Ursua vs Court of Appeals

Facts:
 Cesario Ursua was a Community environment and natural resources officer in Cotabato. The provincial
governor of cotabato requested the Office of the Ombudsman in manila to conduct an investigation on a
complaint for bribery, dishonesty, abuse of authority and giving of unwarranted benefits
 A complaint was initiated by Sangguniang Panlalawigan to Ursua advising the governor to report that he was
involved in illegal cutting of mahogany trees and illegally cut-logs.
 His legal counsel (Atty Palmones) asked a copy of the complaint through a letter that will be sent to the Office
of the Ombudsman in Davao CIty.
 He asked Ursua to go since Oscar Perez his messenger is attending to some personal matters
 In the office, the security officer asked him to register in visitor’s logbook. He wrote the name Oscar Perez
instead of his
 He was told to go to Administrative Division for the copy he needed
 He handed the letter to the Chief of administrative division, and was given the copy of the complaint, receipt
of which he acknowledged by name Oscar Perez
 An acquaintance greeted him as he was leaving. The chief found out that he was not Oscar, but the petitioner
himself
 He was reported to the Deputy Ombudsman and recommended for him to be charged.
 The RTC of Davao found him guilty of violation of Commonwealth Act 142 as amended by RA 6085 sentencing
him for prison term 1 year 1 day prision coreccional minimum as minimum to four years of prision coreccional
medium as maximum rejecting his contentions that no document from the local civil registry was presented to
show registered name of accused
 The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction but modified his penalty to 1 yr as minimum to 3 years maximum
 He filed a petition for review of the decision of the CA

Issues: Whether or not he violated CA 142 or the Act to regulate the use of Aliases

Ruling:
 No, the Court ruled that an alias is a name used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and
habitually, usually in business transactions in addition to his real name by which he is registered at birth or
baptized the first time or substitute name authorized by a competent authority.
 But in this case, there is no evidence showing that petitioner will use the name in addition to his real name. It
is merely an isolated transaction. The use of fictitious name or a different name belonging to another person in
a single instance without any sign or indication that the user intends to be known by his name in addition to his
real name from that day forth does not fall within the prohibition contained in CA 142 as amended.
 CA 142 being a penal statute should be construed strictly against the state and in favor of the accused. While
the act of petitioner may be covered by other provisions of law, such does not constitute an offense within the
concept of C.A. No. 142 as amended under which he is prosecuted.
 The accused cannot be convicted on a law that does not clearly penalize the act done by him. The decision of
the CA was REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and petitioner is acquitted of the crime charged.

 For a bit of history, the enactment of C.A. No. 142 as amended was made primarily to curb the common
practice among the Chinese of adopting scores of different names and aliases which created tremendous
confusion in the field of trade.
Abarquez vs the People – Equipoise rule
Facts:
 Jose Paz and Ricardo Quejong and his companions were drinking because of a celebration (Boyet’s house)
 They decided to go home along with their companions Tong, Bardie and Masula
 Almojuela, Ising and Abarquez were also drinking in Almojuela’s house
o Paz and his group were blocked, and after few exchanges of words, Almojuela attacked Paz with a knife
 A brawl and quarrel occurred between the two groups
o Abarquez held Paz and Bardie pacified Almojuela
o Almojuela confronted Quejong and had a scuffle
o Almojuela and Quejong fell on the ground
o Paz saw Quejong already stabbed and bloodied.
o He ran when he can’t pull Quejong, and Abarquez said “You left your companion already wounded”
 Paz and his companions returned and found Quejong still on the ground then brought him to the hospital
 They reported the incident to the WPD Headquarters and they found out that Quejong died
o The police learned that Almojuela assisted by Abarquez, stabbed Quejong
 Almojuela voluntarily surrendered and Abarquez voluntarily appeared at the police station
 However according to the testimony of Abarquez, he merely pacified the grouped who he saw was strangling
and boxing Almojuela
o Almojuela said that he was challenged to a fist fight after he tried to stop the group from smoking
marijuana
 The prosecution charged Abarquez with crimes of homicide and attempted homicide
 The trial court (RTC Manila Branch 50) found him guilty as an accomplice in the crime of homicide
o He appealed the decision of the trial court before the CA but CA affirmed the RTC decision
 Hence a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA

Issues: Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:
 In convicting Abarquez the trial court and court of Appeals relied mainly on the testimony of Paz. His
testimony showed that Abarquez was trying to stop Paz from joining the fight. The prosecution argued that he
did not help the wounded Quejong but this does not necessarily show concurrence in Almojuela’s criminal act.
He even shouted to Paz that his companion is wounded as he was running away.
 When there is doubt on the guilt of an accused, the doubt should be resolved in his favor.
 The equipoise rule is in application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one is consistent with the innocence of the accused, the other consistent with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to produce a conviction. The needed
quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is lacking.
 Petition GRANTED, decision SET ASIDE.

Wa-acon vs the People – prima facie evidence

Facts:
 Robert Wa-acon, a Special Collecting Officer of National Food Authority,
o He was assigned at Tondo Manila
o One of his duties was to receive grains which will be sold to the public
 He is also to collect the proceeds from the sale
 By virtue of a Travel Order a team of Auditors from the Commission on Audit (with Nillo as team leader)
conducted an examination of the accountabilities of various Special Collecting Officers, including Wa-acon
o Conducted at the Office of the Regional Auditor, NFA Metro Manila Office
o Audit team asked the presence of Wa-acon by virtue of demand letter, demanding him to produce cash,
cash items, stocks and empty sacks and other pertinent papers
 Testified by Nillo, Wa-acon said he has no cash on hand
 A Report of Examination of Cash and Accounts of Wa-acon was rendered
o Based on the examination on Stock Issues, Empty Sacks Receipts, Official receipts and Certificate of
Inventory of Stocks and Empty Sacks containing the signatures of the accused
o These documents were submitted to Nillo
 In connection with the Audit conducted, the Audit Team prepared several schedules
o Statement of Rice Received, Statement of Remittance of Proceeds from Sales, Statement of Refunds
o Schedule of empty sacks returned, summary of empty sacks, Revised summary of cash examination
 The audit led to a finding that accused incurred a shortage (92,199.20)
 During his trial before the Sandiganbayan, he denied personal use of proceeds of the rice he sold to consumer,
o He attributed the shortage as the discrepancy in actual weight of the sack
o He informed his superiors about it but was unheed
o The reason he signed for the sacks of rice despite shortage was because he would not be paid
o About the empty sacks, he argued those were in custody of the delivery man with logbook
 . The Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of malversation of public funds
o His failure to present public funds which is chargeable upon demand is prima facie evidence that he
put the missing funds to his personal use.
 His inability to rebut the presumption that he had put the rice stocks and empty sacks to
personal use
o He filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied
 On the ground that there is no new substantial issues and cogent reasons to justify the reversal
of the decision
 Thus Wa-acon filed the instant petition.
Issues:
 Whether or not his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt (because of prima facie evidence)
Ruling:
 According to petitioner the unremitted amounts for the rice stocks and money allegedly gained from the empty
sacks were not used for his personal use and therefore the fourth element of malversation was not proven (the
accused took, misappropriated public funds for his personal use)
 However Article 217 was amended by Republic Act 1060 (An Act increasing the Penalty for the Crime
Malversation of Public Funds or Property) which requires no proof by the State that the accused actually took
the public funds; but a presumption was installed that failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming public
funds which is chargeable upon demand is prima facie evidence that he put the missing funds to his personal
use.
 Prima facie evidence, if unexplained or uncontradicted, can counter-balance the presumption of innocence to
warrant a conviction.
 Without any strong and convincing proof to bring down the presumption of law, the Court is left with no other
option but to sustain petitioner’s conviction..
 Petition DENIED and decision and resolution of sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
Cruz vs CA – malum prohibitum
Facts:
 Andrea Mayor is a businesswoman engaged in granting interest-bearing loans and in rediscounting checks
 She was introduced to Roberto Cruz who was engaged in selling ready-to-wear clothes at Pasay Commercial
Center
o From then he was borrowing money from Mayor
o On March 15, 1989 he borrowed money from Mayor in the amount of 176k
 Mayor delivered personally the amount he borrowed, in his stall
o Cruz issued a postdated check in the same amount
 When the check matured, Mayor presented it to drawee bank but was dishonored for reason “account
closed”
o She notified Cruz of the dishonor, and he said he will pay her in cash
o Since no payment was made, an information for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22(An Act
Penalizing the making or Drawing and Issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit for other
purposes) was filed against Cruz
 On arraignment, Cruz entered a plea of not guilty
o Pre-trial he admitted existence of the check
 During trial prosecution presented 2 witnesses:
o Mayor testified that petitioner borrowed money from her and issued her a check, signed in her presence
o Marcelo Ladao testified that petitioner opened the account on Premiere development bank
 That said account was closed and petitioner was duly advised of the closure
 He also explained that subject account was closed at the discretion of manager and that closure
is normally a result of a series of checks issued without sufficient funds
 Accused testified in his defense and proferred defense of denial
o He denied issuing the check, that the signature was his and knowing Mayor
o He declared that he saw the check for the first time
 The trial court rejected the defense and he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged
in the information
 Petitioner appealed the case to the CA
o CA rendered judgment affirming the trial court’s decision
 Cruz files a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA

Issues:
 Whether or not he is liable for violation of BP 22 for issuing a check knowing he does not have credit with
drawee bank and claiming that the check is only a guarantee of obligation not to be used for circulation

Ruling:
 Yes, the SC ruled that when a check is presented for payment, the drawee bank will generally accept the same
regardless of whether it was issued in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation.
 What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
term and conditions relating to its issuance.
 The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
 The petition be DISMISSED and the questioned decision of respondent court is AFFIRMED en TOTO. The mere
act of issuance of worthless check is a crime, regardless of its purpose whether or not it is a payment of
obligation or a guarantee of the said obligation
Bautista vs People – when is motive material
Facts:
 The initiatory criminal information in Criminal Case No. U-8191 was lodged on June 13, 1994 with Branch 48 of
RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan while Criminal Case No. U-8192 dated June 16, 1994 was assigned to Branch 49 of
said court. On motion of the Office of Provincial Prosecutor, these cases were subsequently consolidated and
assigned to Branch 48 for trial
 According to prosecution witness Ferdinand Datario and Rolando Nagsagaray, on May 18, 1992, Eduardo
Datario was watching the sideshows of their barangay fiesta being held within the school campus of Dilan
Elementary School
o They were with Bernabe Bayona and Cinderella Estrella
 Shortly a gun report made the people scatter in different directions
o Eduardo fell to the ground with a gunshot wound in the area of his chin proved to be lethal
o Bayona and Estrella were likewise hit, but they survived
 The witnesses saw the assassin with a long firearm aimed at his group
o According to them it was Alfonso Bautista, and was on the other side of a concrete fence
o He brought the victim to the hospital and died thereafter
 Appellant denied being involved in the incident
o He asserted the he does not know the victims personally
o He also remembered sometime in 1993 while waiting for a person’s payment of his tobacco produce
that he was arrested by 2 law enforcers
o He was brought to Lingayen, Pangasinan where He was detained, tortured and forced to admit
participation in unsolved killings including Eduardo Datario’s
 During this time the two witnesses came out to open and announce what they witnessed the
night of the incident
 In a joint decision the RTC Branch 48 rendered 2 verdicts of conviction in both criminal cases finding Alfonso
Bautista guilty of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition and of the complex crime of murder with
frustrated murder and attempted murder.
 Bautista appealed, insisting the trial court should not have granted affirmative weight to the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses as the bases of his conviction as they allegedly saw the appellant at the crime scene,
but broke their silence about his supposed participation only after more than sixteen months and under
dubious circumstances.

Issues:
 Whether or not proof of motive is necessary so as to prove why he should kill the deceased and shoot the
victims
Ruling:
 Yes. The rule is that proof of motive is unnecessary to impute a crime on the accused if the evidence on his
identification is convincing.
 But if the identification is unclear, proof of motive is a paramount necessity.
 In the case at bar, no motive was attributed to the appellant as to why he would kill and shoot the victims.
Evidence shows that he barely knows them, nor he had previous dealings with them.
 Accordingly, appellant is hereby ACQUITTED of the present charges against him, and criminal cases against him
are REVERESED and SET ASIDE.
Ah Chong vs United state – mistake of facts
Facts:
 Ah Chong was employed as a cook at “Officers Quarters No. 27” Fort McKinley, Rizal Province
o Pascual Gualberto was employed therein as well as a houseboy
o Both jointly occupied the same small room, which has no permanent lock
 As a security attached a hook inside and placing the door against a chair
 One night Ah chong was awakened by someone trying to force the door open
o He asked twice who the person is and heard no answer
o He was convinced that the door is being pushed open
o As the room was dark, Ah chong feared that the intruder was a robber
 And said if you enter the room I will kill you
 He was struck by the chair which is placed against the door
o Ah chong thought it was inflicted by the intruder
 With common kitchen knife, he struck the intruder who turned out to be his roommate
 Ah chong told his employers about what happened
 Ah chong said he kept a knife under his pillow because of the several robberies that occurred in the place as a
personal protection
 He also said that either of them should knock at the door and inform the other of his identity
o In cases one of them would return at night
 Ah chong admitted stabbing Pascual
o But only did it since he thought he was a thief because he did not respond to his warnings
 He was placed under arrest and charged with the crime of assassination
o Tried and found guilty by trial court (of first instance) of simple homicide
 Hence the appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal

Issues:
 Whether or not mistake of facts negates criminal liability

Ruling:
 Yes, under such circumstances, there is no criminal liability provided the ignorance or Mistake of Fact was not
due to negligence or bad faith.
 If such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negative a particular intent which, under the law, is a
necessary ingredient of the offense charged, it destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal;
except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing
negligence, and in cases where a person voluntarily committing an act incurs criminal liability even though the
act be different from that which he intended to commit.
 Ah Chong believed in good faith, without malice or criminal intent, that he was doing no more than exercising
his legitimate right of self-defense.
 Criminal liability is negated, judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court is REVERSED and the defendant
ACQUITTED of the crime he is charged.
Flora vs People – aberratio ictus & 2nd unplanned crime in conspiracy
Facts:
 Days before the incident, Hermogenes “Bodoy” Flora had an argument with Oscar Villanueva.
o Ireneo Gallarte, the uncle of Oscar, pacified the two.
 One evening a dance party was held to celebrate the birthday of Jeng-jeng Malubago
o Bodoy, a suitor of Jengjeng attended the party with his brother Edwin “Boboy” Flora
o Also in appearance were Rosalie Roma and her mother Emerita Roma and her aunt Flor Espinas
 Ireneo Gallarte was also present
 Past midnight, a violence erupted
o On signal by Boboy, Bodoy fired his gun twice
o The first bullet grazed Espinas and hit Emerita and 2nd hit Ireneo
o Rosalie was shocked
 Boboy poke a knife at her neck and threatened to kill her before he and his brother left
 Gallarte and Roma were transported to the Rural Health Unit where they died
 The police arrested Edwin Flora early that morning
o In his rented house at Brgy. Bagumbayan, Paete Laguna
 Three criminal charges were filed against the Brothers before Branch 26 of RTC Sta. Cruz Laguna.
o 2 counts of murder and 1 attempted murder
 The accused pleaded not guilty and the trial ensued
 The accused were convicted after the trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
double murder and attempted murder
o They appealed this decision of the trial court raising the assigned error:
 The trial court erred in convicting the two accused-appellants despite the failure of the
prosecution to morally ascertain their identities and guilt for the crimes charged

Issue:
 Whether or not treachery can be appreciated in aberratio ictus
 Whether or not appellant Edwin is liable for the death and injury of the other victims

Ruling:
 In this case, the deaths of the victims were murders, not simply homicide since the acts were qualified by
treachery since the victims were helpless to defend themselves when they were suddenly shot.
 Hermogenes Flora cannot escape culpability on the basis of aberratio ictus principle. In aberratio ictus, there
is a mistake in the victim of the blow.
 Edwin flora cannot be liable of the death and injury of the other victims. The evidence only shows conspiracy
to kill Ireneo and no one else. For acts done outside the contemplation of the conspirators, only the actual
perpetrators are liable.
 Decision MODIFIED, Hermogenes and Edwin Flora guilty of murder of Ireneo Gallarte
 Hermogenes flora guilty of murder of emerita roma and attempted murder of flor espinas
 Edwin flora acquitted of murder of emerita roma and attempted murder of Flor espinas
Intod vs CA – Impossible Crime

