PONCE ENRILE V.

AMIN In this case, the act of concealing or harboring is clearly a mere component or
[ Spet. 13,1990 | G.R. No. 9335 ] ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion and thus
cannot be made the basis of a separate charge.
FACTS: An information for rebellion complexed with murder with the RTC of QC
is filed at the same time with RTC of Makati for violation of P.D. No. 1829(charged (6) Furthermore, the contention of prosecution that prosecution under a special law
in this present case). He was charged for the violation on the ground that he allegedly will not bar a case under the RPC or vice versa must fail. The court said that All
harbored or concealed Ex-Co Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan who has committed a crimes, whether punishable under a general law or special law, which are mere
crime. components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become
Enrilie filed an Omnibus Motion which was denied by the court as well as absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as
his Motion for reconsideration and to Quash/dismiss the information. separate crimes in themselves. The common crimes but also to offenses under
special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense. The
ISSUE: Whether or not Enrile could be separately charged for violation of PD No. conversation and the alleged conspiring of Enrile with Honasan is too
1829 not withstanding the rebellion case earlier filed against him? NO intimately tied up with his allegedly harboring and conealing honasan for
paractically the same act to form two separate crimes of rebellion and violation
HELD: NO. of PD No. 1829. The alleged act of harboring or concealing which was based on
his acts of conspiring with Honasan was committed in connection with or in
(1) The Supreme court cited the case of People v. Hernandez which was recently furtherance of rebellion and must now be deemed as absorbed by, merged in,
repeated in the case in Ponce Enrile v. Salazar. The court stated in that case that and identified with the crime of rebellion punished in the RPC/
the Hernandez doctrine remain binding, operating to prohibit the complexing of
rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a (7) The prosecution must make up its mind as to which to charge Enrile with. It
means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that cannot complex the rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. There
constitutes rebellion. is already a case for rebellion with the RTC, hence, this case cannot prosper.
Petition is Granted. The court quashed the case.
(2) This doctrine is applicable in the case at bar. If a person cannot be charged with
the complete crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to be applied neither can
be charged separately for 2 different offenses where one is a constitutive or
component element or committed in furtherance of rebellion.

(3) The prosecution alleges that Enrile entertained and accommodated Honasan by
giving him food and comfort in his house. Knowing that Honasan is a fugitive of
justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have honasan arrested or
apprehended and such is a violation of Sec. 1( c) of P.D. no. 1829.

(4) The rebellion charges were based on the affidavits of employees of Silahis Hotel
who stated that Honasan with 100 rebel soldiers attended the mass and birthday
party held at the house of Enrile. The Supreme court stated that such factual
allegations supporting the rebellion charge constitute the very incident which
gave rise to the charge of violation under P.D. No. 1829. Enrile is facing charges
of rebellion in conspiracy with Honasan. Necessarily, being in conspiracy with
Honasan, Enrile’s act of harboring and concealing was for no other purpose but
in furtherance of the crime of rebellion.

(5) The Supreme Court also said that Rebellion consists of many acts which is
described as a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots.
Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in furtherance of rebellion through
crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion.
 PEOPLE V. CABRERA also fired at the Luneta Police Station and at the office of the secret service,
[ Mar. 4, 1922 | G.R. No. 17748 ] fortunately, no one was injured.

The Chief of the Constabulary and Captain Paige, commanding officer of the
FACTS: Manila Policemen arrested a woman who was a member of the household barracks, rounded up the soldiers and returned them to the Barracks where they were
of a Constabulary Soldier stationed at the Sta. Lucia Barracks in the city. Arrest of disarmed. The day after an investigation of the events was commenced, All the
the woman was considered by some of the Constabulary soldiers at the Barracks as soldiers were ordered t assamble into the parade grounds and to separate into their
an outrage committed by the policemen, and it instantly gave rise to friction between respective companies. Colonel Sweet thereafter in English, which was translated into
members of the Manila police department and members of the Philippine Tagalog by Captain Silvino, asked the men to tell him which ones was present during
constabulary. The Next Day, a Artemio Mojica, a policeman, posted on Calle Real the incident. 77 soldiers were taken in writing during the afternoon and answered a
and had an encounter with various constabulary soldiers which resulted in the questionnaire which produced in substance the same answers stating the events that
shooting of Macasinag of the constabulary in which he was mortally wounded. The transpired and that their reason was that there is a standing grudge between them and
encounter left a deep feeling of resentmend on the part of the Barracks soldiers the Manila police due to the arrest and abuse of one of the wife and gave her to an
which was soon converted to a desire for revenge against the Manila Policemen. American and that after, they arrested 2 soldiers of the constabulary, falsely accusing
Constabulary officers almost immediately after the shooting of Macasinag, upon them of keeping woman of bad reputation. As well as, the shooting of Macasinag
knowledge of the excitement among the soldiers, increased the number of guards, and the rumor that spread.
and confined all the soldiers in the Barracks.
Thus they were charged in one information filed in the RTC of manila with crime of
The next day, rumor spread among the Barracks soldiers to the effect that sedition and another for the crime of murder and serious physical injury which was
policeman Mojica was allowed to continue on duty on the streets of intramuros and tried separately before different judges of RTC. At first, all of the accused except 8
that Macasinag had died. This rumor contributed to the movement for reprisal y the pleaded guilty, but the 8 then also pleaded guilty upon presentation of 1 st witness by
soldiers against the policeman. A corporal easily persuaded the private in charge of the court. Court of first instance ruled that the guilt of the accused had not been
the quarters to permit them to let the soldiers out of the window with rifles and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
ammunition under the command of their sergeants and corporals. When they got
outside, they divided into groups for attack upon the city police force. ISSUE:

One of the Platoon fired in the direction of the intersection of Calles Real and HELD:
Cabildo where Driskill, an American policeman, was stationed and was talking to his The Confessions as evidence were valid.
friend. The 2 men were shot and soon after died. Driskill, although in a dying (1) Defense alleges that fraud and deceit marred the preparation of the 72
condition and in the face of overwhelming did so valiantly returned the fire with his confessions. It is alleged that some of the defendants signed the confessions
revolver. Jacumin was killed despite upon being told to raise his hands up, he did so. under the impression that those who had taken part in the affray would be
transferred to Mindanao, and that although they did not in fact so participate,
At that time, A street car happened to stop at the intersection. The Platoon without affirmed that they did because of a desire to leave Manila; that others stepped
considering the innocent passengers, fired at the car, instantly killing a passenger forward "for the good of the service" in response to appeals from Colonel Sweet
whie wounding the others. The firing did not end. The platoon also shot the chief of and other officers; while still others simply didn't understand what they were
police of the city of manila who was riding in a motorcycle driven by a policeman doing, for the remarks of Colonel Sweet were made in English and only
upon their arrival at Calles Real and Magallanes in Intramuros, and a volley of shots translated into Tagalog, and their declarations were sometimes taken in a
by Soldiers resulted in the death of a patrolmen. At the same time, a police patrol language which was unintelligible to them. If the confession is freely and
came at Calle Real and was also fired upon by the Soldiers who stationed themselves voluntarily made, it constitutes one of the most effectual proofs in the law
in the San Agustin Church which resulted in the death of 2 patrolmen. against the party making it. The burden of proof that the confession was not
voluntarily made or was obtained by undue pressure is the accused.
Another Platoon, arranged themselves in the firing line on the sunken gardens on the (2) What actually occurred when the confessions were prepared is clearly explained
east side of Calle General luna opposite the Aquarium. From there, they fired upon in the record. The source of the rumor that the defendants would be transferred
the motorcycle occupied by a sergeant and a policeman who was with companions to Mindanao of they signed the confessions is not established. On the contrary it
were passing along Calle General Luna. The policeman was mortally wounded. They is established that before the declaration were taken, Lieutenant Gatuslao in
response to a query had shown the improbability of such a transfer. With
 military orders given in English and living in the city of Manila where the
dialect is Tagalog, all of the defendants must have understood the substantial Accuseds are guilty of violation of the Treason and Sedition law.
part of Colonel Sweet's remarks. What is more important, there could be no (1) The conviction of the accused of a violation of the Treason and Sedition Law
misunderstanding as to the contents of the confessions as written down. In open Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances
court, 69 of the defendants reiterated their guilt. The officers who assisted in the in the State. The Philippine law on the subject (Act No. 292) makes all persons
investigation were of the same service as the defendants and would naturally not guilty of sedition who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force
be inclined to prejudice the rights of their own men. or outside of legal methods any one of five objects, including that of inflicting
(3) It must also be remembered that each and everyone of the defendants was a any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property or any official or agent of
member of the Insular Police force. Because of the very nature of their duties the Insular Government or of a Provincial or Municipal Government. The trial
and because of their practical experience, these Constabulary soldiers must have court found that the crime of sedition, as defined and punished by the law, had
been aware of the penalties meted out for criminal offenses. Every man on such been committed and we believe that such finding is correct.
a momentous occasion would be more careful of his actions than ordinarily and (2) Counsel's contention that in order for there to be a violation of subdivision 3 of
whatever of credulity there is in him, would for the moment be laid aside. Over section 5 of Act No. 292 it is necessary that the offender should be a private
and above all desire for a more exciting life, over and above the so-called esprit citizen and the offended party a public functionary, and that what really
de corps, is the instinct of self-preservation which could not but be fully aroused happened in this instance was a fight between two armed bodies of the
by such stirring incidents too recent to be forgotten as had occurred in this case Philippine Government, is absolutely without foundation. Subdivision 3 of
and which would counsel prudence rather than rashness; secretiveness rather section 5 of the Treason and Sedition Law makes no distinction between the
than garrulity. These confessions contain the statements that they were made persons to which it applies. In one sense there was a fight between two armed
freely and voluntarily without any promise of immunity. That such was the case bodies of the Philippine Government, but it was an unequal fight brought on by
was corroborated by the attesting witnesses whose credibility has not been the actions of the accused.
successfully impeached. ( no error in admitting the confessions)
(2) We rule that the trial court did not err on convicting the accused of a violation
The conspiracy between the accussed. ofsection 5, paragraph 3, of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission.
(1) The contention of the appellants is that evidence is lacking of any supposed
connivance between the accused. The argument is that at the time of the
commission of the crime the accused were mere automatons obeying the
insistent call of their companions and of their uniform. The Attorney-General
answers the argument of counsel by saying that conspiracy under section 5 of
Act No. 292 is not an essential element of the crime of sedition. In this the law
officer for the people may be on solid ground. However this may be, there is a PEOPLE V. JALOJOS
broader conception of the case which reaches the same result. It is a primary rule
that if two or more persons combine to perform a criminal act, each is [POPULAR REPRESENTATION | Feb. 3, 2000 | GR. No.132875-76]
responsible for all the acts of the others done in furtherance of the common
design; and “the result is the same if the act is divided into parts and each person FACTS: Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is now
proceeds with his part unaided." confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on 2
counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. Jalosjos filed this
(2) Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman,
and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his
it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense.
performing one part and another part of the same, so as to complete it, with a
view to the attainment of that same object, one will be justified in the conclusion ISSUE:
that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. Applied to the facts
before us, it is incontestable that all of the defendants were imbued with the HELD:
same purpose, which was to avenge themselves on the police force of the city of
Manila. A common feeling of resentment animated all. A common plan evolved 1. Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. However,
from their military training was followed. the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged
 or restricted by law. All top officials of Government are subject to the he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish
majesty of law. Privilege has to be granted by law, not inferred from the within the confines of prison.
duties of a position. The immunity from arrest or detention of members of
Congress arises from Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution.
Historically, the privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. It
cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms.
2. Jalosjos has not given any reason for him to be exempted from the operation
of Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution. Members of Congress cannot
compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a
legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime
punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized
by law, it has constitutional foundations.
3. The ruling in the case of Aguinaldo involves the administrative removal of
a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. It does not
apply to imprisonment arising from the enforcement of criminal law.
Confinement pending appeal is not removal. He remains a congressman
unless expelled by Congress or disqualified. Confinement is a matter of
public self-defense. It is the injury to the public which State action in
criminal law seeks to redress, not the injury to the complainant.
4. The plea of the electorate which voted him into office cannot be supplanted
by unfounded fears that he might escape. It will be recalled that when a
warrant for his arrest was issued, he fled and evaded capture despite a call
from his colleagues in the House of Representatives to surrender voluntarily
to the authorities. It would be contrary to the Constitution and to the aims of
the State’s penal system to allow him to be released.
5. Jalosjos also argues that he has been granted several motions to temporarily
leave his cell for official or medical reasons. (dental appointments, medical
check-ups, tree planting activities of the New Bilibid prison, attending
hearings in the House with the issue of whether he should be expelled or
suspended). There is no showing that the said privileges are peculiar to him
or to a member of Congress. Emergency or compelling temporary leaves
from imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the discretion of the
authorities or upon court orders. Jalosjos is not seeking for such emergency
or compelling leave. Allowing him to attend sessions and meetings for five
days or more will virtually make him a free man, which elevates him to a
special class.
