crime is simple murder. Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is Robbery with Homicide Held: Yes, the acts committed by the accused are constitutive of Robbery with Homicide. The amount retrieved is of no moment as long as the elements of Robbery with Homicide are executed and consummated. In other words, the price or amount of the goods taken is immaterial for the commission of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. People of the Philippines v. Domingo Salazar G.R. No. 99355 August 11, 1997 Facts: Appellants allegedly attacked the security guard of Linda’s Supermarket located in Visayas Ave., Quezon City. Appellant approached the security guard then subsequently stabbed him numerous times thereafter appellants stole the security guard’s revolver then fled the scene. The appellants denied such allegations claiming they were never at the crime scene. They were convicted with Robbery with Homicide. Issue: Whether or not Robbery with Homicide is the appropriate crime in the case at bar. Held: No. It is not clear as to what the appellants’ criminal intent is i.e. whether the intent is to steal the revolver or the intent was to kill the security guard and the taking of the revolver was just an afterthought. The intimate relationship between the killing and the asportation of the revolver is not clearly established. The crimes committed are the separate crimes of homicide and theft. People of the Philippines v. Francisco Juan Larranaga Facts: Rusia, a state witness, came forward to testify the fate of the Chiong sisters in which it was alleged that appellants kidnapped and raped the Chiong sisters in Cebu. Jacqueline Chiong was kidnapped, raped, and was thrown to a ravine causing her death while Marijoy Chiong was kidnapped and raped. The appellants’ defense was that they were not in the crime scene at the time it happened. Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is a special complex crime Held: Yes, R.A. 7659 introduced the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape or homicide in our penal statutes. Regardless if the killing is purposely sought or just an afterthought, such killing can no longer be complexed with kidnapping but rather the special complex crime of Kidnapping with Homicide shall be the proper crime. The Revised Penal Code under Article 267 states that: When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed provides for the special crime. People of the Philippines v. Condrado Laog G.R No. 178321 October 5, 2011 Facts: In San Rafael, Bulacan, it was alleged that appellant with a lead pipe hit AAA, his niece, and then hit then stabbed Jennifer with a lead pipe and an icepick respectively which lead to Jennifer’s death. AAA was then raped by appellant after being knocked down by the initial blow. Appellant denied the allegations claiming he was with his family. Appellant was charged with the separate crimes of murder and rape. Issue: Whether or not there are separate crimes committed Held: No, however a special complex crime is committed which is Rape with Homicide. As long as killing is done by reason or on occasion of rape then the proper crime is Rape with Homicide, which is analogous to Robbery with Homicide. Jaime Araza v People of the Philippines G.R. 247429 September 8, 2020 Facts: Accused was charged for violating the R.A. 9262 or Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 as it was alleged that his marital infidelity with his paramour, which gave fruit to three illegitimate offspring, causing psychological abuse. AAA received a message from a certain couple claiming that her husband, herein accused, is having an affair with their best friend which led AAA to go to her husband’s place of work wherein she discovered that such claims were true. Accused denies such and claims that their relationship had gone sour. Issue: Whether or not psychological abuse committed by marital infidelity is a violation of R.A.9262 Held: Yes, there is psychological abuse through marital infidelity and the effect of which is mental and emotional anguish, this constitutes a violation of R.A. 9262. The expert witness testified that AAA indeed suffered emotional and mental anguish which stemmed from the accused’s actions of leaving his conjugal home with AAA to maintain an illicit affair with his paramour. People of the Philippines v. Layug G.R. No. 223679 September 27, 2017 Facts: The state witness alleged that herein appellants stabbed Victorino after they had a shabu session and thereafter stole his personal property. The accused were convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. Issue: Whether or not evident premeditation is inherent in Robbery with Homicide Held: Yes, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in Robbery with homicide because evident premeditation is inherent in crimes against property. Robbery with Homicide is a crime against property therefore evident premeditation cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Bert Pascua v. People of the Philippines G.R. 250578, September 7, 2020 Facts: Accused was charged for violating R.A. 9165 for having possession of shabu. He initially pleaded not guilty however he entered into a plea bargaining agreement in which he pled guilty for a lesser offense. The lower court averred that accused is not eligible for probation however accused claims that the prohibition of probation is only applicable if accused is found guilty of sale of illegal drugs and not when he is found guilty to a lesser offense. Issue: Whether or not accused may be entitled to probation. Held: Yes, probation is a matter that is settled after conviction. The accused pled guilty to the lesser offense of possession of illegal drugs which does not prohibit probation for the accused. Even though the original information charged the accused with an offense which does not allow probation, his plea bargaining made him plead guilty to a lesser offense which allow probation. People of the Philiipines vs. Eduardo Prieto G.R. L-399, January 29, 1948 Facts: Accused was charged with multiple counts of treason. He was seen by different witnesses executing acts with the Kempetai such as torturing guerrillas and accompanying the Japanese forces. Different witnesses recount different events wherein the accused gave aid and comfort to Japanese forces. Issue: Whether or not treason can be complexed with other crimes such as murder Held: No. The giving of aid and comfort, as an element of treason, can only be accomplished when some kind of action is executed and not merely a mental operation. When a deed to accomplish in giving aid in comfort to the enemy is an offense and is an element of the crime of treason, if charged, then such cannot be prosecuted in another charge. However, prosecution for the separate common crimes may be if such are not charged as elements of treason. People of the Philippine Islands vs. Ricardo Mendoza G.R. L-39275, December 20, 1933 Facts: Accused slapped his teacher Iluminada Tinio while she was engaging in the performance of her duties while in the premises of the high school building. The court then discussed the proper crime as the question of whether a teacher is a person in authority or not. Issue: Whether or not a public officer and a person in authority are the same Held: No, agents of authority are those by directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation. A public officer is a person who shall perform public functions or duties in the government as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, by direct provision of the law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority.