original made by me

7/28/2019 Original Made by Me

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/original-made-by-me 1/6

People vs Danny Delos Santos

GR no. 135919 May 9, 2003

Appellant: Danny Delos Santos y Fernandez

Appellee: People of the Philippines

Ponente: J. Sandoval-Gutierrez

Facts: In San Jose, Del Monte Bulacan, November 6, 1997 a willfully, unlawfully, andfeloniously attack incident happened. Rod Flores y Juanitas stabbed by the back of the

appellant Dany Delos Santos. It was a two-month delay before the testimony casted by

Marcelino Deleon. As he testified that around 8:00pm of November 6, 1997 he saw Roddrinking Gin with 3 men. As suddenly appellant perpetrator attacked, stabbed Rod Flores

at his back and ran away. As a defense of the appellant, at the time the crime took place,

he was in his auntie’s house in Muson, a 40meters away and at 5:30pm he and Flores met

but they did not greet each other and there was no altercation between them.

ISSUES: Whether or Not

1. A two-month delay of testimony is valid.2. Appellant alibi is convincing enough to preclude any doubt.

HELD:

1. Yes, The two-month delay, it is but natural for witness to avoid being involved in a

criminal proceeding particularly when the crime committed is of such gravity as to show

the cruelty of the perpetrator. Born of human experience, the fear of retaliation can havea paralyzing effect to the witness. Thus, in People vs. Dacibar, we held that the initial

reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case is of common

knowledge and has been judicially declared as insufficient to affect credibility, especially

when a valid reason exists for such hesitance.

2. No, All premises considered, the Court resolves and so holds that the prosecution has

been able to establish the criminal culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Accordingly, Danny Delos Santos is hereby found guilty of the crime of Murder with the

qualifying circumstance of treachery. As decision date October 2, 1998, Appellant Danny

Delos Santos is find guilty of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONin the sense that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.



MANUEL VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005

Petitioner: Eduardo P. Manuel

Respondent: People of the Philippines

Ponente: J. Callejo, Sr.

Facts:

On July 28, 1975 Eduardo Manuel was first married to Rubylus Gana who wascharged of ESTAFA and manuel never see her in 20years and he believe that her first

wife Gana is already dead. By January 1996, Manuel met Tina Gandalera a 21 years old

Secretary student and a Guest Relation officer (GRO) they got married through civil

wedding in Baguio city. They lived happy in 3 years but after it become worsen. AndTina become curious and she learned that Manuel is already married through NSO before

they exchange their vows. Tina filed a criminal case of Bigamy against Eduardo Manuel.

ISSUES: Whether or Not

(1) Eduardo’s belief is not liable to bigamy for the reason of that his first marriage

was dissolve through the absence of his wife for 20 years.

(2) Second marriage is a criminal intent to be liable for bigamy.

HELD:

(1) No, even if it is true, it did not exculpate him from liability for bigamy. Citingthe ruling of this Court in People v. Bitdu, the trial court further ruled that even if

the private complainant had known that Eduardo had been previously married,

the latter would still be criminally liable for bigamy. And before Manuel could

lawfully marry Tin B, there should have been a judicial declaration of Gaña’s presumptive death as the absent spouse. The appellate court cited the rulings of

this Court in Mercado v. Tan and Domingo v. Court of Appeals[to support its

ruling. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: is hereby MODIFIED toreflect, as it hereby reflects, that accused-appellant is sentenced to an

indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision

correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. SaidDecision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

(2) The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he

married the private complainant (Tina). As a general rule, mistake of fact or

good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo;such defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is

not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis

neminem excusat.



People vs. Cabareño

GR No. 138645 January 16, 2001

Appellant: Wilbert Cabareño


Ponente: J. Panganiban

FACTS:

A Barangay fiesta celebrated in Jayobo Lambuno ilo ilo on December 13, 1997. A

disco was near the house of barangay chairman Aurelio Catedrilla. Near the store therewas a commotion it is few arm’s length away to the venue of the disco. Then, Catedrilla

went to the place where the trouble was. He was followed by Nerio Casaquite, and when

Caterdrilla reach the commotion, he was shot at the back by “Bebot” Cabareño with a 10

inch long firearm a 12gauge gun, however it was Casaquite who been shot not Catedrilla.

ISSUE: Whether or Not

(1) “Bebot” Cabareño is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the death of Nerio

Casaquite even if the intended target was Catedrilla.

HELD:(1) Yes, Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, although

the actual victim is different from the one intended. The trial court ruled that the

killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is present when the means, methodor form of execution gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or

retaliation. It must be proven that such means, method or form of execution is

deliberately and consciously adopted without danger to the accused. Therefore,

the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED. The appellant is Convicted of Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day

of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one dayof reclusion temporal as maximum.



