SANCHEZ vs.

DEMETRIOU
Key phrase/concept: Act of one is the act of all.
FACTS:
On July 28, 1993, the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing
of appropriate charges against several persons, including the petitioner, in
connection with the rape- slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan
Gomez.
Acting on this request, the Panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of
Justice conducted a preliminary investigation. Petitioner Sanchez was not present
but was represented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr.
At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively identified by the
witnesses, who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal in the rapeslay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. The petitioner was then placed on "arrest
status" and taken to the Department of Justice in Manila. A warrant of arrest was
served on Sanchez.
The respondent prosecutors thereafter filed with the RTC- Laguna seven
informations charging Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon,
Pepito Kawit, Baldwin Brion, Jr., George Medialdea and Zoilo Ama with the rape
and killing of Mary Eileen Sarmenta
ISSUE: Whether there is a defect in the seven informations filed against the
petitioner and his co-defendants.
HELD: Wala!
The petitioner avers that the seven informations charging seven separate are
absurd because the two victims in these cases could not have died seven times. But
this argument was correctly refuted by the Solicitor General in this wise: Where
there are two or more offenders who commit rape, the homicide committed on the
occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the special
complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of
rape with homicide as there are rapes committed.
It is clearly provided in Rule 110 of the Rules of Court that: Sec. 13. Duplicity
of offense. A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only in
those cases in which existing laws prescribe a simple punishment for
various offenses. Rape with homicide comes within the exception under R.A.
2632 and R.A. 4111, amending the Revised Penal Code.
The petitioner and his six co-accused are not charged with only one rape
committed by him in conspiracy with the other six. Each one of the seven accused
is charged with having himself raped Sarmenta instead of simply helping Sanchez in
committing only one rape.
The separate informations filed against each of them allege that each of the
seven successive rapes is complexed by the subsequent slaying of Sarmenta
and aggravated by the killing of Allan Gomez by her seven attackers. The
separate rapes were committed in succession by the seven accused, culminating in
the slaying of Sarmenta.

It is of course absurd to suggest that Mary Eileen Sarmenta and Allan

Gomez were killed seven times, but the informations do not make such
a suggestion.

PONCE ENRILE vs. AMIN

Key phrase/concept: complexing of rebellion with other crimes
FACTS:
An information was charged against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile for having committed
rebellion complexed with murder with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Another information was subsequently filed with the Regional Trial Court 9of Makati,
charging the former with a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 for willfully and
knowingly obstructing or delaying the apprehension of Ex. Lt. Col. Gregorio Gringo
Honasan.
Allegedly, Senator Enrile entertained and accommodated Col. Gringo Honasan by
giving him food and comfort on December 1, 1989 in his house and not doing
anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended. It was the prosecutions
contention that harboring or concealing a fugitive is punishable under a special law
while rebellion is based on Revised Penal Code; thus, the two crimes can be
separately punished.
ISSUE: Whether a separate crime of a violation of PD 1829 can be charged against
the petitioner?
RULING:
No! Super No!
The Supreme Court used the doctrine that if a person cannot be charged with the
complex crime of rebellion, he can neither be charged separately for two different
offenses, where one is a constitutive or component element or committed in
furtherance of rebellion.
It was also noted that petitioner was already facing charges of rebellion in
conspiracy with Honasan. Being in conspiracy thereof, the act of harboring or
concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an
act done in furtherance of rebellion. It cannot be made the basis of a separate
charge.
Also, the High Court reiterated that in cases of rebellion, all crimes committed in
furtherance thereof shall be absolved. Hence, the other charge of rebellion
complexed with murder cannot prosper. All crimes, whether punishable under a
special law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or
committed in furtherance of rebellion, become absorbed and it cannot be charged
as separate crimes.

PEOPLE vs. DE GUZMAN

Key phrase/concept: change of court /venue allowed in the interest of justice.
FACTS:
In 1985, a robbery was committed in Quezon City where jewelries worth millions
were stolen. The said jewelries were later found in the possession of a certain Danilo
Alcantara in his house in Antipolo, Rizal.
Subsequently, a Quezon City prosecutor filed an information against Alcantara for
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. The criminal case was filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City. Alcantara filed a motion to quash the said information on the
ground that the QC-RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Judge Jose De Guzman
ruled in favor of Alcantara.
The Solicitor General argued that what the judge did was wrong because the crime
of fencing is a continuing crime; that an ingredient of the crime, that is, the robbery,
happened in Quezon City, hence, Quezon City courts have jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE: Whether QC RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD:
YEsz Pfuowhz.
A continuing crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from
a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. In this case, there
are actually two separate crimes which are robbery and fencing. They are
independent of each other. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have
participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved

in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery
or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated.
Alcantara should be prosecuted in Antipolo because thats where the crime of
fencing was allegedly committed.
The Court would allow a change of venue in criminal cases whenever the interest of
justice and truth so demand and for serious and weighty reasons. A change of
venue in criminal cases whenever the interest of justice and truth so demand, and
there are serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the court that
originally had jurisdiction over the case would not result in a fair and impartial trial
and lead to a miscarriage of justice. Here, however, we do not see the attendance
of such compelling circumstances, nor are we prepared to state that the lower court
gravely abused its discretion in its questioned orders.