PEOPLE vs CIBON

Test ang constitutionality sa Vagrancy, Supreme said constitutional.

NB: Vagrancy has been repealed by RA 10158

PEOPLE vs BARDE 631 SCRA 187 Sept. 22, 2010

Use of explosives

Killing of several persons with the use of explosives certainly qualifies the crime to murder.

Example: Ang grenade gi-itsa adto sulod sa balay, an Information was filed, 2 qualified aggravating
circumstances: use of explosives and treachery. Asa man sa 2 ang mu-qualify sa crime?

Judge P: its the use of explosives, treachery is only ordinary aggravating circumstance

As the killing, in this case, is perpetrated with both treachery and by means of explosives, the latter
shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is the principal mode of attack. Reason
dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense while treachery will be
considered merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.

Ex: Ang grenade gi-itsa sulod sa balay, 1 patay, 1 frustrated murder, 1 injuries (scratches lang).
What is the crime?

Judge: Complex crime of murder with frustrated murder and with attempted murder

Appellants single act of detonating an explosive device may quantitatively constitute a cluster of
several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be considered
only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was
impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser degree of perversity.

YUCHENGCO vs MANILA CHRONICLE GR 184315 November 25, 2009

Malice in law presumption of law; dispenses with the proof of malice when words that raise the
presumption are shown to have been uttered; also known as constructive malice, legal
malice or implied malice
Malice in fact positive desire and intention to annoy and injure; may denote that the defendant
was actuated by ill will or personal spite; also called express malice, actual malice, real
malice true malice or particular malice

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE vs ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL GR 178552 October 5, 2010

First case on Terrorism

Facts: activist groups like Gabriela, Bayan, etc. filed a case in Supreme Court assailing why they
were associated with Communist Party.

The court cannot take judicial notice of the alleged tagging of the petitioners.

What RA 9372 seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech. Before a charge for terrorism may be filed
under RA 9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually committed to trigger the operation
of the key qualifying phrases in the other elements of the crime, including the coercion of the
government to accede to an unlawful demand.

JINGGOY ESTRADA vs SANDIGANBAYAN February 26. 2002

In the American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple conspiracies commonly
involves two structures: (1) the so-called wheel or circle conspiracy, in which there is a single
person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the
spokes); and (2) the chain conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other
contraband, in which there is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way
as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and
retailer, and then retailer and consumer.

MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA vs PEOPLE Oct. 20, 2015

Important!!

Probation

If the application for probation is filed beyond the 15-day period then the judgment becomes final
and executory and the lower court can no longer act on the application for probation. On the other
hand, if a notice of appeal is perfected, the trial court that rendered the judgment of conviction is
divested of any jurisdiction to act on the case, except the execution of the judgment when it has
become final and executory.

Appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies.

If this Court will adopt as jurisprudential doctrine the opinion that an accused may still be allowed
to apply for probation even if he has filed a notice of appeal, it must be categorically stated that
such appeal must be limited to the following grounds:

1. When the appeal is merely intended for the correction of the penalty imposed by the lower court,
which when corrected would entitle the accused to apply for probation; and

2. When the appeal is merely intended to review the crime for which the accused was convicted
and that the accused should only be liable to the lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
crime for which he was originally convicted and the proper penalty imposable is within the
probationable period.

In both instances, the penalty imposed by the trial court for the crime committed by the accused
is more than six years; hence, the sentence disqualifies the accused from applying for probation.
The accused should then be allowed to file an appeal under the afore-stated grounds to seek a
review of the crime and/or penalty imposed by the trial court. If, on appeal, the appellate court
finds it proper to modify the crime and/or the penalty imposed, and the penalty finally imposed is
within the probationable period, the accused should still be allowed to apply for probation.

The CA, therefore, did not err in applying the similar case of Lagrosa v. People wherein the
protestations of petitioners therein did not simply assail the propriety of the penalties imposed but
meant a profession of guiltlessness, if not complete innocence.

PEOPLE vs SANDIGANBAYAN, Sept. 9, 2015

For as long as the ultimate facts constituting the offense have been alleged, an Information
charging a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 need not state, to the point of specificity, the
exact amount of unwarranted benefit granted nor specify, quantify or prove, to the point of moral
certainty, the undue injury caused.
When a motion to quash is filed challenging the validity and sufficiency of an Information, and the
defect may be cured by amendment, courts must deny the motion to quash and order the
prosecution to file an amended Information.

SANTIAGO vs PEOPLE July 15, 2015

Important!!

The crime of bigamy does not necessary entail the joint liability of two persons who marry each
other while the previous marriage of one of them is valid and subsisting.

In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties depending
on the circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without being aware of his
previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage
of the accused could she be included in the information as a co-accused.

Given that the petitioner knew of the first marriage, this Court concurs with the ruling that she was
validly charged with bigamy. Her punishment as a principal to the crime is wrong. Archilla holds
that the second spouse, if indicted in the crime of bigamy, is liable only as an accomplice. In
referring to Viada, Justice Luis B. Reyes, an eminent authority in criminal law, writes that a person,
whether man or woman, who knowingly consents or agrees to be married to another already
bound in lawful wedlock is guilty as an accomplice in the crime of bigamy. Therefore, her
conviction should only be that for an accomplice to the crime.

After a perusal of the records, it is clear that the marriage between petitioner and Santos took place
without a marriage license. All told, the evidence on record shows that petitioner and Santos had
only known each other for only less than four years. Thus, it follows that the two of them could not
have cohabited for at least five years prior to their marriage.