People vs. Pilola

GR No. 121828 June 27, 2003

Accused: Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba Y Abregon And Rene Gayot Pilola

Appellant: Rene Gayot Pilola


Ponente: J. CALLEJO, SR.

FACTS:

On February 5, 1988, 11:00pm, in the store of Elisa Rolan located in 613 Nuevade Pebrero, Mandaluyong city. Joselito Capa with Julian azul jr. invited Edmar Aguilos,

and Odilon Lagliba, afterwards an altercation began. Edmar and Odilon left the store and

block the way where Joselito and Julian about to go. Edmar started to punch Julian as

Odilon watched them fighting. Joselito trying to intervene but Odilon stabbed him whileholding his neck. As Rene Pilola with Ronnie saw his gangmate Odilon fighting so he

joined the fray (FIGHT). The gang mates pulled out their knives and stabbed joselito and

they fled. Ronnie tried to stab Julian but he no longer after him so Julian go back and he

saw Ronnie bashed Joselito’s head with hollow block. And a piece of broken bottlestruck joselito once more.

The accused Gang mate (Edman,Odilon,Rene) were charged with murder for thedeath of Joselito Capa. Rene Pilola (PRINCIPAL) devised stabbing the victim and

interposed the defense of alibi. The trial count found all the accused guilty and sentenced

them to reclusion perpetua. Rene Pilola appealed the decision by contending that therewas no conspiracy (PLAN) and he may not be held criminally liable as principal by direct

participation. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove that he conspired with the

others in stabbing the victim to death. He asserts that he is merely an accomplice.

ISSUE: Whether or Not

(1) The appellant is criminally liable as principal by direct participation in theabsence of proof of conspiracy even if the wrongful act done is different from thatwhich he intended.

HELD:

(1) In such a case, it is not necessary that each of the separate injuries is fatal in itself.It is sufficient if the injuries cooperated in bringing about the victim’s death.

Both the offenders are criminally liable for the same crime by reason of their

individual and separate overt criminal acts. Absent conspiracy between two or more offenders, they may be guilty of homicide or murder for the death of the

victim, one as a principal by direct participation, and the other as an accomplice,

under Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code:As stated in the paragraph 1, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code ruled that evenif two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or murder, they may

be held criminally liable as principals by direct participation if they perform overt

acts which immediately cause or accelerate the death of the victim. They are allcriminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he

intended by reason of their individual and separate overt criminal acts.



Velasco vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 166479 February 28, 2006

Petitioner: Rodolfo Velasco

Respondent: People of the Philippines

Ponente: J. Chico- Nazario

Facts:

A pril 19, 1998, 7:30 o’clock in the morning, private complainant Frederick

Maramba was cleaning and washing his owner type jeep. A motorized tricycle stoppednear him. Accused Rodolfo Velasco a navy man dashed out of the tricycle approached

the complainant and fired to Maramba several times with a .45 caliber pistol. The accused

missed with his first shot but the second one hit Maramba at the upper arm, causing him

to stumble on the ground. The complainant stood up and ran, while Velasco continuedfiring at him but missed.

The shooting incident was reported to the police sub-station. The police then

chased the Velasco who proceeded on board a motorized tricycle to the highway going toBarangay Banaoang in Calasiao town. At the City Jail in Dagupan City, Velasco was

subsequently brought, the private complainant Frederick Maramba identified and pointed

to the accused as the one who fired at him, hitting him on the upper left arm.

After trial, the RTC as affirmed by CA found the accused guilty with attemptedmurder.

ISSUE: whether or not(1) The Accused committed an attempted homicide.

HELD:

Having commenced the criminal act by overt acts but failing to perform all acts of

execution as to produce the felony by reason of some cause other than his own

desistance, petitioner committed an attempted felony. Petitioner already commenced hisattack with a manifest intent to kill by Maramba seven times, but failed to perform all the

acts of execution by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, poor aim and the

swiftness of the latter. Maramba sustained a wound on the left arm that is not sufficient tocause his death. The settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not

sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did

not perform all the acts of execution that would have brought about death.

Treachery is present in the commission of the crime - (a) at the time of theattack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously

and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by

him. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim

without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.It was clearly established that private complainant, while washing his jeep, was suddenly fired upon by petitioner for no

reason at all. It is likewise apparent that petitioner consciously and deliberately adopted

his mode of attack making sure that private complainant will have no chance to defendhimself by reason of the surprise attack.



The penalty imposed by the trial court is correct. Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal

Code, the penalty lower than two degrees than that prescribed by law for the

consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in an attempted felony. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpertua to

death. The penalty two degrees lower is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate

Sentence Law, and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the minimumof the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision correccional, and themaximum of the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision mayorin its

medium period.

original made by me

Documents