28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

download 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

of 6

Transcript of 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

  • 7/29/2019 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

    1/6

    Criminal Law II

    Crimes Against National Security and the Law ofNations

    TREASON

    Laurel vs. Misa

    That the accused claim that his allegiance as a Filipino

    citizen was suspended and that there was a change ofsovereignty over the Phil Islands:

    A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and

    temporary, but an absolute and permanentallegiance, which consists in the obligation offidelity and obedience to his government ofsovereign. The absolute and permanentallegiance of the inhabitants of a territoryoccupied by the enemy to their legitimategovernment or sovereign is not abrogated orsevered by the enemy occupation, becausethe sovereignty of the government orsovereign de jure is not transferred therebythe occupier.

    Just as treason may be committed againstthe Federal as well as against the State Govt,in the same way treason may have beencommitted during the Japanese occupationagainst the sovereignty of the US as weel asagainst the sovereignty of the PhilCommonwealth; and that the change of ourgorm of govt from commonwealth to republicdoes not affect the prosecution of thosecharged with the crime of treason committedduring the commonwealth, bec it is anoffense against the same govt and the samesovereign people.

    People vs. Perez

    That the women were brought by the accused to theJapanese soldiers for sexual purposes:

    Commandeering of women to satisfy the lust

    of Japanese officers or men or to enliven theentertainments held in their honor was notreason even though the women and theentertainments helpted to make life morepleasant for the enemies and boost theirspirit.

    The law of treason does not prescribe all

    kinds of social, business and politicalintercourse bet the belligerent occupants ofthe invaded country and it inhabitants.

    People vs. Prieto

    That the accused help in torturing guerillas withJapanese soldiers:

    two-witness rule: It is necessary that the two

    witnesses corroborate each other not only onthe whole overt act but on any part of it.

    Torture and atrocities as aggravating

    circumstances the use hereof instead of the

    usual and less painful method of executionwill be taken into account to increase thepenalty under art. 14(21).

    Plea of guilty to some counts: considered

    mitigating circumstance.

    ESPIONAGE

    CA 616

    PIRACY

    People vs.Lol-lo and Saraw

    That the accused are claiming that they do not belongto the Phil territory:

    Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on

    the high seas, without lawful authority anddone animo furandi (with intent to steal) andin the spirit and intention of universalhostility.

    Piracy is a crime not against any particular

    State byt against all mankind. It may bepunished in the competent tribunal or anycountry where the offender may be found orinto which he may be carried. The jurisdictionof piracy unlike all other crimes had not

    territorial limits.

    People vs. Rodriguez

    PD 532 (Anti-Piracy Law) amended 134 and

    its effect was to create the crime of qualifiedpiracy where rape, murder or homicide iscommitted. No mitigating circumstance shallbe appreciated regardless of plea of guilt.

    Recall: crew members of the vessel

    committed crime

    People vs. Siyoh

    That the accused committed with triple murder andfrustrated murder in piracy:

    Recall: There was a lone survivor Antonio De

    Guzman who was shot in the waters but wasnot killed.

    Number of persons killed on the occasion of

    piracy, not material; Piracy, a specialcomplex crime punishable by deathbut thenumber of persons killed on the occasion ofpiracy is not material. PD 532 considersqualified piracy as a special complex crimepunishable by death. (not anymore-RP)

    HIJACKING

    RA 6235

    Crime Against the Fundamental Laws of the State

    ARBITRARY DETENTION

    Rule 112, sec 6

    Rule 113, sec 5

    Umil vs. Ramos

    Case of 8 habeas corpus.

    Arrest without a warrant is justified when the

    person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto.An arrest without a warrant of arrest undersec. 5 par a and b of Rule 113 of the Rules ofCourt, as amended, is justified when theperson arrested is caught in flagranti delicto,viz in the act of committing an offensel orwhen an offense has just been committedand the person making the arrest haspersonal knowledge of the facts indicatingthat the person arrested has committed it.