Facts:
 Sulpicio Intod and several others went to Mandaya’s house (Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental) to
ask him to lead them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan
o They had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan
 He told Mandaya he wanted Palangpangan dead because of a land dispute
 He also said to accompany the 4 men or else he will be killed
 Later that evening, armed with firearms, they arrived at Palangpangan’s house.
o After pointing at the room of Palangpangan, Intod and his men riddled it with bullets
 Intended victim was not in the room because she was at another city at the time.
 No one was hurt by the gunfire
 Intod and his men were positively identified by the witnesses
o One said that before the 5 men left, they shouted “We will kill you specially Palangpangan”
 After trial, Intod was convicted of attempted murder by the regional trial court Branch XIV of Oroquieta City
 Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision
 Hence he filed a petition for review of the decision of CA.
o Seeking a modification of judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible crime
o He contends that Palangpangan’s absence from her room when they riddled it with bullets made the
crime inherently impossible

Issues:
 Whether or not the accused is only guilty of an impossible crime
Ruling:
 The act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against persons or property because: (1) the
commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a)
inadequate or (b) ineffectual
 Yes, according to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the phrase “Inherent impossibility” makes no distinction
between legal and factual impossibility
 Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime
o The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim
would be, although in reality, the victim was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed
to accomplish his end.
 The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime
impossible of accomplishment.
 Petition GRANTED decision of CA MODIFIED, petitioner guilty of IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.
Pecho vs people – Proof of conspiracy, same degree of proof of crime
Facts:
 Odon Pecho and his co-accused Joe Catre were charged as principals who conspired and mutually helped one
another (Odon Pecho is a public officer, holds position of a Custom Guard)
o Catre represented himself to be a representative of Everson Commercial Trading of Cotabato City,
 Which turned out to be nonexistent, fake or fictitious.”
 The evidence for the prosecution only showed that it was Catre who
o possessed the falsified documents
o contracted the services of customs broker Constantino Calica
o Delivered the documents for processing.
 Catre could not provide the explanation because only Odon Pecho was tried.
o His address was unknown and the warrant of arrest issued was only that of Odon Pecho
 Odon Pecho was convicted based entirely on circumstantial evidence proving conspiracy between him and
Catre.
 However, the Supreme Court modified the appealed judgment of the Sandiganbayan holding petitioner guilty
of the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial documents.
 The Court held that although the petitioner could not be convicted of crime charged (violation of Section 3(e)
of RA 3019, as amended ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)- because the said section penalizes only
consummated offenses and the offense charged in this case was not consummated—he could, nevertheless,
be convicted of the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial
documents, which is necessarily included in the crime charged.
 He filed a motion for reconsideration as he was acquitted of the violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, a special
law, he could not be convicted anymore of attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial
documents, offense punishable under RPC otherwise the constitutional provision on double jeopardy would
be violated
 The Office of the solicitor general disagrees with petitioner asserting that the rule on double jeopardy cannot
be invoked in this case
o No new information for estafa was filed against the petitioner
o Only one information was filed against him and his co-accused
 Nevertheless, the Office of solicitor general joins the petitioner in his plea for acquittal
o But on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
 The Solicitor general also added several observations which include:
o The elements of conspiracy like the physical acts constituting the crime itself must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt

Issues: Whether or not proof of conspiracy is established

Ruling:
 The same degree of proof required for establishing a crime is likewise required to support a finding of
conspiracy. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself to
uphold the fundamental principle that no one shall be found guilty of a crime except upon proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
 In this case, the court agrees that the prosecution had only circumstantial evidence against the petitioner. All
that the prosecution was able to prove insofar as the petitioner is concerned is that he accompanied Catre in
contracting services of Constantino Calica and it is Catre who transacted the business and did all the talking
and that petitioner was not even introduced to Calica. The prosecution failed to prove that petitioner
personally represented himself as an agent of Eversun, knew of the falsity of the documents and had
possession of the said documents.
 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED decision SET ASIDE, challenged decision REVERSED and
petitioner ACQUITTED.
Pagalasan vs People – conspiracy direct proof

Facts:
 Spouses George and Desiree Lim and their children resided in a subdivision in General Santos City
o One night the house maid was in the kitchen when knocks were heard and she opened the door
 4 men with handguns and grenade barged in the kitchen
 They asked where her employers were, and responded in the bedroom
 They ransacked the house getting cash and valuables
o After giving a note to Desiree, took George and his son Christopher with them using the car of George
 They were blindfolded and minutes after, 3 of the men alighted the vehicle taking Christopher with them
 During this time the Police received a report that George and his son were kidnapped
o Establishing checkpoints at the intersection of the national highway
 Seeing the checkpoint, the masked man removed his bonnet and stopped the car.
o It turned out to be Michael Pagalasan
 George was revealed to be one of the kidnapped victims
 He also said his son was still with the other 3
 Michael and George were brought to the police station
 Michael gave his confession under custodial investigation with the assistance of a lawyer
o He said he worked for Cabalo and 3 other men
o The men were detained
 George received another letter ordering the release of Michael, demanding 3million for Christopher’s release
o Another letter was received stating that they did not want the military to be involved
 But the following morning, Christopher was rescued by policemen without any ransom being
paid
 Michael was charged with kidnapping for ransom and violation of PD 1866 before the MTC of Gen. Santos City
 An information for violation of PD 1866 (Illegal possession of firearms) was filed against Michael
o An information charging Michael and 5 others with kidnapping for ransom was raffled to Branch 22 of
RTC of General Santos
o The judge hearing the case inhibited himself and both cases were re-raffled to Branch 35 of the RTC of
General Santos
 Michael was acquitted for violation of PD 1866 and is guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom, sentenced
to suffer extreme penalty of death.
 An automatic review of the decision of RTC Branch 35 of Gen Santos City

Issue: Whether or not conspiracy exists between the appellant and his cohorts

Ruling: Conspiracy exists between the accused and his cohorts.

 Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence because secrecy and concealment are essential features of
a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common
purpose and design.
 The collective, concerted and synchronized acts of Michael and his cohorts before, during and after the
kidnapping constitute indubitable proof that the four men conspired with each other to attain a common
objective: to kidnap George and Christopher and detain them illegally.
 Judgment AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
Caraang vs people – conspiracy collective liability
Facts:
 The group of Vanelyn Flores and Lorna Salazar were on their way home
o They just attended a pre-nuptial dance in Nueva Ecija
 It was then when 2 men with bonnet, stalled them and told them follow, upon brandishing their gun.
o Vanelyn recognized one of them as Danilo Caraang because he was her neighbor and because of the
way he stood and walked
o One of the group of Vanelyn also recognized the men as Danilo and Virgilio Canlas
o They were taken to a place far from where they were stalled
 The armed men ordered the female to sit down and the male to lie on the ground face down
o Flores was removed from the group took her 50 meters away where another man was waiting
o She was then raped, after being forced to lie down
o The man removed his bonnet and indeed turned to be Caraang
 She was returned to the group after being sexually abused for more than 15 mins
o After an hour, was brought to the same place where she was raped by the companion of the appellant
 Salazar was brought to a place away from the group
o She was kicked and lost consciousness and when she come to it, she was raped
o After being returned, 2 other companions of the appellant took her away again from the group
 They also want to rape her, but Salazar begged for mercy
 She was able to identify one of them as Manny Belagot
 Around 4 in the morning, they were returned at the place where they were abducted
 Warrants of arrest were issued against all the accused
 The RTC of San Jose City, Nueva Ecija Branch 39 convicted the appellants of the:
o Complex crime of abduction with rape
o 2 counts of rape
o 1 count of acts of lasciviousness
 Hence the appeal for the decision of the trial court.
o Trial court erred there was positive identification of Caraang as rapist
o Trial court erred not appreciating the existence of other facts which are of other weight and substance
o Evidence against the accused did not fulfill test of moral certainty
o Trial court erred in finding there was a conspiracy

Issues: Whether or not conspiracy exists and their liability collective

Ruling:
 Yes, there is no doubt that appellant and his co-accused acted in conspiracy as seen through their concerted
actions in abducting the victims with lewd design and later on raping them.
 In conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually committed all the elements of the
crime charged. What is important is they performed specific acts in coordination as to indicate an unmistakably
common purpose or design to commit the crime.
 The act of one becomes the act of all, each of them guilty of all the crimes committed.
 The finding of conspiracy is significant, because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused and makes
them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime.
 Their liability becomes collective, with each participant deemed equally responsible for the acts of the others.
 The appeal is DENIED, appellant is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
Ladonga vs CA – conspiracy (overt act)
Facts:
 Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became regular customers of Alfredo Oculam in his pawnshop business
o Sometime in 1990 they loaned from him guaranteed by a postdated check
o They obtained an additional loan, guaranteed by another postdated check
o And between May and June, they obtained a third loan guaranteed by another postdated check
o Upon presentment of the three checks, it bounced for the reason account closed
 When the spouses failed to redeem the checks, despite demands, he filed a criminal complaint
 The spouses claimed that the issued checks were only guarantee of the obligation and they had an agreement
that Oculam should not encash them
 The RTC Branch 3 of Bohol rendered a joint decision finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Batas Pambansa 22
o Adronico applied for probation which was granted
o Evangeline on the other hand brought the case to the CA
 Arguing that RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as
principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to BP 22 which is a special law
 She also stated that she is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation thereof
 The CA affirmed the conviction of Evangeline
o And held that the provisions of penal laws are applicable to special laws
o Conspiracy is applicable to BP 22
o She sought for reconsideration of the decision but was denied
 She filed a petition for review of the decision of CA affirming the decision of RTC

Issue:
 Whether or not petitioner who did not issue the checks that bounced could be held liable for violation of
special law as conspirator
 Whether or not principle of conspiracy is suppletory to the special law

Ruling:
 To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of complicity. The overt act may consist of active participation, in the
actual commission, or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the
criminal plan
 The prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy.
o As testified by Oculam, the petitioner was merely present when her husband signed the checks.
 Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy
transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to
conspiracy.
 In Article 10, the second sentence is the soul of the provision. It says that this code (RPC) shall be supplementary
to such laws (special laws) unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. Since the BP Blg 22 does not
specially provide the contrary, the general provisions of the RPC may be applied suppletorily.

 The petition is GRANTED the decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ACQUITTED of the charges
against her.
Lao vs People – conspiracy (final blow)
Facts:
 A drinking session is taking place among the inmates of Cell No. 3 in Lucena City Jail
o Amidst the merry-making was also singing led by Norberto Reynoso
 However trouble erupted and by signal of Ramon Lao, Divino first, followed by the others they assaulted the
victim.
o He was punched and kicked by the inmates
 Reynoso shouted asking for help, and a prison guard responded and pacified the group
o The guard left after warning the inmates to stop the commotion
 He was then brought to a corner of the cell
o A prison bunk was pushed against the cell door to block entry
o Ramon Lao then clearly ordered to kill Reynoso
o They continued the assault with a piece of wood
o A knife was then used to stab Reynoso hitting him at the back
 Alarmed by the commotion several police officers rushed thereat
o Since not all wanted to go out, the police used tear gas to flush out all of them
 With the exception of Divino who admitted direct participation in killing Reynoso, the others denied their guilt
 The trial court finds (RTC of Lucena Br 54) 7 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
 The accused appealed insisting the trial court erred in finding them guilty of the crime charged

Issues:
 Whether or not presence of conspiracy was established

Ruling:
 Yes, Conspiracy is clearly established. The appellants were animated by one and the same purpose: to kill
Reynoso.
 The question of who dealt the final blow on the victim is of no consequence for it is settled that when a
conspiracy exist, the act of one is the act of all.
 Judgment AFFIRMED

NOTE: THE PRISON GUARDS ARE TO BE PUNISHED

 The prison guard who went to investigate Reynoso’s cries forhelp was either afraid or stupid, or himself too
drunk to do his duty. Seeing that the appellants were battering Reynoso, the guard should have known that
Reynoso’s life was in danger. He should have called the warden and other guards to help him (if he could not do
it alone) to quell the commotion and remove Reynoso from the cell. Instead of simply warning Reynoso’s
attackers to stop beating him, the guard should have remained at the scene to see to it that his order was
obeyed. By failing to do that, he indirectly contributed to the death of the inmate, Reynoso.
 In view of the foregoing, the Court resolved to refer this matter to the Honorable Secretary of Justice for
appropriate administrative action against the jail warden and the recreant prison guards on duty to improve the
administration of the Lucena City Jail and to avoid a repetition of this unfortunate occurrence not only in that jail
but in all prisons and detention centers throughout the country.
PEOPLE v SINOC

FACTS
 Isidoro Viacrusis, manager of Taganito Mining Corporation, was travelling from the company (at
Taganito, Claver, Surigao del Norte) to Surigao City. 
 He was riding on a company vehicle, Pajero driven by Guijapon
o While on their way they were stopped by several armed men saying they are members of
NPA, boarded the Pajero and ordered driver to proceed. 
 When they reached a certain place (Barobo, Surigao del Norte), the armed men ordered the two to
get off, led them, away from the road, and after making them lie face down on the ground, shot
them several times. The driver died but Viacrusis survived.
 The following day, a civilian asset reported to the police Station that the carnapped Pajero was
positively located behind an apartment
 A police team went to the place and saw the Pajero and, positioned themselves as to where they can
see the man who brought the vehicle there 
 They saw a man approaching the vehicle. But he tried to run upon seeing them and was stopped and
identified as Danilo Sinoc.
o He said that was acting under the instruction of his companions. He and the police went to
the location of his companions but they were no longer there.
 They later turned over Sinoc to the 459 Mobile Force together with the Pajero.
th

 Only Sinoc and Vicente Salon were arraigned, on 14 July 1992, the other 5 accused being then at
large. Assisted by their respective counsel, both Sinoc and Salon entered pleas of not guilty and were
thereafter jointly tried. 
 In his (Sinoc’s) defense, he claimed:
o That he was offered money (Php 20,000) to join carnapping and kidnapping, wherein he agreed
due to poverty
o He was also offered P1,000 to get the Pajero with a certain Ram from Moncayo where he was
apprehended by the police led by Sgt Michael Aringo of the PNP 
o He was detained and was maltreated by repeatedly submerging his head in a toilet bowl full of
excrement, and other acts (he confided these acts to his wife)
o He agreed to sign the affidavit due to threats
o He also explained that he wrote letters to the Judge seven months after his confession – it is
evident for comparison of both documents 
 The Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30, found the evidence sufficient and sentenced
Sinoc guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointly tried: 
o special complex crime of kidnapping with murder (under Article 267 in relation to Articles 248
2 and 48 3 of the Revised Penal Code) — in Criminal Case 3564; and the other, 
o complex crime of kidnapping with frustrated murder (under Articles 267, 248, 6 4 and 48 of
the same Code) — in Criminal Case 3565. 
o Salon, on the other hand was acquitted (inasmuch as conspiracy was not proven.)
 Sinoc appealed, contending:
 o Convicting him of the offenses charged although conspiracy had not been independently
proven to exist among him and the other persons named in the indictment
o Not rejecting evidence obtained after he had been arrested without warrant
o Confession was taken illegally and without counsel of choice

ISSUE
 WON Sinoc’s conspiracy to the case would make him liable for a second unplanned crime committed
by the other perpetrators
HELD
 No. the liability of the conspirators is only for the crime agreed upon, except:
o When the other crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent its
commission indicating their approval thereof.
o When the other crime is the natural consequence of the crime planned
o When the resulting crime was a composite crime because a composing crime or special
complex crime is indivisible. It cannot be split into different parts, one part to be deemed
covered by the conspiracy and the other outside the conspiracy.
 In the foregoing three instances, although there was a crime committed which is not part of the plan or
prior agreement, all conspirators are liable therefor. In other cases, an unplanned crime will be the
liability only of the one who committed it.
 Only the actual perpetrators are to be held liable for acts beyond the agreement of the conspirators.
Conspirators may only be held accountable for the acts embraced in the criminal agreement; and as
regards felonious acts not included, only author thereof would be liable. (page 82, boado)
 In this case, Sinoc admitted to enter into conspiracy with his co-accused; but he insists that as far as
he was concerned, the conspiracy was only to carnap the pajero, it did not include the killing or
assault against persons. He never had the intention as he had no inkling that a shooting would take
place. 

