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.


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.


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


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


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


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.

28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam

Documents

Transcript of 28681075 Case Digest 1st Exam