    Habeas Corpus; Subversion; The crimes of

    rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposalto commit such crimes and offensescommitted in furtherance thereof of inconnection therewith constitute directassaults against the State are in the naturecontinuing crimes. Rolando Dural wasarrested for being a member of the NPA, anoutlawed subversive organization. Subversionbeing a continuing offense, the arrest ofRolando Dural without warrant is justified asit can be said that he was committing anoffense when arrested. The crimes, andcrimes or offenses committed in furtherancethereof or in connection therewith constitute

    direct assaults against the State and are inthe nature of continuing crimes.

  • 7/29/2019 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

    2/6

    People vs Burgos

    The case where the firearm was left to be

    buried to the ground and the wife pointedwhere the firearm was.

    Warrant of arrest; personal knowledge

    required of an officer arresting a person whohas just committed is committing or is aboutto commit an offense-udner sec6(a) of Rule113, the officer arresting a person who has

    committed, is committing, or is about tocommit an offense must have personalknowledge of that fact. The offense must alsobe committed in his presence.

    For arrests without warrant to be lawful, it is

    required that a crime must in fact or actuallyhave been committed first. In arrests withoutwarrant under Sec 6(b) it is not enough thatthere is reasonable ground to believe that theperson to be arrested has committed a crime.A crime must in fact or actually have beencommitted first. That a crime has actuallybeen committed is an essential precondition.It is not enough to suspect that a crime may

    have been committee. The fact of thecommission of the offense must beundisputed. The test of reasonable groundapplies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

    DELAY IN DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSON

    EO 272

    Rule 112, sec 7

    RA 7438

    SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED

    Rule 126

    Stonehill vs. Diokno

    Several judges issued 42 search warrants to

    seize all docs and papers showing allbusiness transactions of petitioners.

    Requisites for issuing search warrants-

    Constitution provides that no warrant shallissue but upon probable cause, to bedetermined by the judge, and that the

    warrant shall particularly describe the thingsto be seized.

    Search warrants authorizing the seizure of

    books of accounts and records showing allthe business transactions of certain person,regardless of whether the transactions werelegal or illegal, contravene the explicitcommand of the Bill of Rights that the thingsto be seized should be particularly describedand defeat its major objective of eliminatinggeneral warrants.

    Burgos vs. Chief of Staff

    2 search warrants against Metropolitan Mail

    and We Forum newspapers premises. Probable cause for search: as such facts and

    circumstances which would lead a reasonablydiscreet and prudent man to believe that anoffense has been committed and that theobjects sought in connection with the offenseare in the place sought to be searched.

    A search warrant against a publisher must

    particularize the alleged criminal orsubversive material to be seized. Theapplication and/or its supporting affidavits

    must contain a specification, stating withparticularity the alleged subversive materialhe has published or intending to publish.

    OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

    People vs. Baes

    The case where the funeral passed thru the

    Catholic churchyard. The court held that WON the act complained

    of is offensive to the religious feelings of theCatholics, is a question of fact which must be

    judged only according to the feelings of theCatholics and not those of other faithful ones,for it is possible that certain acts may offendthe feelings of those who profess a certainreligion, while not otherwise offensive to thefeelings of those professing another faith.

    Laurel Dissenting: Offense to religious

    feelings should not be made to depend uponthe more or less broad or narrow conceptionof any given particular religion but should begauged having in view the nature of the actscommitted and after scrutiny of all the factsand circumstances which should be viewedthrough the mirror of an unbiased judicial

    criterion. Otherwise, the gravity of leniency ofthe offense would hinge in the subjectivecharacterization of the act from the point of

    view of a given religious denomination or sectand in such a case, the application of the lawwould be partial and arbitrary, withal,dangerous, especially in a country said toonce the scene of religious intolerance andprosecution.

    Crimes Against Public Order

    REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP DETAT

    RA 6968

    Enrile vs. Salazar

    Honasan charged with rebellion with murder

    and multiple frustrated murder. Hernandez doctrine prohibits complexing of

    rebellion with any other offense. Therejection of both options shapes anddetermines the primary ruling of the Court,which is that Hernandez remains bindingdoctrine operating to prohibit the complexingof rebellion with any other offense committed

    on the occasion thereof, either as a meansnecessary to its commission or as anunintended effect of an activity thatconstitutes rebellion.

    Gutierrez Jr Concurring: Rebellion consists of

    many acts; the crime of rebellion consists ofmany acts. The dropping of one bomb cannotbe isolated as a separate crime. of rebellion.Neither should the dropping of one hundredbombs or the firing of thousands of machinegun bullets be broken up into a hundred orthousands of separate offenses. The killing ofcivilians during a rebel attack on militaryfacilities furthers the rebellion and is part of

    the rebellion.

    Enrile vs. Amin

    Enrile was charged with rebellion complexed

    with murder and a violation under PD 1829Sec. 1(c) obstruction of justice bec he gavefood and comfort to Honasan.

    Being in conspiracy with Honasan,

    petitioners alleged act of harboring orconcealing was fo no other purpose but infurtherance of the crime of rebellion thusconstituting a component thereof. It was

    motivated by the single intent or resolution tocommit the crime of rebellion. The decisivefactor is the intent or motive.

  • 7/29/2019 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

    3/6

    All crimes whether punishable under a special

    law or general law which are merecomponents or ingredients or committed infurtherance thereof, become absorbed in thecrime of rebellion and cannot be isolated andcharged as separate crimes in themselves. Sowhether punishable by RPC or a special law,the Hernandez case still is the ruling thatthese common crimes are absorbed inrebellion.

    People vs. Lovedioro

    A policeman was walking and he was killed

    by the accused. In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion

    not murder, it becomes imperative for thecourts to ascertain won the act was done infurtherance of a political end. The politicalmotive of the act should be conclusivelydemonstrated.

    It is not enough that the overt acts of

    rebellion are duly proven. From the

    foregoing, it is plainly obvous that it is notenough that the overt acts of rebellion areduly proven. Both purpose and overt acts areessential components of the crime. Witheither of these elements wanting, the crimeof rebellion legally does not exist.

    If no political motive is established and

    proved, the accused should be convicted ofthe common crime and not of rebellion. Incases of rebellion, motive relates to the act,and mere membership in an organizationdedicated to the furtherance of rebellionwould not, by and of itself, suffice.

    SEDITION

    People vs. Umali

    On the eve of the election, at the house of

    Pasumbals father, Congressman Umaliinstructed Pasumbal to contact the Huksthrough Commander Abeng so that Punzalanwould be killed. It would seem that Umali andPasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan wasgoing to win in the election and that hisdeath was the surest way to eliminate himfrom the electoral fight.

    In the evening of the same day, Pasumbal

    reported to Umali about his conference withCommander Abeng, saying that the latter

    was agreeable to the proposition and evenoutlines the manner of attack.

    After waiting for sometime, Abeng and his

    troops numbering about fifty, armed withgarlands and carbines, arrived. CongressmanUmali, holding a revolver, was seen in thecompany of Huk Commander Torio and about30 armed men. The shots were heard.Afterwards they saw Umali and hiscompanions leave in the direction of Taguan,

    by way of railroad tracks. The crime committed were not rebellion but

    rather that of sedition. The purpose of theraid and the act of the raiders in rising inrising publicly and taking up arms was notexactly against the Government and for thepurpose of doing things defined in Article 134of the RPC.

    The raiders did not even attack the

    Presidencia, the seat of the localGovernment. Rather the object was to attainby means of force, intimidation, etc., oneobject, to wit, to inflict an act of hate orrevenge upon the person or property of a

    public official, namely Punzalan who was thenmayor of Tiaong.

    People vs. Cabrera

    Phil Constabulary vs. the Manila police where

    the PC vowed revenge. Sedition in its more general sense is the

    raising of commotions or disturbances in theState.

    The Phil Law on the subject makes all

    persons guilty of sedition who rise publiclyand tumultously in order to obtain by force oroutside of legal methods any one of five

    objects, including that of inflicting any act ofhate or revenge upon the person or propertyof any official or agent of the Insular Govt orof a provincial or municipal govt.

    It is not necessary that the offender should

    be a private citizen and the offended party apublic functionary.

    Conspiracies are generally proved by a

    number of indefinite acts, conditions andcircumstances which vary according to thepurposes to be accomplished. IF it be provedthat the defendants pursued by their acts thesame object, one performing one part andanother part of the same so as to complete it

    with a view to the attainment of that sameobject one will be justified in the conclusion

    that they were engaged in a conspiracy toeffect that object.

    INCITING TO SEDITION

    US vs Tolentino

    Theatrical work which was alleged to be

    seditious. 7 modes of committing the offense:

    a. uttering seditious words or speechesb. writing, publishing, or ciculating of scurrilous

    libels against the govt.c. writing, publishing or circulating of scurrilous

    libels which tend to disturb or obstruct anylawful officer in executing his office

    d. or which tend to instigate others to cabal ormeet together for unlawful purposes

    e. which suggest or incite rebelliousconsipiracies

    f. which tend to stir up people against lawfulauthorires or to disturb the peace of thecommunity, safety and order of the govt

    g. knowlingly concealing such evil practices

    Espuelas vs. People

    Suicide note that he was not pleased with

    Roxas administration. A published writing which calls our govt one

    of corroks and dishonest persons infestedwith Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators andwhich reveals a tendency to producedissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible withthe disposition to remain loyal to the govt isa scurrilous libel against the govt.

    Criticism of govt how it may legally be done-

    any citizen may criticize his govt and govt

    officials and submit his criticism to the freetrade of ideas. However such criticicim shouldbe specific and therefore constructivespecifying particular objectionable actuationsof the govt. it must be reasoned or temperedand not a contemptuous condemnation of theentire govt set up.

    VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

    Martinez vs. Morfe

    Martinez and Bautista were members of the

    Constitutional Convention. They werearrested for falsification of docs-birthday and

  • 7/29/2019 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

    4/6

    distribution of free food, drinks and cigs at 2public meetings

    Sec 15, Art VI of the Constitution makes it

    clear that parliamentary immunity fromarrest does not cover any prosecution fortreason, felony, and breach of the peace.

    American law: Bu common parliamentary

    law, the members of the legislature areprivileged from arrest on civil process duringthe session of that body, and for a

    reasonable time before and after, to enablethem to go to and return from the same. Aprosecution for a criminal offense is thusexcluded from this grant of community.

    ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

    RA 8294

    People vs. Quijada

    Case where a dance was held in a basketball

    court and Quijada kept on pestering Iroyssister and Quijada killed the brother.

    He was convicted of two separate offenses ofmurder and illegal use of firearm aggravatedwith illegal use of firearm.

    The unequivocal intent of the second par of

    section 1. of PD 1866 is to respect andpreserve homicide or murder as a distinctoffense penalized under the RPC and toincreasae the penalty for illegal possession offirearm where such a firearm is used in killinga person.

    Its clear language yields no intention of the

    lawmaker to repeal or modify, pro tanto,Articles 248 and 249 of the RPC in such away that if an unlicensed fiream is used in

    the commission of homicide or murder, eitherof these crimes, as the case may be, wouldonly serve to aggravate the offense of illegalpossession of firearm and would not anymorebe separately punished.

    The words of the subject provision are

    palpably clear to exclude any suggestion thateither of the crimes of homicide and murder,as crimes mala in se under the RPC isobliterated as such and reduced as a mereaggravating circumstance in illegalpossession of firearm whenever theunlicensed firearm is used in killing a person.

    The only purpose of the provision is to

    increase the penalty prescribed in 1st

    par ofsec 1reclusion temporal in its max toreclusion perpetua to death.

