BAYOT VS. SANDIGANBAYAN [128 SCRA 383; NO.L-61776 TO NO.

L-61861; 23 MAR 1984]

Monday, February 09, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Bayot is one of the several persons who was accused in more than 100 counts of estafa thru falsification of Public documents before the
Sandiganbayan. The said charges started from his alleged involvement as agovernment auditor of the commission on audit assigned to the Ministry
of education and culture, with some other employees from the said ministry. The bureau of treasury and the teachers camp in Baguio City for the
preparation and encashment of fictitious TCAA checks for the nom-existent obligations of the teachers camp resulting in damage to
the government of several millions. The 1st 32 cases were filed on july 25, 1987, while Bayot ran for municipal mayor of Amadeo Cavite and was
elected on January 1980. but on May 1980 Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision convicting the accused together with his other co-accused in all
but one of the thirty two cases filed against them.
On Mach 16, 1982 Batas Pambansa Blg 195 was passed amending RA 3019.
Issue: Whether or Not it would be violative of the constitutional guarantee against an ex post facto law.
Held: The court finds no merit in the petitioners contention that RA 3019 as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg 195, which includes the crime of
estafa through falsification of Public Documents as among crimes subjecting the public officer charged therewith with suspension from public office
pending action in court, is a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law. Accdg to the
RPC suspension from employment and public office during trial shall not be considered as a penalty. It is not a penalty because it is not a result of a
judicial proceeding. In fact, if acquitted the official who is suspended shall be entitled to reinstatement and the salaries and benefits which he failed
to receive during suspension. And does not violate the constitutional provision against ex post facto law.
The claim of the petitioner that he cannot be suspended because he is currently occupying a position diffren tfrom that under which he is charged is
untenable. The amendatory provision clearly states that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid
information under RA 3019 for any offense involving fraud upon thegovernment or public funds or property or whatever stage of execution and
mode of participation shall be suspended from office. The use of the word office applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding
and not only the particular office under which he was charged.
Magno vs. CA (Crim1)
Oriel Magno, petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.
June 26, 1992
Paras, J:
Facts:
Oriel Magno, lacking fund in acquiring complete set of equipment to make his car repair shop operational, approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of
Mancor Industries.
VP Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation, advising its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing to supply the pieces
of equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate Magno and and provide him credit facilities.
The arrangement went on requiring Magno to pay 30% of the total amount of the equipment as warranty deposit but Magno couldn't afford to pay so he
requested VP Gomez to look for third party who could lend him that amount.
Without Magno's knowledge, Corazon was the one who provided that amount.
As payment to the equipment, Magno issued six checks, two of them were cleared and the rest had no sufficient fund.
Because of the unsuccessful venture, Magno failed to pay LS Finance which then pulled out the equipment.
Magno was charged of violation of BP Blg. 2 (The Bouncing Checks Law) and found guilty.
Issue:
Whether or not Magno should be punished for the issuance of the checks in question.
Held:
No
Ratio:
To charge Magno for the refund of a warranty deposit which he did not withdraw as it was not his own account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even
make him pay an unjust debt since he did not receive the amount in question. All the while, said amount was in the safekeeping of the financing company which is
managed by the officials and employees of LS Finance.
Valenzuela vs. People
January 3, 2013 by Lagangang Butas
Valenzuela vs. People
G.R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007
Petitioner: Aristotel Valenzuela
Respondents: People of the Philippines and Hon. Court of Appeals
Ponente: J. Tinga
FACTS:
While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push
cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the
supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the cartons inside. As the
taxi was about to leave, the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandize. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were
subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela
appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the
articles stolen. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage.
HELD:
No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be present: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that
said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
(5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The Court held that theft is
produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely

dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from
such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.