6. Another of his argument is that his constituents want their voices to be
heard. Temporary detention does not necessarily curtail his duty to
discharge his mandate. He already remains an office in the New Bilibid
Prison where he attends to his constituents. He has filed several bills and
resolutions while in detention. He also receives his salaries and other
monetary benefits. He has already been discharging his mandate consistent
with the restraints upon one who is presently under detention. When the
voters of his district elected Jalosjos, they did so with full awareness of the
limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with the knowledge that
 PEOPLE V. DELA ROSA (3) The kind of possession punishable under PD No. 1866 is one where the accused
[Jan. 16, 1998 | GR. No.84857 ] possessed a firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi
or intention to possess the same. It is not enough that the firearm was found in
the person of the accused who held the same temporarily and casually or for the
FACTS: An information for illegal possession of firearms and explosives was purpose of surrendering the same. Admittedly, animus possidendi is a state of
filedagainst accused-appellants and and Cresencio Reyes y Dela Cruz, who had mind. As such, what goes on into the mind of an accused, as his real intent,
pleaded guilty to lesser offense and was utilized as a witness by the Prosecution. could be determined solely based on his prior and coetaneous acts and the
Prosecution established that accuses had surrendered to Kagawad Rigor and surrounding circumstances explaining how the subject firearm came to his
confessed that they had shot a Benjamin Nano alias Kumander Tamang, a member possession.
of the New People’s Army. They had with them a short shotgun and a bag containing
several sticks of dynamite. Cresencio Reyes informed the police that there were (4) Police officers never really arrested Dela Rosa, for the truth of the matter was
firearms left buried in their hideout. He pointed out the hiding place which was that there was no need for such arrest. Dela Rosa and his companions had
covered with banana leaves, where 2 long barreled shotguns were found. The surrendered the ammunitions to Kagawad Rigor even before the police arrived.
accused contends that they had been recruited by Tamang on different dates to be a In fact, the police learned of the surrender because Kagawad Rigor reported it to
member of the NPA. After joining, Tamang had shown them the explosives in the the police station in Labrador. This is in contrast to People v. Leo Lian, where
bag and informed them that they would assassinate Kagawad Rigor. Later, they appellant Lian merely feigned intention to surrender the firearm which the
heard a gunshot and found that Reyes had killed Tamang and ordered them to help police found in his possession. In the case at bar, appellant dela Rosa's intention
burn Tamang’s hut. They then surrendered to Kagawad Rigor. They asked for to surrender the ammunitions was very clear from the beginning and he was able
lawyers but were denied and promised that they would be freed. After their to execute the same.
statements were taken, they were detained. They denied ever seeing the 2 long
firearms Reyes mentioned. (5) The prosecution failed to establish the first element of animus possidendi. They
also failed to provide evidence of lack of license, aside from the preliminary
The trial court found them guilty. They reasoned that mere possession examination and dela Rosa’s extrajudicial statement. The burden of proof on a
would be sufficient to convict a person for crimes which are malum prohibitum like negative averment is on the party averring the negative. This is also in
possession of firearms. Only Rodolfo dela Rosa appealed. He denied that he was in consonance with the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused
possession of said ammunitions in the manner punishable by law and that his real where the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. Further, the OSG’s
intention was merely to surrender them. contention that dela Rosa could not be a member of the NPA without arming
himself is mere suspicion that will not prove the prosecution’s case.
ISSUE: Acquitted of violation of PD 1866

HELD:
(1) Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866 punishes illegal possession of firearms, provided that
the following elements are present:
a. Holder possesses a firearm
b. Holder lacks authority or license to possess it
(2) Intent to commit the crime in crimes punishable by a special law is not
necessary. It is sufficient that intent to perpetrate the act is present. Intent to
commit the crime refers to criminal intent and intent to perpetrate the act refers
to whether the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. While criminal
intent or the intention to commit an offense with the use of the unlicensed
firearm is not needed for the crime of illegal possession, it must be shown that
there was animus possidendi. (People v. de Gracia) The temporary, incidental,
casual, or harmless possession of firearms is not punishable (People v. Estoista).
Transient possession is not sufficient to convict one of illegal possession of
firearms. (People v. Remereta)
 GELIG V. PEOPLE instead initiated a verbal abuse that enraged the victim. Gemma then proceeded
[ Art. 148 - DIRECT ASSAULT | JULY. 28, 2010 | GR. N. 173150] towards the principal’s office but Lydia followed and resorted to the use of force
by slapping and pushing her against a wall divider. The violent act resulted in
Gemma’s fall to the floor.