    Celino Sr. vs. CA

    On May 12, 2004 the accused carried outside

    his residence and armalite rifle loaded withammunitions without having obtained properauthority in writing.

    The accused can be convicted of illegal

    possession of firearms, provided no othercrime was committed by the person arrested.

    The word committed taken in its ordinarysense, and in light of the Constitutionalpresumption of innocence necessarily impliesa prior determination of guilt by finalconviction resulting from successfulprosecution or voluntary admission.

    When the other offense involved is one of

    those enumerated under R.A. 8294, anyinformation for illegal possession of firearmshould be quashed because the illegalpossession of firearm would have to be triedtogether with such other offense, eitherconsidered as an aggravating circumstance inmurder or homicide, or absorbed as an

    element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition orattempted coup detat.

    When the other offense involved is not one of

    those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then theseparate case for illegal possession of firearmshould continue to be prosecuted.

    DIRECT ASSAULT

    People vs. Beltran

    Battle in the Puzons compound.

    Shooting at the mayor and a policeman on

    duty is attempted murder with assault.

    The Maypr was a person in authority andTolentino was a policeman who at the timewas in uniform. They were performing theirofficial duties to maintain peace and order inthe community.

    People vs. Dollantes

    The case where the accused brandished a

    knife challenging anyone to fight with himwhen the brgy. Captain was giving a speech.

    Barangay captain was killed while in the

    performance of his duties. The recordsshowed that the barangay captain was in the

    act of trying to pacify the accused who wasmaking trouble in the dance hall when he wasstabbed to death.

    PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF

    PEACEFUL MEETINGS

    Evangelista vs. Earnshaw

    Earnshaw the alleged President of the

    Communist Party of the Philippines requesteda necessary permission to hold a popularmeeting at the plaza. The mayor denied the

    request and prohibits all kinds of meetingheld in the city.

    The mayor was not held liable for Article 131

    inasmuch as the doctrines and principlesadvocated by the communist party werehighly seditious in that they suggested andincited rebellious conspiracies and disturbedand obstructed the lawful authorities in theirduties.

    Primicias vs. Fugoso

    In November 1947, the mayor of Manila

    refused to grant a permit to hold a public

    meeting at Plaza Miranda for the purpose ofpetitioning the government for redress ofgrievances. The mayors reason: "that thereis a reasonable ground to believe, basingupon previous utterances and upon the factthat passions, specially on the part of thelosing groups, remains bitter and high, thatsimilar speeches will be delivered tending toundermine the faith and confidence of thepeople in their government, and in the dulyconstituted authorities, which might threatenbreaches of the peace and a disruption ofpublic order." A Manila ordinance at that timerequired a mayors permit to hold a parade or

    procession, or, by analogy, a public meetingor assembly. Primicias filed a case to compelthe mayor to grant the permit.

    May the mayor be compelled to grant the

    permit? Yes. The Supreme Court ordered the mayor

    to grant the permit, interpreting theordinance to mean that the Mayor did nothave the power to grant or refuse the permit,only the discretion to specify where theparade may pass or where the meeting maybe held. The Court said that the constitutionalright to free speech and peaceful assemblywas a fundamental right of the people andmay not be suppressed unless there was theprobability of serious injury to the state, andquoted US Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in

    http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Manilahttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Plaza_Mirandahttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Plaza_Mirandahttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Plaza_Mirandahttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Manila
  • 7/29/2019 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

    5/6

    Whitney vs. California: "Fear of serious injurycannot alone justify suppression of freespeech and assembly.

    DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL

    Alberto vs. De la Cruz

    Case where the accused was summoned at

    the house of the governor to fix the fence.

    In order to be guilty under 223 (connivance)and 224 (negligence), it is necessary that thepublic officer had consented to, or connivedin, the escape of a prisoner on the part of theperson in charge is an essential condition inthe commission of the crime of faithfulness inthe custody of the prisoner. If the publicofficer charged with the duty of guarding himdoes not connive with the fugitive, then hehas not violated the law and is not guilty ofthe crime.

