CASE 21 Mupas et al vs. People GR No. 172834 June 6, 2003FACTS:On or about February 18, 1993, an altercation occurred involving complainant Rogelio and petitioners Jun and Gil / Banjo. According to Rogelio, petitioners attempted to kill him by stabbing him and when having failed, they punched and threw stones at him instead, and that the incident was witnessed by several people. As a result, Rogelio suffered slight physical injuries, which were treated in a hospital. On the other hand, petitioners alleged that Jun only had a punching brawl with Rogelio and that Gil stopped the fight without any physical involvement. The defense’s testimonies were corroborated by several witnesses. The RTC ruled against petitioners, convicting them guilty of frustrated homicide, which was affirmed by the CA. Hence, the present case.ISSUE:Were the lower courts erroneous in their ruling that the petitioners were indeed guilty of frustrated homicide?HELD:Yes, they erred in their decisions. The SC ruled that for a crime of frustrated homicide, the most essential element, which is the intent to kill, has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The witness testimonies were more consistent with the petitioners’ defense and the physical injuries sustained by the Rogelio were merely slight. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence to suggest that petitioners had the intent to kill. In sum, absent competent proof, the SC acquitted petitioners of frustrated homicide and made Jun liable for the crime of less serious physical injuries under Art 265.

CASE 22 Monge vs. People GR No. 1703008 March 7, 2008FACTS:On July 20, 1994 in Iriga City, Galo Monge (petitioner) and Edgar Potencio (Potencio) were apprehended by barangay tanods for the possession and transportation of 3 pieces of mahogany lumber without the requisite permit and/or authority from the DENR. Petitioner fled whereas Potencio was taken into custody. Later on, petitioner was arrested and a case was filed with the RTC charging him to be in violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended by EO No. 277. Potencio on the other hand was discharged by the court as a state witness. Trial ensued. Petitioner did not contest allegations but gave his version of the story which was not given credit and was thus adjudged as guilty by the RTC. Aggrieved, petitioner brought the case to the CA challenging the RTC’s decision of discharging Potencio as a state witness. This, as well as his Motion for Reconsideration, were dismissed and denied respectively. Thus, this petition for review on certiorari.ISSUE:Whether or not the petitioner’s conviction should be reversed with respect to his contentions.HELD:Not. The petitioner, along with Potencio, were caught in flagrante delicto (red-handed) in their violations and these facts were never denied by the petitioner. PD No. 705 is a special penal statute that punishes acts essentially malum prohibitum (prohibited, thus wrong). Regardless of whom the owner of the lumber was or even with the absence of malice or criminal intent, their violations were blatant. With regards to Potencio’s discharge, the RTC was deemed competent to have declared him as state witness. Thus, the petition was denied.

CASE 23 Fajardo vs. People GR No. 190889 January 10, 2011FACTS:In the evening of August 27, 2002, members of the PISOG surrounded the house of petitioner Elenita Fajardo in Kalibo, Aklan due to the reported presence of men who were indiscriminately firing guns from her house. Upon the arrival of the PISOG, several men ran away leaving petitioner and Zaldy Valerio retreating into the house. It was then seen by the officers that Valerio emerged twice on top of the house and threw something, which turned out to be two receivers of .45 caliber pistols. A search warrant was then effected in the morning which led to the discovery of several ammos and gun paraphernalia in the petitioner’s house, leading to their arraignment. An information was filed with the RTC charging the accused party to be in violation of P.D. No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294 or illegal possession of firearms and explosives. The RTC held them guilty. The petitioner brought the case to the CA, and found the accused to be guilty only for the illegal possession of a part of a firearm, since the search warrant was found void negating the other evidence. The petitioner contended that she could not be held guilty for the offense, hence the present recourse.ISSUE:Will the petitioner be held liable for the offense, a Malum Prohibitum, discussed above?HELD:No. Although the petitioner's possession of the receivers was merely incidental, it was Valerio who was in actual physical possession. Further, even if petitioner was found to be in actual or constructive possession of the said receivers, animus possidendi must be shown, which was not proven in the case. Without the concrete proof of the petitioner’s intent to possess the said receivers, her conviction must fail. Thus, the SC has acquitted petitioner on grounds of reasonable doubt.

CASE 24 Lejano vs. PeopleGR No. 176389 December 14, 2010 / January 18, 2011FACTS:On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters were brutally slain at their home in Parañaque City, which has commonly referred to as the Vizconde massacre. In 1995, the NBI presented Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its informers as star-witness, pointing to accused Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Lejano, and 6 others as the culprits. Relying primarily on Alfaro's testimony, the public prosecutors filed an information for rape with homicide against Webb, et al. Webb’s alibi appeared the strongest since he claimed that he was in the USA. He presented the testimonies of witnesses as well as documentary and object evidence to prove this. On January 4, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment against the accused party. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications.