FACTS: Lydia C. Gelig and Gemma B. Micarsos were public school teachers at (4) Gemma being a public school teacher, belongs to the class of persons in
the Nailon Elementary School. Lydia’son, Roseller, was a student of Gemma. Lydia authority expressly mentioned in Article 152. In applying the provisions of
confronted Gemma during class after learning that Gemma called Roseller a sissy articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with
while in class. Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, thereby causing the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and
her to fall and hit a wall divider. As a result of Lydia’s violent assault, Gemma universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or
suffered a contusion in her "maxillary area", as shown by a medical certificate issued on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority.
by a doctor in the Bogo General Hospital. However, Gemma continued to experience (5) The fact remains that at the moment Lydia initiated her tirades, Gemma was
abdominal pains and started bleeding two days after the incident. She was eventually busy attending to her official functions as a teacher. She tried to pacify Lydia by
admitted in the Southern Islands Hospital and was diagnosed, to her surprise, to have offering her a seat so that they could talk properly, but Lydia refused and instead
suffered incomplete abortion. Accordingly, a medical certificate was issued. unleashed a barrage of verbal invectives. When Lydia continued with her
abusive behavior, Gemma merely retaliated in kind as would a similarly situated
RTC convicted Lydia of the complex crime of direct assault with person. Lydia aggravated the situation by slapping Gemma and violently
unintentional abortion. Thus, Lydia filed an appeal. CA vacated the trial court’s pushing her against a wall divider while she was going to the principal’s office.
judgment. No fault could therefore be attributed to Gemma.
(6) The prosecution’s success in proving that Lydia committed the crime of direct
ISSUE: assault does not necessarily mean that the same physical force she employed on
Gemma also resulted in the crime of unintentional abortion. There is no
HELD: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Direct Assault. evidence on record to prove that the slapping and pushing of Gemma by Lydia
that was the proximate cause of the abortion. While the medical certificate of
(1) Direct assault is defined and penalized under Article 148 of the RPC. It is clear Gemma’s attending physician was presented to the court to prove that she
from Art 148. that direct assault is an offense against public order that may be suffered an abortion, there is no data in the document to prove that her medical
committed in two ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public condition was a direct consequence of the incident.
uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the (7) It is worth stressing that Gemma was admitted and confined in a hospital for
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; incomplete abortion 42 days after the incident. This interval of time is too
and second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall lengthy to prove that the discharge of the fetus from the womb of Gemma was a
attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or direct outcome of the assault. Her bleeding and abdominal pain two days after
any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on the said incident were not substantiated by proof other than her testimony. Thus,
occasion of such performance. it is not unlikely that the abortion may have been the result of other factors.
(2) The case of Lydia falls under the second mode, which is the more common form
of assault. Its elements are:
a. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a
serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance.
b. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.
c. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is
engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or [b] that he is
assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties.
d. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority
or his agent in the exercise of his duties.
e. That there is no public uprising
(3) On the day of the commission of the assault, Gemma was engaged in the
performance of her official duties. Lydia was already angry when she entered
the classroom and refused to be pacified despite the efforts of Gemma and
 ALBERTO V. DE LA CRUZ removes from jail any person therein confined or helps him escape. If the
[ART. – PUBLIC DISORDERS | GR. NO. 31839 | JUNE 30, 1980] offender is a public officer who has custody or charge of the prisoner, he is
liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner defined and penalized under
Article 223.Since Gov. Cledera, as governor, is the jailer of the province and
FACTS: Eligio Orbita, a provincial guard, is prosecuted for the crime of Infidelity Jose Esmeralda is the assistant provincial warden, they cannot be prosecuted for
in the Custody of Prisoner, defined and punished under Article 224 committed by the escape of Pablo Denaque under Article 156..
accused, being then a member of the Provincial Guard of Camarines Sur and
specially charged with the duty of keeping under custody and vigilance detention (2) There is likewise no sufficient evidence to warrant their prosecution under
prisoner Pablo Denaque, did then and there with great carelessness and unjustifiable Article 223.In order to be guilty under the provision, it is necessary that the
negligence leave the latter unguarded while in said barrio, thereby giving him the public officer had consented to, or connived in, the escape of the prisoner under
opportunity to run away and escape, as in fact said detention prisoner Pablo his custody or charge. Connivance in the escape of a prisoner on the part of the
Denaque did run away and escape from the custody of the said accused. person in charge is an essential condition in the commission of the crime of
faithlessness in the custody of the prisoner. If the public officer charged with the
In the course of the trial, defense brought forth and confronted witness Jose duty of guarding him does not connive with the fugitive, then he has not violated
Esmeralda, assistant provincial warden with a note written by Gov. Armando the law and is not guilty of the crime. For sure, no connivance in the escape of
Cledera, asking him to send five men to work in the construction of a fence at his Denaque from the custody of the accused Orbita can be deduced from the note
house then leased by the province and used as an official guest house. Esmeralda, of Gov. Cledera to Jose Esmeralda asking for 5 men to work in the guest house,
declared, however, that he could not remember who handed the note to him; that he it appearing that the notes does not mention the names of the prisoners to be
was not sure as to the genuineness of the signature appearing therein; and that he was brought to the guest house; and that it was the accused Eligio Orbita himself
not present when the note was made and signed by Gov. Cledera. Believing that the who picked the men to compose the work party.