    Negligence in the custody of a prisoner under

    224 of the RPC punishable if it is definitelyand deliberately committed.

    EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

    Tanega vs. Masakayan

    Accused was convicted with slander but she

    didnt serve her sentence. The elements are that the offender is a

    convict by final judgment; he is serving thesentence of deprivation of liberty and heevades the service of sentence by escapingduring the term of his sentence.

    The prescription commence from date when

    culprit should evade the service of his

    sentence.

    People vs. Abilong

    The accused was sentenced with destierro

    (100M from Manila) One who, sentenced to destierro by virtue of

    final judgment, and prohibited from enteringthe City of Manila, enters said city within theperiod of his sentence is guilty of evasion ofsentence under article 157, RPC.

    VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON

    Torres vs. Gonzales

    The accused was convicted of estafa but then

    he was granted a conditional pardon providedhe would not violate any penal laws. He wascharged 20 counts of estafa but he was notyet convicted of final judgment.

    A convict granted conditional pardon who is

    recommitted must of course be convicted byfinal judgment of a court of the subsequentcrime or crimes with which he was chargedbefore the criminal penalty for such

    subsequent offense can be imposed upon.The parolee or convict who is regarded ashaving violated the provisions thereof mustbe charged, prosecuted and convicted byfinal judgment before he can be made tosuffer the penalty under 159.

    QUASI-RECIDIVISM

    People vs. Dionisio

    The Happy Go Lucky gang vs. Batang

    Mindanao case. The accused are quasi-recidivists, having

    committed the crime charged while servingsentence for a prior offense. The maximumpenalty prescrived by law for the new felony(murder) is death, regardless of the presenceor absence of any mitigating or aggravatingcircumstance or the complete absencethereof. But for lack of requisite votes,reclusion perpetua is imposed.

    Crimes Against Public Interest

    MUTILATION OF COINS

    PD 247

    FORGERY

    Del Rosario vs. People

    Erasure and alteration of figures in genuine

    treasury notes-The possession of genuinetreasury notes of the Philippines any of thefigures, letters, words or signs contained inwhich had been erased and/or altered, withknowledge of such erasure and alteration,and with the intent to use such notes inenticing another to advance funds for theavowed purpose of financing the manufactureof counterfeit treasury notes of thePhilippines, is punishable.

    People vs. Galano

    Balut case and the Victory note payment

    The forgery here committed comes under the

    first paragraph of Article 169 or the Code (Bygiving to a treasury or bank note or anyinstrument payable to bearer or to ordermentioned therein, the appearance of a true

    and genuine document). This provision doesnot only contemplate situations where aspurious, false or fake document orinstrument is given the appearance of a trueand genuine document, but also to situationsinvolving originally true and genuinedocuments which have been withdrawn ordemonetized, or have outlived theirusefulness. The case under considerationcould not come within the second paragraphof the aforesaid article (By erasing,substituting , counterfeiting or altering byany means the figures, letters, words or signscontained therein) because no figure, letter,

    word, or sign contained in Exhibit A has beenerased, substituted, counterfeited or altered.The forgery consists in the addition of a wordin an effort to give to the present documentthe appearance of the true and genuinecertificate that it used to have before it waswithdrawn or has outlived its usefulness.

    FALSIFICATION

    People vs. Romualdez

    Case of Bar Exam where the scores of a

    certain Mabunay were changed. The contention that the papers which

    defendant ER altered were not public orofficial documents is untenable because theexamination of candidates for admission tothe bar is a judicial function. The alterationsmade in such papers, under thecircumstances proven in this case, of thegrades given to them by the correctors,constitute the crime of falsification of publicdocuments.

    Syquian vs. People

  • 7/29/2019 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

    6/6

    Mayor appointed one woman as clerk but

    there were no funds available and no specialordinance creating said position.

    The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a

    third person is not necessary when thefalsified document is a public document.