On April 20, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution granting the request of Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver, which specimen was then believed still under the safekeeping of the NBI. Unfortunately, said specimen was lost. This outcome prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on the ground that the government’s failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his right to due process.ISSUE:

1) Did Webb present sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut Alfaro’s testimony and thus acquit him and his fellow accused?

2) Can the aggrieved party make an appeal towards the acquittal of the accused?

HELD:1) Yes, sufficient enough to have them acquitted on the grounds of

reasonable doubt. Webb’s documented alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not only with respect to him, but also with respect to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, and Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the U.S. when the crime took place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together. Webb’s participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s story. Without it, the evidence against the others must necessarily fall. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2) On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, an immediate relative of the victims, asked the Court to reconsider its decision. But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article III, that: Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Thus, the appeal was denied for lack of merit.

CASE 25 Fernan, Jr. vs. People GR No. 145927 August 24, 2007FACTS:Due to severe irregularities in release of funds for the MPH via fake LAAs and other dubious documents sometime from February 1977 to June 1978 in Region VII particularly Cebu area, President Marcos created a Special Cabinet Committee cracking down on the “Ghost Projects Anomalies”. These occurrences were eventually busted by the NBI, with the cases filed with the SB, finding several MPH officials guilty of conspiracy. Among them were petitioners MPH Central Office Supervising Accountant Leonardo Tordecilla and Cebu I HED Civil Engineer Simon Fernan, Jr. who were tried guilty of estafa thru falsification of public and commercial documents. Petitioners submitted their supplication to the SB which was declined, hence this petition:ISSUE:Did the SB err in convicting petitioners of being co-conspirators of the above-case?HELD:No, the SB erred not at all. First of all, the SB was able to solidly establish the essential elements of the crime of estafa. Petitioners sealed their fate in this by their own testimonies. Arising from this, the SB correctly implied conspiracy since they have proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the estafa cooperatively. Direct evidence was not necessary, as was demonstrated in People vs. Pagalasan, a settled jurisprudence similar to the instant case.

CASE 26 Eugenio vs. People GR No. 168163 March 26, 2008FACTS:Sometime in November 1995 in Malabon, Metro Manila, Lolita Y. Eugenio (petitioner) along with Saquitan and Ablaza persuaded Mangali to loan them P 100,000.00 in exchange for a parcel of land owned by Saquitan. Subsequently, petitioner in behalf of one Lourdes Ty sought another P100,000.00 loan from Mangali assured by a parcel of land owned by Ty. Convinced, Mangali released an initial of P 75,000.00. When the loans lapsed, Mangali inquired from the Register of Deeds of Manila and Quezon City and discovered that TCT No. 171602 deed of sale (1st lot) had been canceled on October 15, 1995 while TCT No. 92585 (2nd lot) was not registered with the said offices. This prompted Mangali to contact the NBI and an entrapment operation was initiated arresting petitioner, Albanza, and two other unidentified persons. Upon investigation, the real Epifania Saquitan was found who issued an affidavit denying any connection with the accused party. The case was filed with the RTC charging petitioner’s party with Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, wherein petitioner and Albanza pleaded “not guilty”. Albanza settled bail and went into hiding. On the part of the defense, petitioner contended that she was merely a victim of circumstance. The RTC, contending that fraud was involved through conspiracy and misrepresentation, ruled against petitioner and the case was brought to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.ISSUE:Whether or not a conspiracy was involved in the case at barHELD:Not. The SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy to render petitioner liable as principal to Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents. The lower courts’ reliance upon mere allegations and testimonies absent the material evidence to implicate petitioner as principal, accomplice, or accessory beyond reasonable doubt where the act of conspiracy was being inferred from led to petitioner’s acquittal.

CASE 27 People vs. Glino GR No. 173793 December 4, 2007FACTS:In the evening of November 15, 1998 in Las Pinas City, complainant Virginia Boji and her husband Domingo Boji rode a PUJ wherein the accused Glino and Baloes were also passengers. The accused were intoxicated, with Glino leaning on Virginia violating her personal space. Virginia and Domingo reminded Glino to sit properly but Glino and Baloes took offense and made their retorts. Later, the accused were seen whispering together. When the accused announced their plan to alight from the PUJ, they suddenly and repeatedly stabbed Domingo, with Virginia sustaining a wounded hand from the scuffle. The accused were then apprehended by authorities. While in custody, Baloes died of cardiopulmonary arrest, leaving Glino to contend with the case. Glino denied the allegations against him, stating that he was merely one of the passengers in the PUJ and not a participant of the crime. It was alleged that Baloes stabbed Domingo first and that Virginia was unable to identify her assailant. Still, the RTC and CA held Glino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder. Hence, this present appeal. ISSUE:Should Glino still be convicted guilty of murdering Domingo even if it was Baloes who initiated the action?HELD:Yes, as the SC held in way of conspiracy. It matters not who among the accused actually killed the victim. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Each of the accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. Also, proof that accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common design to kill the victim will suffice to support a conviction, as further demonstrated in the case of People vs. Deuna. Thus, Glino was rightly convicted.

CASE 28 Ramos-Andan vs. People GR No. 136388 March 14, 2006FACTS:Petitioner Ramos-Andan and Potenciana approached complainant Elizabeth Calderon to buy the latter’s diamond ring. Elizabeth agreed to the three post-dated checks issued by Potenciana and a receipt of transaction was signed by them with petitioner being the witness. Upon encashment, the checks bounced for the reason “Account Closed”. An information was filed with the RTC which led to the arraignment of petitioner; however, Potenciana remained at large. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and denied buying the ring, maintaining that she signed the checks and the receipts merely as a witness. The RTC held that petitioner induced Elizabeth to agree with the transaction thus cannot escape liability. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision with some modification, hence this petition.ISSUE:Whether or Not conspiracy was involved in the case at barHELD:Yes, conspiracy was involved and thus the SC held petitioner guilty of Estafa. While Potenciana was the drawer of the checks, it was petitioner who directly and personally negotiated the same. It was she who signed the receipt evidencing the sale and endorsed them as payment to Elizabeth. It is thus clear that petitioner and Potenciana acted in concert for the purpose of inducing and defrauding Elizabeth to part with her jewelry.

CASE 29 Serrano vs. People GR No. 179038 March 6, 2010FACTS:On January 18, 2003 in Pasig City, a buy-bust operation by police officers and PDEA agents led to the arrest of appellants Joseph Serrano and Anthony Serrano due to illegal sale and possession of shabu. The appellants were reported to have acted together in carrying out the transaction. In their defense, appellants denied the charges against them. The RTC and the CA ruled against them, hence this appeal.ISSUE:Did the lower courts err in finding the existence of conspiracy in the case at bar?HELD:No. While it was with Joseph that the police transacted regarding the acquisition of shabu and to whom they paid the buy bust money, it was from Anthony that Joseph actually got the drugs subject of the transaction. From the above scenario, no other conclusion can be drawn but that both accused were engaged in the illegal trade.

CASE 30 Palaganas vs. People GR No. 165483 September 12, 2006FACTS:In the late evening of January 16, 1998 at Manaoag, Pangasinan, the Ferrer brothers Servillano, Melton, and Michael were having a drinking spree at the Tidbits Videoke Bar when Ferdinand Palaganas, Jaime Palaganas, and Virgilio Bautista arrived and occupied another table. While Jaime was singing “My Way” he took insult when Melton sang along with him. A brawl ensued; however, Ferdinand escaped and went to fetch his brother Rujjeric Palaganas (petitioner) who was asleep at his house nearby. When the Ferrer brothers went out of the bar, petitioner opened fire at them, hitting Melton in the head leading to his instant death, mortally wounding Servillano in the abdomen, and wounding Michael in the right shoulder. An information was filed at the RTC against the petitioner wherein he was held guilty for homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide. Likewise, the CA upon notice of the case affirmed the RTC’s decision with some modification. The petitioner was aggrieved, alleging that he acted on self-defense, hence this instant case.ISSUE:Were the lower courts correct in ruling that petitioner was guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide against Michael Ferrer who was shot in the right shoulder?HELD:No, as this was changed by the SC into attempted homicide. The petitioner merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt act and did not perform all the acts of execution, which fits the definition of an attempted felony. Further, Michael’s wound was not fatal or mortal, as was stipulated by his medical certificate. If Michael were to have been shot in the head and survives due to timely medical intervention, then the petitioner would have been deemed guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide.

CASE 31 People vs. Opang GR No. 177822 June 17, 2008FACTS:Complainant AAA, a 15-year-old female, was employed as a housemaid in Supt. Macadindang’s quarters in Davao City. In the eve of May 2, 1999, appellant Hilario Opang, employed as a grass cutter in that vicinity, allegedly forced AAA into her room and raped her twice that evening. Allegedly, this was again repeated in the eve of May 9, 1999. On June 4, 1999, AAA admitted to Mrs. Macadindang about the incident. AAA and appellant were then brought to the precinct for investigation. Medico-legal report stated that AAA had an intact and distensible hymen. Appellant denied these allegations. After trial, the RTC convicted the appellant of two counts of simple rape, which was also affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal.ISSUE:Did the trial court err in ruling the appellant guilty of consummated rape instead of attempted rape?HELD:No. Carnal knowledge occurred, basing it on AAA’s testimony, which was established to be trial courts. There is carnal knowledge from the time the penis enters through the labia. In rape, the consummated stage is reached once carnal knowledge occurs. Hymen may remain unbroken even after several sexual intercourse especially when it is elastic and distensible, as was proven by the medico-legal report. It does not qualify under attempted rape since carnal knowledge occurred, nor would it fall under frustrated rape because there was no failure in penetration. In general, rape has no frustrated stage.