escape of Pablo Denaque was made possible by the note of Gov. Cledera to
Esmeralda and that Cledera and Esmeralda are equally guilty of the offense for the (3) Neither is there evidence to warrant the prosecution of Cledera and Esmeralda
defense counsel filed a motion in court seeking the amendment of the information to under Article 224. This article punishes the public officer in whose custody or
include them. charge a prisoner has escaped by reason of his negligence. The negligence
resulting in evasion is definite laxity amounting to deliberate nonperformance of
Acting upon said motion, the court cannot grant the motion unless an investigation is duty.
made Judge directed the Fiscal's office cause the further investigation of the
case.Fiscal set the reinvestigation of the case. Orbita did not appear during
investigation nor the note was produced. Since no additional evidence was
presented, Fiscal manifested after conducting a reinvestigation no prima facie case
against Governor Cledera and Esmeralda exist. Hence, they cannot be charged

Hence, this petition by Orbita for the court to reconsider and reinvestigate inclusion
of Cledera and Esmeralda on the basis of present evidence during the trial.

ISSUE:

HELD:
(1) The offense may be committed in two ways: (1) by removing a person confined
in any jail or penal establishment; and (2) by helping such a person to escape. To
remove means to take away a person from the place of his confinement, with or
without the active cooperation of the person released. To help in the escape of a
person confined in any jail or penal institution means to furnish that person with
the material means such as a file, ladder, rope, etc. which greatly facilitate his
escape. The offense under this article is usually committed by an outsider who
 PANGAN V. GATBALITE sentence, is emphasized by the provisions of the second sentence of Article
[ART. – EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE | GR. NO. 141718 | JAN. 157 which provides for a higher penalty if such "evasion or escape shall
21, 2005] have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows,
gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise,
FACTS: Pangan was indicted for simple seduction. During the trial of the case, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts
Atty. Eduardo, submitted the case for decision without offering any evidence, due to or employees of the penal institution, . . ." Indeed, evasion of sentence is but
the petitioner's constant absence at hearings. Pangan was convicted of the offense another expression of the term "jail breaking."
charged was sentenced to serve a penalty of two months and one day of arresto (3) In Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, the Court cited and reiterated Tanega toto.
mayor. On appeal, RTC affrrmed the decision of MTC. Thus, the case was called for During the execution of judgment, petitioner was not present. The presiding
promulgation of the decision in the court of origin. Despite due notice, Pangan’s Judge issued an order of arrest and the confiscation of his bond. Petitioner was
counsel did not appear and Pangan’s notice was returned unserved with the notation never apprehended. Ten years later, petitioner filed a motion to quash the
that he had no longer resided at the given address. As a result, he failed to appear at warrant of arrest on the ground that the penalty imposed upon him had already
the promulgation. Thus, the court issued and order of his arrest. He was thereafter prescribed The Court decided against Del Castillo Article 93 provides when the
apprehended and detained. He filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at the RTC prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under said provision, it shall
and impleaded the Acting Chief of Police of Mabalacat contending that his arrest commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence.
was unjust and illegal for his penalty had already prescribed and having been Pursuant to Article 157, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only
continuously evade service of sentence for almost nine years, his criminal liability by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the
has long been totally extinguished After his transfer to the City Jail, Pangan filed an term of his sentence. "escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93
Amended Petition with RTC, impleading his Jail Warden. In response, the Jail and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his
Warden alleged that Pangan’s detention was pursuant to the order of commitment of custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to
Judge Gatbalite’s rendered decision. Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition for have escaped therefrom. In the instant case, petitioner was never brought to
review. prison. In fact, even before the execution of the judgment for his conviction, he
was already in hiding. Now petitioner begs for the compassion of the Court
because he has ceased to live a life of peace and tranquility after he failed to
ISSUE: appear in court for the execution of his sentence. But it was petitioner who chose
to become a fugitive. The Court accords compassion only to those who are
HELD: deserving. Petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt but he refused
to answer for the wrong he committed. He is therefore not to be rewarded
(1) The RTC decision, however, must stand, since it is in accord with applicable therefor.