    People vs. Villalon

    Case where a document of mortgage was

    falsified by the accused alleging that he hasobtained the signatures of the De Guzmanbrothers.

    The falsification of a public document may be

    a means of committing estafa because beforethe falsified document is actually utilized todefraud another, the crime of falsification hasalready been consummated, damage orintent to cause damage not being an elementof the crime of falsification of public, officialor commercial documents. The damage toanother is caused by the commission ofestafa, not by falsification of the document,hence, the falsification of the public, official

    or commercial document is only a necessarymeans to commit the estafa.

    In the crime of falsification of a public

    document, the prescriptive periodcommences from the time the offended partyhad constructive notice of the alleged forgeryafter the document was registered with theRegister of Deeds.

    USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS

    People vs. Dava

    Case where Dava acquired a falsified drivers

    license after his previous license wasconfiscated due to a felony he committed.

    Drivers license a public document.

    The drivers license being a public document,

    proof of the fourth element of damagecaused to another person or at least an intentto cause such damage has becomeimmaterial.

    In falsification of public or official documents,

    the principal thing being punished is theviolation of the public faith and thedestruction of the truth proclaimed therein.

    USURPATION

    Gigantoni vs. People

    Case where accused claimed that he was an

    agent of CIS of the Phil Constabulary andwent to Pal to conduct verification of sametravel by the Black Mountain officials andpresented an ID.

    Usurpation of authority and usurpation of

    official functions- Art 177 of the RPC onusurpation of authority or official functions-any person:

    a. who knowingly and falsely represent himselfto be an officer, agent and representative ofany department or agency of the Phil Goct orof any foreign govt (Usurpation of authority)

    b. under pretense of official position, performsany act pertaining to any person in authorityor public officer of the Phil Govt or any foreingovt or any agency thereof, without beinglawfully entitled to do so. (Usurpation ofofficial functions)

    Accused was previously a member of the said

    organization however it was not proven bythe prosecution that he was dismissed fromthe org and that he no longer possesses such

    authority. However the SOLGEN argued thatin makes no difference whether the accusedwas suspended or dismissed from the servicefor both imply the absence of power torepresent oneself as vested with authority toperform acts pertaining to an office to whichhe knowingly was deprived of. He shouldhave been charged of usurpation of officialfunctions and not of usurpation of authority,thus, he was acquitted.

    USING FICITITIOUS NAME

    CA 142

    Legamia vs. IAC

    Case where a woman used the name Corazon

    Reyes instead of Corazon Legamia y Riverabec she has been living with Emilio Reyes for20 years but not married.

    She assumed the role as his wife and used

    his name without any sinister purpose orpersonal material gain in mind. She appliedfor benefits upon his death not for herself butfor their son. (You may have your ownCorazon statement of the Court).

    ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA

    RA 75

    RA 493

    PERJURY

    Diaz vs. People

    Case where the accused made it appear that

    he was a 4th yr student with Bachelor of Artsat the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Collegesand this was a requirement for hisreappointment as School Administrative Asst.

    As defined, perjury is the willful and corrupt

    assertion of falsehood under oath ofaffirmation administered by authority of lawon a material matter.

    All elements present:

    a. that the accused made a statement underoath or executed an affidavit upon a materialmatter.

    b. That the statement or affidavit was made

    before a competent officer, authorized toreceive and administer oath

    c. That in that statement or affidavit, theaccused made a willful and deliberateassertion of a falsehood

    d. That the sworn statement or affidavitcontaining the falsity is required by law ormade for legal purpose.

    MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS

    Ouano vs. CA

    Case where auction was manipulated.

    Causing another bidder to stay away from theauction in order to cause reduction of theprice of the property auctioned. These actsconstitute a crime where Ouano andEschavez had promised to share in theproperty in question as a consideration forOuanos refraining from taking part in thepublic auction, and they had attempted tocause and in fact succeeded in causinganother bidder to stay away from the auctionin order to cause reduction of the price of theproperty auctioned.

    Property forfeited in favor of the govt.