CASE 32 Ladonga vs. People GR No. 141066 February 17, 2005FACTS:Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses Adronico and Evangeline obtained a P9,075.55 loan from Alfredo Otculam, guaranteed by a post-dated UCPB Check issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by another post-dated UCPB check issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by a post-dated UCPB Check issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason “CLOSED ACCOUNT”; when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof. The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner. Issue: Should the provision of the RPC Article 10 be invoked to apply the principle of conspiracy in the above-case?Held: Yes, since B.P. Blg. 22 is a special law and does not proscribe the suppletory application of Article 10 of the RPC. In general, Article 10 of the RPC is provided to supplement special laws, unless it expresses otherwise. However, the conviction of the petitioner as a co-conspirator must fail because the prosecution failed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the only semblance of overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was present when the first check was issued. However, this inference cant be stretched to mean concurrence w the criminal design.

CASE 33 Go-Tan vs. Tan et al GR No. 168852 September 30, 2008FACTS:Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) were married, having two female children from their union. Barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a TPO against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the RTC. She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of Republic Act R.A. No. 9262, aka “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004”. This was granted by the RTC; however, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262. On March 7, 2005, the RTC dismissed the case as to respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” After several motions between the 2 parties, the RTC reasoned that to include respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262 would be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law. Hence, the present petition on a pure question of law.ISSUE:Whether or not respondents may be included in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with republic act no. 9262HELD:Yes. The court rules in favor of the petitioner. Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC, stating that: SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application. Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides The RPC shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in wc the special law is silent on a particular matter.

CASE 34 People vs. Tabuelog GR No. 178059 January 22, 2008FACTS:On October 12, 2002, the accused Christopher Tabuelog and the victim Clinton Badinas along with other students from Abra Valley College went on a field trip to Fort Ilocandia, Laoag City. According to the facts found by the trial court, Clinton Badinas had an encounter with Roger Domingo, one of the companions of the accused. Suddenly, the accused appeared behind Clinton and stabbed him with a knife on the left side just under his armpit. The accused on the other hand alleged that he acted in self-defense as Clinton was about to attack him. Finding the defense testimony weak, the RTC gave credence to the prosecution and the accused was convicted guilty of the crime of murder. This was affirmed in toto by the CA, hence, the appeal.ISSUE:Whether or not the plea of self-defense worked in favor of the accused.HELD:No. Self-defense, like an alibi, can be easily concocted. In invoking self-defense, the onus probandi is shifted to the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence all the justifying circumstance. Further, the accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. The court found the defense’s testimonies

inconsistent and unreliable; however, they modified the trial court’s findings convicting him instead guilty of homicide.

CASE 35 Baxinela vs. People GR No. 149652 March 24, 2006FACTS:According to petitioner’s defense, they went to Superstar Disco Pub in response to Manuba’s claim that a man armed with a gun was creating trouble. Upon their arrival, they saw Ruperto F. Lajo with a gun tucked behind his waist. Petitioner approached him and inquired about the gun; however, Lajo suddenly drew his gun and aimed it at petitioner but the latter was able to beat him with the draw shooting Lajo on the left arm, acting in self-defense. The prosecution on the other hand refuted the statements and alleged that petitioner while approaching Lajo already had his gun aimed at the latter. When Lajo was about to draw his wallet to identify himself for the petitioner, he was then shot on the left side, leading to his mortal wounds. Upon discovery of his identity, petitioner and his companion Insp. Joel Regimen fled. The RTC found the prosecution’s allegations more convincing and held petitioner guilty of homicide, with mitigating circumstances. Upon appeal, the CA ruled the same, only disallowing the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, hence this petition.ISSUE:Whether or not the justifying circumstances of self-defense under Article 11 paragraph 1 of the RPC should be in favor of the petitioner.HELD:No. Under paragraph 1 (self-defense), petitioner’s defense failed to establish unlawful aggression which is a sine qua non element to that justifying circumstance. As the evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment. In fact, it was petitioner who was the aggressor when he grabbed Lajo’s shoulder and started questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears that he was just turning around to face the petitioner. None of these acts could be deemed as unlawful aggression on the part of Lajo.