decisions of this Court. Article 93 of the RPC has been interpreted several times (4) Consistent with the Tanega and Del Castillo cases, Supreme court ruled that the
by the Court. prescription under Art, 93 applies only to those who are convicted by final
(2) In the case of Tanega v. Masakayan, which falls squarely within the issues of the judgement and are serving sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty. The
present case, petitioner Tanega failed to appear on the day of the execution of period for prescription of penalties begins only when the convict evades service
her sentence. On the same day, judge issued a warrant for her arrest. She was of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. Since petitioner never
never arrested. More than a year later, petitioner through counsel moved to suffered deprivation of liberty before his arrest and as a consequence never
quash the warrant of arrest, on the ground that the penalty had prescribed. evaded sentence by escaping during the term of his service, the period for
 The Court disagreed stating that Elements of evasion of service of sentence prescription never began.
are: (5) Petitioner, however, has by this time fully served his sentence of two months
a. the offender is a convict by final judgment; and one day of arresto mayor and should forthwith be released unless he is being
b. he "is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of detained for another offense or charge.
liberty"; and
c. he evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his
sentence.
 This must be so. For, by the express terms of the statute, a convict evades
"service of his sentence" by "escaping during the term of his imprisonment
by reason of final judgment." That escape should take place whileserving
 PEOPLE V. BALDOGO there. Julio Sr. then sought the help of a trustee of the penal farm. The two rushed
[ART. 160. – QUASI-RECIDIVISM | GR. NO. 128106-07 | JAN. 24, 2003] back to the Camacho residence and proceeded to the kitchen where they noticed
blood on the floor and saw the bloodied body of Jorge. Julio Sr. and Esparagoza then
FACTS: Julio Camacho, Sr. and his wife, Heather Esteban, had four children brought Jorge to the Iwahig Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
namely, Julio, Jr., Jorge (14), Julie(12) and Jasper (8). Julio Sr. was employed as a
security guard in the Iwahig Prison and Penal Colony. He and his family lived in a On the other hand, Baldogo testified that Julio Sr. was cruel because
compound inside the sub-colony. Edgardo Bermas alias "Bunso" together with whenever the latter was angry, he maltreated him by spanking and boxing him.
Baldogo alias "Baguio", both an inmate of the penal colony, was assigned as a These would occur about 2 times a week. While he was getting ready to sleep,
domestic helper of the Camacho spouses. Bermas arrived, armed with a bloodied bolo measuring about 1½ feet long and told
One evening, they served dinner to Julio Sr and 2 of his children. Julio, Sr. Baldogo that he (Bermas) had just killed Jorge to avenge the maltreatment he
then left the house to attend a bible study. Only Jorge and Julie was left at the house. received from Julio Sr. Bermas warned Baldogo not to shout, otherwise he will also
While Julie was going to the sala to study her assignment, Bermas called Julie from kill him. Petrified, Baldogo kept silent. Bermas then brought Baldogo to the kitchen
the kitchen saying "Jul, tawag ka ng kuya mo ." Julie ignored him. After five in the house of the Camachos where Baldogo saw the bloodied body of Jorge
minutes, Bermas called her again but Julie again ignored him. Julie went to the sprawled near the kitchen. Bermas called Julie three times, telling her that her
kitchen when she heard a loud sound, "Aahh! Ahh!" coming from there. She was brother was calling for her but Julie at first ignored Bermas. Julie later relented and
then saw Jorge sprawled on the ground near the kitchen, face down and bloodied. went to the kitchen where Bermas grabbed her and threatened to kill her if she
Standing over Jorge were Baldogo and Bermas, whose shirt was bloodied, each shouted. Bermas tied the hands of Julie with a piece of cloth and placed a piece of
armed with a bolo. Julie was horrified and so petrified that although she wanted to cloth around her face to prevent her from shouting. Bermas, still armed with his bolo
shout, she could not. She ran back to the sala with Baldogo and Bermas in pursuit. tucked on his waist and a knife on his hand, brought Baldogo and Julie outside the
Baldogo overtook Julie, tied her hands at her back with a torn t-shirt and placed a house. The three then trekked towards the mountain. On the way, Bermas picked a
piece of cloth in her mouth to prevent her from shouting for help from their bag containing food provisions and his and Baldogo clothings. Baldogo thought of
neighbors. Bermas went to the room of Julie's brothers. Baldogo dragged Julie escaping but could not because Bermas was watching him. With the help of a
outside the house and towards the mountain. With the aid of a flashlight, Baldogo flashlight brought by Bermas, the three walked towards the mountain, with Julie
andJulie in tow, walked for hours towards the direction of the mountain. About a walking ahead of Baldogo and Bermas. After walking for hours, they stopped by a
kilometer away from the house, Baldogo and Julie stopped under a big tamarind. tree to which Bermas tied Julie.