DECISION
 Criminal Case 3564 (Death of Driver) Sinoc guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of robbery
with homicide.
 Criminal Case 3565 is DISMISSED
Tiguman vs People
FACTS:
 For a simple land dispute, father and son were sprayed with bullets right in their own house by some goons for
hire. The culprits were Jose Bilboro Pomoy, Jr., alias "Robert Bayan," accused-appellants Emmanuel Tiguman,
a.k.a. "Manny," and Melecia Paña, alias "Meling," and a certain John Doe. Pomoy pleaded guilty to a lesser
offense of homicide.
 Jose Juanite, Sr. and his son Jose Juanite, Jr. were in their residence, conversing with members of their family.
When someone knocked on the door, the little boy, upon opening the door, a man suddenly burst in and fired
at Jose Juanite, Sr. It was Tiguman.
o His son, Jose Juanite, Jr., rushed towards the door to close it but he was shot from the window by
Robert Bayan. John Doe was acting guard outside the house. The gunshot wounds sustained by both
father and son caused their instantaneous deaths.
 This incident led to the filing of two (2) criminal informations for murder against Tiguman, Accused Pomoy, Jr.
and one John Doe.
o Subsequently, the informations were amended to include spouses Efren and Melecia Paña, as
principals by inducement because 2 days before the incident they proposed to Manny, Robert and
other two to kill Jose Juanite for a prize.
o Upon arraignment appellants Tiguman and the spouses Paña pleaded not guilty to the charge.
 Pomoy, Jr. was arrested only after the prosecution has rested its case. When he was arraigned, he initially
pleaded not guilty to the separate charges of murder. Later however, his motion to plead guilty to the lesser
offense of homicide was granted for which he was convicted.
 After trial, judgment was rendered by the lower court (RTC Surigao) convicting appellant Tiguman, as principal
by direct participation, and Paña, as principal by inducement, for the crime of murder and sentenced each of
them to death by lethal injection.
 However, the trial court acquitted husband Efren Paña for insufficiency of evidence. 
 They filed the Court a petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the lower court in convicting
them. Since their conviction is on automatic review due to the penalty imposed, the court treated their
petition for certiorari as an appeal.
 Reversal of the decision on the grounds that the trial court committed several errors:
o It convicted appellants in the absence of evidence that would prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
o It admitted testimony of accused Pomoy Jr as evidence in chief during rebuttal stage of trial
o When it ignored the evidence for the defense which has clearly wrecked that of prosecution’s
o It imposed death penalty without authority of law

ISSUE:
 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED when it convicted the appellants in the absence of evidence that would
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt;

 Whether or not a co- conspirator can be acquitted while others are convicted?

RULING:
 There is no doubt as to appellant Tiguman’s direct participation. He was the principal triggerman who shot Jose
Juanite, Sr. to death since he was positively identified by Maria Elena Juanite who was present at the scene
when the shooting happened. 
 Pomoy Jr described in detail the plan to kill the victims and it was because of a land dispute (it was assailed on
the ground that the prosecution has rested its case but right to present evidence is reserved to the State no less
than to the accused)
 o Questo also identified positively Tiguman
o Arturo Balesteros saw Tiguman pass by from the house of Juanites moments after the gunshot
 Paña was convicted as principal by inducement. She had motive because of the land dispute. An agrarian case
was filed and won by the Juanites thereby harboring Pañas’ grudge
 She also procured pictures from Elena siaboc, the domestic helper of Juanites. Then she and the other accused
planned in her residence to kill the Juanites and gave the money to Manny
 As to the circumstance of price or reward, it can only be appreciated against appellant Tiguman since it was he
who committed the felonious act for money. The same evidence on price established conspiracy between the
appellants. Consequently the act of one is the act of all.
 Maximum period is imposed on murder if aggravating circumstance is present (in the case it is treachery,
premeditation and price and reward)
 Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed as the mere act of conspiring is not by
itself punishable. Hence, it does not follow that one person alone cannot be convicted when there is
conspiracy. As long as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy,
one defendant may be found guilty of the offense.
 The fact that the husband of appellant Paña, one of the alleged conspirators or inducers in the killing, was
acquitted of the charges does not put to doubt appellant’s culpability. Though conspiracy is a joint act, there is
nothing irregular if the supposed co-conspirator is acquitted and others convicted.

NOTE: the trial court erred in imposing on appellants Tiguman and Paña the death penalty. The crimes in this case
were committed prior to the restoration of the Death Penalty Law on December 31, 1993
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Trial Court Ruling is affirmed with modification. Each appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of two counts each of Reclusion Perpetua, and are ordered to SOLIDARILY pay each of the heirs of the victims the civil
indemnity.
Narciso vs Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
 Petitioner Narciso appealed his conviction by Sandiganbayan of the crime of malversation of Public Funds.
 Claro Narciso was assigned as Officer in Charge of Municipal Treasurer’s Office of Vallehermoso, Negros
Oriental.
 He was discharged from office from May 1982 – July 1983
 He returned to his original station in Manjuyod, Negros Oriental.
 2 audits were made while he was in the Municipal Treasurer’s Office
o Mid part of May 1983 – regular audit
o August 1, 1983 – Preparatory to the turnover of Narciso’s accts before he returns to his original station
at Manjuyod, Negros Oriental.
AUDITS:
1st:
 Bank draft = P14,500.00
 Entered in his cashbook
o BPI Family Bank Check
o Drawn by  Felicito Tan
 Payment for real estate taxes
o Check has not yet been deposited
o Showed no shortage in Narciso’s Accounts.

 Narciso remitted the check to Provincial Treasurer

o Deposited at PNB-Dumaguete City Branch  in June 1983
o The check was dishonored
o Signature of drawer on the check is different with the one on the bank.
o When Narciso was notified, he immediately changed the Php 14,500.00 as account receivable instead of
collected amount.
nd
2
 The auditors declared Narciso as short of 14,500.00 representing the dishonored check
o From these facts, not disputed by Narciso, two were apparently deduced by the
Government Auditors.
o Narciso had had a hand in the making of spurious check
o He had caused delivery of the spurious check to the Municipality to present discovery of a
shortage in his account.
o He was sent a letter by the Auditing Examiner to produce the amount or else, he will be
criminally prosecuted.
 Fact finding inquiry regarding the BPI Check was conducted at the Provincial Auditor’s Office
o Lolito Sedicta gave a statement declaring that he gave the check to Narciso in compliance
with Narciso’s order because there will going to be an audit.
o But Narciso said he received the check as part of Sedicta’s real estate tax collections
o No charges were filed against Narciso for 4 years
 May 1987, Formal administrative proceedings for “Dishonesty and/or Neglect of Duty” was
initiated against him
 During the pendency of the case, 2 information were filed before Sandiganbayan
o Falsification of Public and/or Official Document
 o Malversation of Public Funds
 Narciso was arraigned on Sept 1989 and pleaded “Not Guilty” to both charges.
o During the trial, it was found that Sedicta had gone into hiding because there are 59
criminal charges against him for falsification of public documents.
o Tan was also not presented into court.
 Narciso was acquitted for “Falsification of Public and/or Official Document” because the
prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
o But in case of “Malversation of Public Funds he was found guilty.
 He filed a petition for certiorari to set aside judgment of sandiganbayan alleging that:
o Sandiganbayan erred gravely on questions of law insisting application of presumption of
malversation even when there’s no evidence to prove that he has custody of the malversed
funds
o Sandiganbayan erred gravely on questions of law in grossly misinterpreting the import of
narciso’s acts contemporaneous to the alleged malversations which may, at most show
negligence on his part but certainly not guilt

ISSUE:
(What facts, standing alone, are sufficient to establish conspiracy?)
WON the audit was enough to consider Narciso as a co-conspirator?
HELD:
 In the case it was not proven that there is conspiracy between the drawer and the issuer of the check. The check
issued was said to be payment for real estate taxes, but it was dishonored due to a different signature by the
drawer. There was also no evidence that there was malversation of funds. There must be a conscious design to
commit an offense for a conspiracy to exist. Conspiracy is not a product of negligence but of intentionality on
the part of cohorts.
 No. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a
conspirator, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, pursuant to the common design and
purpose. Conspiracy transcends companionship. Participation in the criminal act is essential for he may yet be an
accomplice.
DECISION:
 Sandiganbayan hold into the theory of “cover-up
 Narciso insisted that there was no evidence that he had a shortage of 14,500.00
 He argues that he did not receive cash.
 He received a check that had bounced.
 Narciso also maintained that he first declined the check from Sedicta as it was incomplete but received it after
several days believing it already complies since he cannot reflect on the matter as he was occupied with regular
audit
 It may have been confuted by Sedicta or Tan but neither appeared to stand by the prosecution
 There is no evidence at all that there was taking, appropriation and conversion of public funds
 The only facts established was he received a check for payment of real estate taxes which was dishonored
because disclosed to be spurious
 The court was convinced to acquit Narciso.
 The court ordered the reversal of its previous judgement and acquitted Narciso for the Malversation of Public
funds.
People vs Desoy

Facts of the Case

 One evening in April 1994. Elmer Desoy, Antonio Desoy and Carlito Cuaton were drinking kulafu and tuba at
Labason Town Plaza. Hernando Balasabas (witness) and Salvador Balucan were strolling the Plaza when the
three respondents invited them but they refused because they do not drink tuba and kulafu.
 When Hernando and Salavador start to walk home the three respondents chased them armed with empty
bottle, stick and bolo.
 Then Elmer Desoy forcibly took the bolo to Antonio Desoy and stabbed Salvador Balucan. The witnessed
rushed to Balucan residence to inform the incident and the three respondents were apprehended.
 On arraignment all the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
 But subsequently Elmer Desoy withdrew his plea of NOT GUILTY to the offense of MURDER and instead
entered a plea of GUILTY on a lesser offense of HOMICIDE
 The trial court ruled that conspiracy is evident from the manner of its perpetration, since they acted in concert
in the criminal design of killing the victim. They were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
MURDER qualified by taking advantage of superior strength imposing them extreme penalty of DEATH.
 The case is now before the court for AUTOMATIC REVIEW.

Issue:
 Whether or not in the absence of a conspiracy the accused- appellant were guilty of Murder of the victim.

Ruling –
 The Court ruled that conspiracy was not present.
 Records show that from the testimony of the witness, Elmer Desoy acted on his own without aid or
cooperation of anyone else. It was a result of sudden impulse of the moment, and neither of the two accused
could have anticipated it.
 In fact it was Elmer who forcibly took the possession of the bolo from Antonio. The other two did not
contribute to anything for the death of the victim.
 Conspiracy, like the crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 In the absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime, or community of criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising from different
acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and each of the participants is
liable only for the act committed by him.
 Well- settled is the rule that in case of doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the case must be resolved in their
favor.
 The Decision appealed from is hereby Reversed and Set aside. Accused- appellants are hereby ACQUITTED of
the ground of reasonable doubt.