COMPLEX CRIMES
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing
the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the offender, who, instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for every
resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it is the penalty for the most serious one and is in the maximum period. Purpose is in the pursuance of the
rule of pro reo.
If be complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore.
Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right).
Penalty: If complex Reclusion temporal maximum to death.
If treated individually Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua.
Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code.
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
(1) Compound crime;
(2) Complex crime; and
(3) Composite crime.
A COMPOUND CRIME is one where a single act produces two or more crimes.
A COMPLEX CRIME strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an offense as a means for the commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is
committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. Necessary should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and
not giving rise to a complex crime.
A COMPOSITE CRIME is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of the law only a single indivisible offense is. This is also
known as special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eyes of the law are
regarded only as a single indivisible offense.
COMPOSITE CRIME/SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
This is one which in substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as a special
complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, and rape with homicide.
The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. But in such article, a compound crime is also designated as a complex
crime, but complex crimes are limited only to a situation where the resulting felonies are grave and/or less grave.
Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gravity of the resulting crimes as long as a single act brings about two or more crimes. Strictly speaking,
compound crimes are not limited to grave or less grave felonies but covers all single act that result in two or more crimes.
Illustration:

A person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade exploded, no one was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was
held that this is a compound crime, although the resulting felonies are only slight.
Illustration of a situation where the term necessary in complex crime should not be understood as indispensable:
Abetting committed during the encounter between rebels and government troops such that the homicide committed cannot be complexed with rebellion. This is because
they are indispensable part of rebellion.
The complex crime lies actually in the first form under Article 148.
The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave and/or less grave felonies. The basis in
complexing or compounding the crime is the act. So that when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes, there is no
complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate information.
When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty, although in the maximum period, because he acted only with single
criminal impulse. The presumption is that, since there is only one act formed, it follows that there is only one criminal impulse and correctly, only one penalty should be
imposed.
Conversely, when there are several acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct criminal impulse and for every criminal impulse, a separate
penalty. However, it may happen that the offender is impelled only by a single criminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than one crime,
considering that Criminal Law, if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime, the offender should be penalized only once.
There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme Court where the offender has performed a series of acts but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same
impulse, the ruling is that a complex crime is committed. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been considered. There
are cases where the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is complex even though the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. The only reason
is that the series of acts are impelled by a single criminal impulse.

Sample Bar Exam Q&A on Criminal Law

- a preview of my Bar Reviewer on Criminal Law. Copyright 2013 Atty. Ralph A. Sarmiento. All Rights Reserved.
1994 Bar Question:
Accused planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula. He asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place. On April 3,1992, at about 10:00 in the evening,
accused, armed with an automatic weapon, went to Barangay Pula. Ella being the guide, directed her companion to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, the
accused fired his gun at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel.
Accused was charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanuan, Batangas. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, accused ascribed to the
trial court the sole error of finding him guilty of attempted murder.
If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal?
My Suggested Answer:
I will set aside the judgment which finds the accused guilty of attempted murder.

At most, the accused is only liable for an impossible crime under Art. 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Art. 59 of the same code.
The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself. Furthermore, the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found
in Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility.
The factual situation in the instant case presents physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible to accomplish. Accused shot the place where he
thought his victim would be, although in reality, the victim was not present in said place. Thus, the accused failed to accomplish his end. Under Article 4, paragraph 2 of
the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.

People v. Lizada (2003) Callejo, Sr. J. Short version: Lizada is being charged with 4 counts of raping his stepdaughter (first rape occurred when she was about
11 yrs old). TC and CA found him guilty. On appeal to the SC, Lizada assails the information against him for violating Rule 110, Section 11 of the Revised Rules on Crim
Pro because the phrase on or about August 1998"stated in the information is too indefinite. SC says the failure to specify the exact date when it was committed
does not make the Information defective because the gravamen of rape is not the date and time of its commission, but the carnal knowledge under any of the
circumstances in RPC 335.Facts: Lizada is charged with 4 counts of qualified rape, and meting on him the death penalty for each count. (He is charged of raping a
certain Analia Agoo in August, September, October, and November of 1998) The words used in the complaints were: First: sometime in August 1998 Second:
on or about September 15, 1998 Third: on or about October 22, 1998 Fourth: on or about November 5, 1998 The prosecution: A couple in
Bohol had 3 children, one of them being Analia (born 1985). They separated and the wife left to settle inManila, took with her the kids, and worked as a waitress. 1994:
Wife met Lizada and lived together. The wife put up a video shop in the house and sold Avon products door to door. When she was out, her kids tended to thevideo shop.
1996: By this year, Analia was about 11 yrs old. One night, Lizada entered Analia s room and removed her clothes, had intercourse with her, and threatened to kill
her if she told anyone what happened. This happened in less than an hour.This happened again the following year. And from 1996-98, Lizada sexually abused Analia
twice a week. 1998: Lizada, wearing only shorts, entered Analias room. Analia was not afraid because her younger brother was just around the house. However,
Lizada was still able to have intercourse with her.
The brother passed by Analias room and saw Lizada on top of her. Lizada dismounted and berated the brother, told him to go to his room and sleep. 4
days later, Analia was in the video shop when Lizada ordered her to go to the sala. She refused bec no one would tendto the video shop. They fought. When the mother
arrived, she sided with Lizada which prompted Analia to shout Ayoko na, ayoko na. Analia then left to retrieve unreturned tapes. When she got home, the
mother asked her what she meant by ayoko na so Analia told her that Lizada had beentouching her private parts. They then went to the police and made a
report. She was examined by a doctor who found her hymen intact. Later on, she also told her mother of the rapes. Analia then executed a Dagdag na Salaysay ng
Paghahabla and charged Lizada with rape. The defense: Lizada denied the rapes, claimed that he loved the children as if they were his own. He cooked and
prepared their food,ironed their school uniforms, and bathed them, except Analia who was already big. Analia was har headed and often disobeyed him. This caused
Lizada and the mother to quarrel. The relatives of thehusband also frequently visited, which irritated him. He says that the mother probably coached the children so that
she could manage the business and take control of all theproperty (VHS, 2 TVs, washing machine, scooter, sala set, CD player, videoke). Also, the mother was
exasperated bec he was unemployed.------- TC found him guilty of 4 counts of rape in 7 par, no 1, RPC 335. Death penalty for each count. Argument of Lizada #1: That
his conviction for rape in December 1992 was so remote from the date (November 1995) alleged in the Information, so that the Nov 1995 could no longer be considered
as being "as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed" as provided under Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. SC says: O Does
not agree.
In People v. Garcia, Court upheld a conviction for 10 counts of rape based on an information alleging multiplerape "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,"
a time difference of almost four years. Such was longer thanthat involved in this case. o In any case, Lizada's failure to raise a timely objection based on this ground
constitutes a waiver of his right toobject. Argument of Lizada #2: The information is defective because the date of the offense "on or about August 1998" is too indefinite,
in violation of Rule 110, Section 11 of the Revised Rules on CrimPro:"Sec. 11. Date of commission of the offense. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information the precise datethe offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to havebeen committed on a
date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. " SC does not agree with Lizada. The precise date of the commission of the rape is not an essential
element of the crime. Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not make the Information defective. The reason for this is that the gravamen
rape is carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under RPC 335. SC cites People v. Salalima: O Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the
rapes occurred does not make the information defectivebecause the precise date or is not an element of the offense. O As long as it is alleged that the offense was
committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offensewas committed an information is sufficient. O In previous cases, before and until ,
sometime in the year, some occasions prior and/or subsequent have been ruled as sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules on CrimPro So, he cannot complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the cases against him and that hewas deprived of the
opportunity to prepare for his defense Re: Lizardos failure to protest and object

When Analia testified how Lizada defiled her twice a week, Lizada did not protest. Lizada even cross-examined her. The presentation by the prosecution to
prove the charges, without objection by Lizada, constituted a waiver of his right toobject to any perceived infirmity. Also, Lizada did not even file a motion for a bill of
particulars under Rule 116, Section 9 of the Revised Rules on CrimProbefore he was arraigned. So, Lizada was duly arraigned under the Information and entered a plea
of not guilty to the charge without any plaint onthe sufficiency of the Information. It was only on appeal to the SC that he questioned for the first time the sufficiency of the
Information. It is now too late inthe day for him to do so.Re: Hymen The fact that Analia remained a virgin does not preclude her having been raped. She being of tender
age, it is possiblethat the penetration went only as deep as her labia. oEven, the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ constitutes consummated rape
oWhether or not the hymen was still intact has no substantial bearingRe: Criminal liability of Lizada Prosecution proved through the testimony of Analia that Lizada raped
her twice a week in 1998. In 3 criminal cases,Lizada is guilty only of simple rape. As to the other one, the testimony of Analia and her brother leads SC to believe Lizada
is guilty of attempted rape. Basedon the testimony, the brother was able to interrupt the acts and so there was no introduction of the penis into the vagina.Judgment set
aside. Lizada guilty of simple rape in 3 cases, in the other one attempted rape.