G.R. No. 143380.

April 11, 2005

1) OLIMPIO PANGONOROM and METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

FACTS:
The RTC finds accused Olimpio Pangonorom guilty of the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting in multiple slight physical injuries and to indemnify the offended parties of the
damages incurred by their motor vehicle and to reimburse their medical expenses.
Herein petitioners appealed the trial court’s decision which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals in toto. Likewise, the appellate court held that his employer, Metro Manila Transit
Corporation was already estopped in assailing the trial court’s decision considering that it
never appealed said decision within the reglementary period.
ISSUE:
Whether or not MMTC is subsidiarily liable considering its due diligence in the selection
and supervision of its employees.
HELD:
NO. Due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a defense in
the present case.
The law involved in the present case is Article 103 of the RPC, which implies than an
employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employee’s civil liability in a criminal action when
there is adequate evidence establishing (1) that he is indeed the employer of the convicted
employee; (2) that he is engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the employee committed
the offense in the discharge of his duties; and (4) that the execution against the employee has
not been satisfied due to insolvency. However, there is no proof here of Olimpio’s insolvency.
The judgment of conviction against Olimpio has not attained finality. This being so, no writ of
execution can issue against him to satisfy his civil liability. Only after proof of the accused-
employee’s insolvency may the subsidiary liability of his employer be enforced. Thus the
petition was denied.

2) ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPANA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent. (460 SCRA 547)

FACTS:

Herein accused was found guilty by the RTC for the crime of Reckless Imprudence
resulting to Double Homicide, aggravated by his failure to help the victim/s, as provided for in
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and appreciating in his favor the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of Arresto
Mayor as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Correcional as maximum.

CA affirmed the decision as to the damages awarded including moral and exemplary
damages, and the indemnity awarded for the victims. Hence, this appeal, wherein Petitioner
insists that he should not be made liable for the mishap as it was actually the Honda
motorcycle (the victims’) that rammed into the bus he was driving. He seeks the reversal of
his present conviction.
ISSUE
(1): Whether the awarding of the exemplary damages to the victim is correct.
(2): Whether the accused-appellant’s employer, Vallacar Transit, Inc. is subsidiarily
liable
(3): Whether the CA correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment.

HELD
(1): YES. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages, which under the
prevailing jurisprudence should be in the amount of P25,000, may also be imposed when the
crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Here, petitioner failed to
render aid or assistance to his victims after the collision.
(2): YES. The Supreme Court (SC) adopted the ruling of the CA as to appellant’s
employer. Under Article 103 of the RPC, an employer may be subsidiarily liable for the
employee’s civil liability in the criminal action if it can be shown that: (1) the employer is
engaged in any kind of industry; (2) the employee committed the offense in the discharge of
his duties and (3) the accused is insolvent. However, subject to prevailing jurisprudence, the
subsidiary liability may be enforced only upon a motion for subsidiary writ of execution against
Vallacar Transit, Inc. and upon proof that petitioner is insolvent.
(3): NO. The SC was constrained to amend the penalty herein imposed by the CA. The
imposable penalty, under Article 365 (2) of the RPC for homicide resulting from reckless
imprudence in the use of the motor vehicle is Prision Correcional in its medium and maximum
period, which ranges from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years.

3) SALVADOR S. ABUNADO and ZENAIDA BIÑAS ABUNADO, Petitioners,

vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent (562 scra 568)

FACTS:
Salvador Abunado married Narcisa Arceno on September 18, 1967. Salvador later
contracted a second marriage with Zenaida Binas. On May 18, 1995, a case for bigamy was
filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida and was affirmed by CA.
Salvador avers that the information filed against him was defective as it stated that the
alleged bigamous marriage was contracted in 1995 when in fact it should have been 1989.
Issue:
WON petitioner has been sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him
Decision:
No, the statement in the information that the crime was committed in “January 1995” was
an obvious typographical error, for the same information clearly states that petitioner
contracted a subsequent marriage to Zenaida Abunado on January 10, 1989.
 4) Victoria S. Jarillo v. People 601 SCRA 249

FACTS:
On May 24, 1974, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil wedding
ceremony and again celebrated marriage in a church wedding on May 4, 1975. Out of the
marital union, appellant begot a daughter.
November 26, 1979 at the City Court of Pasay, Victoria Jarillo contracted a subsequent
marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy and exchanged marital vows anew in a church
wedding in Manila on April 16, 1995.
In 1999, Emmanuel Uy filed against the appellant for annulment of marriage before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. The Regional Trial Court finds the accused Victoria Soriano
Jarillo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of BIGAMY.
For her defense, petitioner insisted that (1) her 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alocillo
were null and void because Alocillo was allegedly still married to a certain Loretta Tillman at
the time of the celebration of their marriage; (2) her marriages to both Alocillo and Uy were
null and void for lack of a valid marriage license; and (3) the action had prescribed, since Uy
knew about her marriage to Alocillo as far back as 1978.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy
even with the defense that her two marriages were null & void.
HELD:
Yes, the subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was
immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been
consummated. Moreover, petitioner’s assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy
cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage
void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We
cannot allow that.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s marriage to [private
complainant] had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in the
criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is
that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid
until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually
obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and
the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.
5) People vs Hu 567 SCRA 696

PEOPLE of the Phil, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - NENITA B. HU, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
Nenita Hu with Merry Ann Genoves both helping and aiding one another, feloniously
recruit, promise employment/job placement abroad for an overseas employment and collect
fees from the persons.
Upon arraignment, Hu assisted by counsel entered a plea of not guilty while Genoves
remained at large. Private complainants went to NBI to file a complaint for illegal recruitment
against Hu and Genoves.
For her defense, Hu admitted knowing the private complainants because these
individuals went to her office demanding the return of their placement fees by showing their
official receipts. Hu averred that when she examined such receipts, she found that private
complainants paid their placement fees to Riverland and not to Brighturn as shown in the
heading of the said receipts which bore the name and address of Riverland and its
proprietress, Genoves. Hu denied knowing Genoves.
The trial court rendered a Decision finding Hu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Such conviction was affirmed by the CA and joined
by the Solicitor General. Thus, a petition for review in the Certiorari was filed by the accused-
complainant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.
HELD:
No, in the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the
prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with
which he is charged. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence
to prove that illegal recruitment was committed against three or more persons. The Court will
have to discard the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale meted out by the RTC, since
only one applicant abroad was recruited by Hu without license and authority from the POEA.
Accordingly, Hu should be held responsible for simple illegal recruitment only.

6) 511 SCRA 471

DEMIE L. URIARTE, Petitioner,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

FACTS:
On July 5, 1999, Arpilleda, through counsel, sent a letter to the Office of the
Ombudsman (Mindanao) stating the alleged unlawful acts of petitioner in altering the tax
declarations of Joventino Correos and Antioco Uriarte. It was alleged that the alterations
prejudiced her since they became the basis of petitioners forceful and unlawful possession of
the subject property.
 Petitioner, for his part, admitted that he had made changes on the tax declarations. He
however justified the changes, stating that they were the result of the general revision made
in 1978. He also claimed that as municipal assessor, he has absolute authority to determine
the barangay to which a particular property belongs.
ISSUE:
CAN AN ACCUSED BE CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 (E) OF R.A. 3019
BASED ON CONCLUSION OF FACTS MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT THAT HE
COMMITTED LANDGRABBING AND/OR DISPOSSESSING THE COMPLAINANT OF HER
PROPERTY, WHICH OFFENSES WERE NOT CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION?
HELD:
No. It is evident from the decisions of both the RTC and the Sandiganbayan that
petitioner was charged and convicted of violating Section 3(e), R.A. 3019; he was not civilly
held liable for dispossession of property or eviction. The anti-graft court correctly held that the
finding of the RTC that there was hidden intention on the part of the petitioner to grab and
dispossess private complainant from their property was merely descriptive of how petitioner
acted with evident bad faith. There was thus no need for this matter to be alleged in the
information.

7. 535 SCRA 656

PEOPLE, Appellee, VS. Mamerto Dulay, Et Al., Appellant
FACTS:
Corazon Domingo, Ricardo, Pedro, Juanito, Abelardo, Anastacio, Lydia,
Aurelio, Marcelina, and Elmer, all surnamed Hidalgo, were sitting on a bench in front of the
house of Juanito. They were conversing when the motorcycle driven by Rogelio Campos
passed by. On the third time, a certain Pilo Cabingas was backriding on the
motorcycle. Shortly thereafter, shots were heard and the witnesses saw all of the accused
firing long and short firearms at the direction of those sitting on the bench. The witnesses
positively identified appellant and Camat as the ones holding long firearms while the other
accused as the ones holding short firearms. As a result of the shooting incident, Marcelina and
Elmer Hidalgo were killed while Juanito and Pedro Hidalgo were wounded.
All the accused denied the charges against them. Appellant alleged that at the time of the
incident, he was at the place of his brother Maximo Dulay at Salcedo, Ilocos Sur. He was
borrowing money for his wifes placement fee. Appellant alleged that, together with Bong
De Guia and Marcos Suyat, he helped his brother dry palay from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m.
The RTC acquitted Laurean, Rogelio Campos, Ibot Campos, and Dulay. However, the
trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against him.
ISSUE:
Whether appellants guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
Yes. Appellant argues that he was convicted based on contradictory and improbable
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He argues that it was improbable for the witnesses to
look at the faces of the persons firing at them when they were more concerned with taking
cover for their safety. Appellant further argues that since his supposed co-conspirators were
acquitted, he should also be acquitted since they were alleged to have conspired to commit
the crimes charged.

8) 575 SCRA 412

People of the Philippines
v.
FO1 Felipe Dela Cruz, et. al Appellant

9) G.R. No. 174483

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER vs.RAMON REGALARIO, RESPONDENT
FACTS:
There was a commotion in the area assigned to accused Ramon Regalario. Bienvenido
Regalario, the barangay tanod, was instructed by Marciano, the barangay captain to effect the
arrest of Rolando Sevilla for the crime of shooting Ramon. So, he tied the hands and feet of
Rolando Sevilla for fear that he might be able to escape. On the early morning, dead body of
Rolando Sevilla was found.
For automatic review is the decision of the CA which affirmed with modification, an earlier
decision of the RTC, finding accused-appellants Ramon, Marciano, Sotero, Bienvenido and
Noel, all surnamed Regalario guilty of murder.
ISSUE:
WON THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DECEASED WAS
KILLED IN SELF-DEFENSE AND/OR DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
HELD:
When self-defense is invoked by an accused charged with murder or homicide he
necessarily owns up to the killing but may escape criminal liability by proving that it was
justified and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. By Ramon’s own account, after he
was shot, he hit the victim at the back of the latter’s head and he continued hitting the victim
who retreated backward. From that moment, the inceptive unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim ceased to exist and the continuation of the offensive stance of Ramon put him in
the place of an aggressor. There was clearly no longer any danger, but still Ramon went
beyond the call of self-preservation.

10) G.R. NO. 173473

People of the Philippines, PETITIONER
vs.
Beth Temporada, RESPONDENT
FACTS:
Accused Rosemarie Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan, Jojo Resco and Beth
Temporada are all employees of a Travel and Tour Company, recruited and promised
overseas employment for a fee to Rogelio Legaspis Jr, as a technician in Singapore, and other
overseas workers. The accused were holding office in Makati but eventually transferred to
Manila. After paying placements fees, none of the overseas recruits was able to leave or
recover what they have paid, thus they filed separate criminal complaints against accused in
Manila.

The accused were then sentenced to life imprisonment for illegal recruitment and estafa.
Then the case was referred to the CA for intermediate review, CA affirmed with modification
on the penalty. The penalty was lowered for the lower court due to insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused were guilty of 5 counts of estafa and illegal recruitment, and be
charged of the penalty of life imprisonment.
HELD:
The Court affirms the modification of the CA, except for the penalty on the 5 counts of estafa.
Although Temporada is saying that she is not a principal to the illegal recruitment and estafa
because she is a mere employee of ATTC and that she was just echoing the requirement of
her employer, the Court believes that Temporada actively and consciously participated in
illegal recruitment.
The Court agrees with the lower court that the accused were guilty of illegal recruitment by a
syndicate with the penalty of life imprisonment. The accused were convicted separately also
for 5 counts of estafa.

11) ANTONIO SORIAO, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 56481 July 21, 1989

Facts:
M/B Sweet Lord departed from the log pond of Dibet, Casiguran, Quezon. The boat
was around 44 feet in length, 5 feet in height and five feet in width. On board were 23
passengers, animals, cash and other valuables In addition, there were five (5) crew members
among whom was the petitioner who boarded the boat in Dinalungan, Quezon The boat was
overloaded as evidenced by the fact that only a palm's width of its height was above the water
and its waterline was already submerged). When the boat left Casiguran, it was piloted by
Domingo Zamora until the petitioner boarded.
At around 1:00 o'clock the following morning the boat left Dinalungan, but this time, upon
the orders of the petitioner. The waves then were as big as a hut so that the boat had to stop
at the port of Dinadiawan. After three hours of waiting, the petitioner ordered the boat to
resume its voyage despite the fact that the sea was still rough .
 The boat sank causing the death of most of the passengers and the loss and destruction
of the cargoes. Soriao is charged with multiple homicide with damage to property thru reckless
imprudence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Antonio Soriao is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of multiple
homicide with damage to property thru reckless imprudence.

Held:
Yes, even if Soriao asserts that he is neither the owner nor the captain but only a
passenger of M/B Sweet Lord and that he merely suggested that the voyage continue despite
the stormy weather to which the other passengers did not object. We are not dealing here with
the issue of ownership of the boat but of Soriao's criminal liability under Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code. The survivors of the ill-fated M/B Sweet Lord positively declared that
Soriao piloted the boat from Dinalungan up to the time just before it sank in the waters of Bale.

12) Juno Batistis, petitioner vs People of the Philippines, respondent

G.R. NO. 181571

Facts:
Juno Batistis was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of infringement of trademark and
unfair competition for actively being engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of
counterfeit Fundador brandy products.
Batistis appealed to the CA. He submits that the only direct proofs of his guilt were the
self-serving testimonies of the NBI raiding team; that he was not present during the search;
that one of the NBI raiding agents failed to immediately identify him in court; and that aside
from the two bottles of Fundador brandy, the rest of the confiscated items were not found in
his house. The CA rejected his motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
W/n THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE
BASIS OF THE SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVITS AND TESTIMONIES OF THE POLICE
OFFICERS WHO CONDUCTED THE RAID ON THE HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED.
Held:
No, The petition for review has no merit. The petition for review replicates Batistis
appellant's brief filed in the CA. This is a true indication that the errors he submits for court’s
review and reversal are those he had attributed to the RTC. He thereby rests his appeal on
his rehashed arguments that the CA already discarded. His appeal is, therefore, improper,
considering that his petition for review on certiorari should raise only the errors committed by
the CA as the appellate court, not the errors of the RTC.

13) People pf the PH, apellee vs Jaranilla, plaintiff-appellant

G.R. NO. L-28574
FACTS:
Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo, which convicted them of robbery with homicide, sentenced each of them
to reclusion perpetua and ordered them to pay solidarily the sum of six thousand pesos to the
heirs of Ramonito Jabatan and the sum of five hundred pesos to Valentin Baylon as the value
of fighting cocks.
Jaranilla appealed that mere taking of roosters does not qualify robbery or theft since he
was only told to do so.
ISSUE:
WON the taking of the roosters robbery or theft
HELD:
Yes. There is no evidence that in taking the six roosters from their coop or cages
in the yard of Baylon's house violence against or intimidation of persons was employed.
As co-principals with Elias Jaranilla in the theft of the six fighting cocks, they are (a) each
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four
(4) years and two (2) months ofprision correccional as maximum and (b) ordered to indemnify
solidarily the complainant, Valentin Baylon, in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500). Each
appellant should pay one-third of the costs.

14) ELSA MACANDOG MAGTIRA, Petitioner,

- versus -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 170964
FACTS:
Petitioner Elsa Macandog Magtira seeks in this petition for review on certiorari. The
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
seven (7) counts of estafa penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. The CA denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration; hence, the
petition.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioner should be held liable for the crimes of estafa.
Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper.
HELD:
 (1)Yes. The court ruled that estafa is committed with abuse of confidence and have
the following elements: (a) that money, goods or other personal property
is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (b) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his
part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice
of another; and (d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender.
(2)Yes. As provided by law, the maximum indeterminate penalty when the amount
defrauded exceeds P22,000.00 is pegged at prision mayor in its minimum period or anywhere
within the range of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, plus one year for
every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 of the amount defrauded but not to exceed twenty
years. In turn, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall be one degree lower from
the prescribed penalty for estafa, which in this case is anywhere within the range of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods or six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4)
years and two (2) months. Applying this formula, we affirm the penalty imposed by the CA as
it is fully in accordance with the law.