After about 30 minutes, Bermas arrived with a kettle and raw rice. Baldogo and At one time, while Bermas and Baldogo were scouring for water, Bermas
Bermas retrieved a bag containing their clothing and belongings from the trunk of kicked Baldogo and pushed him into a ten feet deep ravine. The right hand and foot
the tamarind tree. They untied Julie and removed the gag from her mouth and then of Baldogo sustained bruises. He likewise sustained a sprain on his foot. Bermas left
proceeded to climb the mountain and after walking for 6 hours or so, stopped under a Baldogo and Julie after 1½ days. In the meantime, Baldogo managed to climb out of
big tree and spent the night there. The following day, they continued their ascent of the ravine and heard Julie calling his name. Julie later told Baldogo that before
the mountain. 7 hrs thereafter, they started to follow a descending route. Baldogo and Bermas left, the latter told her that he was going to kill Baldogo. He and Julie
Bermas told Julie that they would later release her. remained in the mountain after Bermas had left. At one time, Baldogo and Julie saw
Bermas left Baldogo and Julie. However, accused-appellant did not let go of soldiers who were looking for her but not reveal his and Julie's location to the
Julie. The two survived on sugar and rice. Once, they saw uniformed men looking soldiers because he was afraid that he might be killed. Baldogo untied Julie. He told
for Julie. However, Baldogo hid Julie behind the tree. In the early morning Baldogo her that he will set her free as soon as his foot shall have healed. Baldogo told Julie
told Julie that he was leaving her as he was going to Puerto Princesa. He told her to that she can go home already. He ordered her to go down the mountain and proceed
fend for herself and return to the lowland the next day. After their breakfast, Baldogo to Balsaham on her way back home. Although his foot was still aching, Baldogo
left Julie alone to fend for herself. A few hours after Julie decided to return to the went down from the mountain ahead of Julie and proceeded to Balsaham. He then
lowlands, found a river and followed its course until she saw a hut. She called upon walked to Irawan where he took a tricycle to the public market. He was thereafter
its occupant and sought help from him who brought Julie to Balsaham where they arrested. Baldogo maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of
met some personnel of the penal colony police officers and turned over custody of her liberty. He averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the
Julie to them. mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-
appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had
Meanwhile, Julio Sr. upon arrival home, noticed that the TV was on but no left them and to surrender but accused-appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill
one was watching it. He looked for his children, Baldogo and Bermas. Julio Sr. then him.
rushed to the house of his older brother who told him that Jorge and Julie were not
 After due proceedings, the trial court held Baldogo guilty beyond that the sentence of Baldogo commenced on November 19, 1992 and that the
reasonable doubt and Bermas case is dismissed by reason of extinction of criminal minimum term of the penalty was to expire on August 16, 1997.
liability ( Bermas died during the trial) (3) The excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant is not the best evidence
under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court to prove the judgment
ISSUE: of the RTC and to prove that said judgment had become final and executory.
HELLD: Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence which is
inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment had been lost or
Conspiracy destroyed or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the
(1) In the cases at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce direct evidence to prove that prosecution. The barefaced fact that accused-appellant was detained in the
Baldogo killed Jorge. However, the prosecution adduced indubitable proof that penal colony does prove the fact that final judgment for homicide has been
Baldogo conspired with Bermas not only in killing Jorge but also in kidnapping rendered against him. There being no modifying circumstances in the
and detaining Julie. Prosecution adduced conclusive proof that Baldogo indeed commission of the crime, accused-appellant should be meted the penalty of
conspired with Bermas to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. Also, flight of both reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
accused-appellant and Bermas from the house of Julio Sr. to the mountain where
they found refuge after killing Jorge, and their motive to kill Jorge Jr. and
kidnap and detain Julie in conjunto constitute potent evidence of their
confabulation and of their guilt for the death of Jorge and kidnapping and
detention of Julie.

Separate crime of Kidnapping and murder/homicide

(2) The trial court correct in convicting Baldogo of kidnapping. In this case, Julie, a
minor, was not locked up. However, she was seized and taken from her house
through force and dragged to the mountain. Since then, she was restrained of her
liberty by and kept under the control of Baldogo and Bermas. She was prevented
from going back home for a period of about 6 days. Patently then, Baldogo is
guilty of kidnapping and illegally detaining Julie.

Quasi-Recidivisim
(1) Quasi-recidivism as defined in Article 160 is alleged in both Informations.
Baldogo is alleged to have committed murder and kidnapping while serving
sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for the crime of homicide.
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. The prosecution is
burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same quantum of evidence as
the crime itself.
(2) In the present case, to prove quasi-recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to
adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting accused-
appellant of homicide and to prove that the said judgment had become final and
executor. prosecution adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison
record of accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide and