Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

PEOPLE v. OBRERO which had been paid to him.

He also claimed that after being informed of the


charges against him, he was beaten up and detained for a week and made to
J. Mendoza execute an extrajudicial confession. He denied having known or seen Atty. De
May 17, 2000 los Reyes before and stated that he did not understand the contents of the
Appeal from a decision of the RTC of Manila extrajudicial confession which he signed because he did not know how to read.

RATIO: Perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to the accused without any Trial court found Jimmy Obrero guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court
effort to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, held that the accused consented to giving his extrajudicial confession and that
whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him absent any showing that the assisting lawyer, though a station commander but
is merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the of another police station, was remiss in his duty as a lawyer, the Court will hold
suspect. that the proceedings were regularly conducted.

QUICK FACTS: Accused is charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. ISSUE: WON Jimmy Obreros extrajudicial confession is valid and admissible
He was apprehended and brought to the police station where he was provided in evidence
with a lawyer who is a station commander of another police station, and NO. Jimmy Obrero won.
interrogated.
HELD:
FACTS: There was no proof that his confession was obtained by force and
Accused: Jimmy Obrero threat. He did not seek medical treatment nor even a physical examination.
Victim: Emma Cabrera robbery victim. Nena Berjuega and Remedios Hitta The confession contains details that only the perpetrator of the crime
(the two maids of Emma) murder victims could have given, details which are consistent with the medico-legal findings.
Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence
Jimmy Obrero is a delivery boy employed by Angie Cabosas whose of conclusive evidence showing the declarants consent in the executing the
business was selling chickens to customers. Jimmy was asked to deliver same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.
chickens to Emma Cabrera, a regular customer. What renders the confession of Jimmy inadmissible is the fact that he
In Jimmys extrajudicial confession, he stated that the day before the was not given the Miranda warnings effectively. There was only a perfunctory
robbery, his fellow employee, Ronnie Liwanag, proposed that they rob Emma reading of the Miranda rights to Jimmy without any effort to find out from him
in order to be able to go to La Union to visit his family. On the day of the whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether he had his own counsel
robbery, they learned that only two helpers were then at the residence of or he wanted the police to appoint one for him. This kind of giving of warnings
Emma Cabrera, thus they decided to pull the heist. has been found to be merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit
Ronnie covered the mouth of one Nena Berjuega to prevent her from meaningful information to the suspect. Especially in this case, care should
shouting but, as she tried to run away, Ronnie stabbed and killed her. Ronnie have been scrupulously observed by the police investigator that Jimmy was
then gave the knife to Jimmy who stabbed the younger maid, Remedios Hitta specifically asked these questions considering he only finished the fourth
from which she died. Thereafter, they divided the money. grade of the elementary school.
This extrajudicial confession is in Tagalog and signed by Jimmy in the Moreover, the Constitution requires that counsel assisting suspects in
presence of Atty. De los Reyes. Atty. De los Reyes is a PC Captain of the WPD custodial interrogations be competent and independent. In the case at bar, he
Headquarters in UN Avenue. He was at Station 7 of the WPD because he was cannot be considered an independent counsel as contemplated by the law
representing a client accused of illegal recruitment. He was asked by Lt. Javier because he was station commander of the WPD at the time he assisted
of the WPD Homicide Section to assist Jimmy Obrero in executing an Jimmy. As PC Captain and Station Commander of the WPD, Atty. De los
extrajudicial confession. Reyes was part of the police force who could not be expected to have
At the trial, Jimmy Obrero pleaded not guilty of the crime charged. He effectively and scrupulously assisted accused in the investigation.
said that he came back from his errand and remitted the amount of P2000
GR 129670, 1 February 2000 he must therefore remain under detention until further order of the Court; and
that the accused is entitled to bail in all the case, and that he is granted the
MANOLET O. LAVIDES, petitioner, right to post bail in the amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of
vs. P800,000.00 for all the cases under certain conditions. On 20 May 1997,
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ROSALINA L. LUNA PISON, Lavides filed a motion to quash the informations against him, except those filed
Judge Presiding over Branch 107, RTC, Quezon City; and PEOPLE OF THE in Criminal Case Q-97-70550 or Q-97-70866. Pending resolution of his motion,
PHILIPPINES, respondents. he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled on 23 May
1997. Then on 22 May 1997, he filed a motion in which he prayed that the
amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40,000.00 for each case and that the
FACTS:
same be done prior to his arraignment. On 23 May 1997, the trial court, in
On 3 April 1997, the parents of Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that separate orders, denied Lavides' motions to reduce bail bonds, to quash the
their daughter, then 16 years old, had been contacted by Manolet Lavides for informations, and to suspend arraignment. Accordingly, Lavides was arraigned
an assignation that night at Lavides' room at the Metropolitan Hotel in Diliman, during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then
Quezon City. Apparently, this was not the first time the police received reports ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of
of Lavides' activities. An entrapment operation was therefore set in motion. At P800,000.00, subject to the conditions in the 16 May 1997 order and the "hold-
around 8:20 p.m. of the same date, the police knocked at the door of Room departure" order of 10 April 1997. The pre-trial conference was set on 7 June
308 of the Metropolitan Hotel where Lavides was staying. When Lavides 1997. On 2 June 1997, Lavides filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of
opened the door, the police saw him with Lorelie, who was wearing only a t- Appeals, assailing the trial court's order, dated 16 May 1997, and its two
shirt and an underwear, whereupon they arrested him. Based on the sworn orders, dated 23 May 1997, denying his motion to quash and maintaining the
statement of Lorelie and the affidavits of the arresting officers, which were conditions set forth in its order of 16 May 1997, respectively. While the
submitted at the inquest, an information for violation of Article III, 5(b) of RA Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 3 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) case was pending
7610 (An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against in the Court of Appeals, two more informations were filed against Lavides,
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its bringing the total number of cases against him to 12, which were all
Violation, and other Purposes) was filed on 7 April 1997 against Lavides in the consolidated. On 30 June 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision,
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City (Criminal Case Q-97-70550). On 10 April invalidating the first two conditions under 16 May 1997 order -- i.e. that (1) the
1997, Lavides filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these
Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully cases. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases;
Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) In the Event of Adverse and (2) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall be
Resolution of the Above Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a automatically cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be
Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged." On 29 April 1997, 9 immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia -- and
more informations for child abuse were filed against Lavides by Lorelie San maintained the orders in all other respects. Lavides filed the petition for review
Miguel, and by three other minor children, Mary Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer with the Supreme Court.
Catarman, and Annalyn Talinting (Criminal Case Q-97-70866 to Q-97-70874).
ISSUE:
In all the cases, it was alleged that, on various dates mentioned in the
informations, Lavides had sexual intercourse with complainants who had been Whether the court should impose the condition that the accused shall ensure
"exploited in prostitution and given money as payment for the said acts of his presence during the trial of these cases before the bail can be granted.
sexual intercourse." No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, Lavides filed
separate applications for bail in the 9 cases. On 16 May 1997, the trial court RULING:
issued an order resolving Lavides' Omnibus Motion. finding that, in Criminal
Case Q-97-70550, there is probable cause to hold the accused under In cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment,
detention, his arrest having been made in accordance with the Rules, and thus otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if
the information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would then be no
need for the arraignment of the accused. Further, the trial court could ensure 1) W/N the CA committed GADLEJ in fixing the bail in the amount of P5.5
Lavides' presence at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering million based on the petitioners civil liability
his presence at any stage of the proceedings, such as arraignment. Under 2) W/N the CA unduly restricted petitioners constitutional liberty of abode
Rule 114, 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of the conditions of and travel in imposing the other conditions for the grant of bail.
bail is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so
required by the court or these Rules," while under Rule 116, 1(b) the HELD
presence of the accused at the arraignment is required. To condition the grant 1) Yes.
of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position The Rules of Court never intended for the civil liability of the
where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay accused to be a guideline or basis for determining the amount of bail.
his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the
arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash accused when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to
so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. These fulfil this purpose. To bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of
scenarios certainly undermine the accused's constitutional right not to be put which petitioner is charged is to permit the impression that the amount
on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged
a crime and his right to bail. The court's strategy to ensure the Lavides' of. Bail is not intended as a punishment nor as a satisfaction of civil
presence at the arraignment violates the latter's constitutional rights. liability which should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate
court.
YAP vs. CA Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render
meaningless the right to bail. The Court will not hesitate to exercise its
G.R. No. 141529
supervisory powers over lower courts should the latter, after holding
06 June 2001
the accused entitled to bail, effectively deny the same by imposing a
Right to Bail, Section 13 (Excessive if equal to civil liability)
prohibitory sum or exacting unreasonable conditions.
Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
FACTS
Procedure advises courts to consider the following factors in the
Petitioner was convicted of estafa for misappropriating amounts
setting of amount of bail:
equivalent to P5,500,000.00. He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be
a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail
allowed provisional liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the
b) Nature and circumstances of the offense
proceedings. The motion was denied by the RTC.
c) Penalty for the offense charged
Petitioner filed with the CA a Motion to Fix Bail for the Provisional
d) Character and reputation of the accused
Liberty of Accused Appellant Pending Appeal, invoking the last paragraph of
e) Age and health of the accused
Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. The Solicitor General
f) Weight of the evidence against the accused
opined that the petitioner may be allowed to post bail in the amount of P5.5
g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
million and be required to secure a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the
h) Forfeiture of other bail
place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain
i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice
to be so until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it
when arrested
must be with prior notice to the court and private complainant.
j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail
The CA upheld the Solicitor Generals recommendation. A motion for
reconsideration was filed, seeking the reduction of the amount of bail fixed by
2) No.
CA, but was denied.
The condition imposed is simply consistent with the nature
and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make
ISSUES
himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his
presence. Besides, petitioner is not prevented from changing abode, an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from 4 years and 1 day as minimum to
he is merely required to inform the court in case he does so. 7 years as maximum, to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office and
to indemnify the victim Josefina Meimban the sum of P1,000.00 representing
the money given to her. The Sandiganbayan also found Mejia, in Criminal
Mejia vs. Pamaran (G.R. No. L-56741-42) Case 1989, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph (b),
Section 3 of RA 3019 and likewise sentenced her to an indeterminate
Facts: 6 ejectment cases were filed separately in the City Court of Manila by
imprisonment ranging from 4 years and 1 day as minimum to 7 years as
Eusebio Lu against Feliciano F. Endangan, Josefina Meimban, Teodorico
maximum, to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office and to
Bontia, Rolando Antillon, Jose Mabalot and Vicente Villamor. All cases were
indemnify the victim Pilar Bautista the amount of P500 representing the money
decided by the City Court of Manila against Endangan, et. al., all of whom
given to her. Mejia was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. Mejia
appealed in due time to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, where the
filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
cases were raffled to Branch XXVI, presided over by the Honorable Jose P.
Alejandro.
Mejia contended that the proceedings taken by respondent Sandiganbayan in
the case at bar is void ab initio. She argued that only one stage of appeal is
On 12 August 1979, Endangan, Bontia, Antillon, Mabalot, and Villamor entered available to the petitioner under PD No. 1606 which effectively deprives her of
into a compromise agreement with Lu whereby the Endangan, et. al. the intermediate recourse to the Court of Appeals and that in said appeal to
individually received from Lu the sum of P5,000 in consideration of which this Court, only issues of law may be raised and worse still the appeal has
Endangan, et. al. agreed to vacate the premises in question and remove their become a matter of discretion rather than a matter of right. Petitioner contends
houses therefrom within 60 days from the date of the execution of the this is a denial of the equal protection of the law.
agreement, failing which the appellee shall have the authority to demolish
Endangan, et. al.'s houses with costs thereof chargeable against them. The Issue:
compromise agreement was submitted to the court. Josefina Meimban did not WON the accused is denied of due process and the equal protection of the
join her co-defendants in entering into the compromise agreement. Up to that law.
stage of the cases.
Held:
In July 1979, Meimban went to Court where she met Atty. Mejia who told her There is no denial of equal protection of the law. The classification satisfies the
that the case has not yet been decided because there was still one party who test announced by this Court through Justice Laurel in People v. Vera requiring
has not signed the compromise agreement prepared by Atty. Doron. Atty. Mejia that it must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; it
also remarked that she was surprised why rich people were helping in that must be germane to the purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing
case, like a certain Atty. Lu, a brother of Eusebio Lu, who has been conditions only, and must apply equally to each member of the class. To
approaching the presiding judge; and then told her she would help them repeat, the Constitution specifically makes the urgency of which cannot be
provided they give P1,000 each for a gift to the Judge denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service. It follows that those who may
thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been aware as far back as
They were able to give partial amount of the money being asked. Atty. Mejia January 17, 1973, when the present Constitution came into force, that a
also attempted to bribe the Tanodbayan Investigator (Christina Corall-Paterno), different procedure for the accused therein, is not necessarily offensive to the
through intricate gold chain with a pendant hearing an inscription of letter "C," equal protection clause of the Constitution.
which the investigator returned through an employee. Corall-Paterno
investigated the complaints of Josefina Meimban and Pilar Bautista against There is no violation of due process. What is required for compliance with the
Atty. Aurora Mejia for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On due process mandate in criminal proceedings? This Court with Justice Tuason
23 April 1981, the Sandiganbayan, Mejia was found guilty beyond reasonable as ponente, succinctly Identified it with a "a fair and impartial trial and
doubt of violation of paragraph (b), Section 3 of RA 3019 and sentenced her to reasonable opportunity for the preparation of defense. In criminal proceedings
then, due process is satisfied if the accused is "informed as to why he is
proceeded against and what charge he hall to meet, with his conviction being unbelievable and cannot overcome the presumption of guilt arising from his
made to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for inability to produce the fund which was found missing. As His Honor observes,
him to rebut it and the sentence being implied in accordance with a valid law. It if the money was really lost without defendant's fault, the most natural thing for
is assumed, of course, that the court that rendered the decision is one of him to do would be to so inform his superiors and apply for release from
competent jurisdiction. Thus: This court has had frequent occasion to consider liability. But this he did not do. Instead, he tried to borrow to cover the
the requirements of due process of law as applied to criminal procedure, and, shortage. And on the flimsy excuse that he preferred to do his own sleuthing,
generally speaking, it may be said that if an accused has been heard in a court he even did not report the loss to the police. Considering further, as the
of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly processes prosecution points out in its brief, that defendant had at first tried to avoid
of law, and only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, meeting the auditor who wanted to examine his accounts, and that for
with an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded within the authority sometime before the alleged loss many teachers and other employees of the
of a constitutional law, then he has had due process of law. town had not been paid their salaries, there is good ground to believe that
defendant had really malversed the fund in question and that his story about its
loss was pure invention.
GR No. L-5371, Mar 26, 1953 ]
It is now contended, however, that lacking direct evidence of actual
misappropriation the trial court convicted defendant on mere presumptions,
PEOPLE v. AQUINO MINGOA +
that is, presumption of criminal intent in losing the money under the
circumstances alleged and presumption of guilt from the mere fact that he
DECISION
failed, upon demand, to produce the sum lacking. The criticism as to the first
92 Phil. 856
presumption is irrelevant, for the fact is that the trial court did not believe
defendant's explanation that the money was lost, considering it a mere cloak to
cover actual misappropriation. That is why the court said that "whether or not
REYES, J.: he (defendant) is guilty of malversation for negligence is of no moment * * *."
Found short in his accounts as officer-in-charge of the office of the municipal And as to the other presumption, the same is authorized by article 217 of the
treasurer of Despujols, Romblon, and unable to produce the missing fund Revised Penal Code, which provides:
amounting to P3,938 upon demand by the provincial auditor, the defendant
Aquino Mingoa was prosecuted for the crime of malversation of public funds in "The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or
the Court of First Instance of Romblon, and having been found guilty as property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized
charged and sentenced to the corresponding penalty, he appealed to the Court officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or
of Appeals. But that court certified the case here on the ground that it involved property to personal use."
a constitutional question. The contention that this legal provision violates the constitutional right of the
accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved cannot be
The evidence shows that it is not disputed that upon examination of his books sustained. The question of the constitutionality of the statute not having been
and accounts on September 1, 1949, defendant, as an accountable officer, raised in the court below, it may not be considered for the first time on appeal.
was found short in the sum above named and that, required to produce the (Robb vs. People, 68 Phil., 320.)
missing fund, he was not able to do so. He explained to the examining officer
that some days before he had, by mistake, put the money in a large envelope In any event, the validity of statutes establishing presumptions in criminal
which he took with him to a show and that he forgot it on his seat and it was cases is now a settled matter, Cooley, in his work on constitutional limitations,
not there anymore when he returned. But he did not testify in court and 8th ed., Vol. I, pp. 639-641, says that "there is no constitutional objection to the
presented no evidence in his favor. passage of a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be
overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human
We agree with the trial judge that defendant's explanation is inherently conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such
presumption of innocence." In line with this view, it is generally held in the
United States that the legislature may enact that when certain facts have been Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial
proved they shall be prima facie evidence of the existence of the guilt of the court.
accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a rational connection
between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed so that the inference Held: Yes. Rule 112, section 3 of ROC that : If the defendant appears without
of the one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary because attorney, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney
of lack of connection between the two in common experience. (See annotation being arraigned., and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney, the Court
on constitutionality of statutes or ordinances making one fact presumptive must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. A reasonable time must be
or prima facie evidence of another, 162 A. L. R. 495-535; also, allowed for procuring attorney. This was violated. Moreso the guarantees of
State vs. Brown, 182 S. E., 838, with reference to embezzlement.) The same our Constitution that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
view has been adopted here as may be seen from the decisions of this court in without due process of law", and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be
the U.S. vs. Tria, 17 Phil., 303; U.S. vs. Luling, 34 Phil., 725; and heard by himself and counsel." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing
People vs. Merilo, G. R. No. L-3489, promulgated June 28, 1951. unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel.

The statute in the present case creates a presumption of guilt once certain The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of
facts are proved. It makes the failure of a public officer to have duly accused. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr.
forthcoming, upon proper demand, any public funds or property with which he Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the
is chargeable prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or offense or to the making of the plea guilty. No investigation was opened by the
property to personal use. The ultimate fact presumed is that the officer has court on this matter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of
malversed the funds or property entrusted to his custody, and the presumption determining whether the supposed instruction is a good defense or may vitiate
is made to arise from proof that he has received them and yet he has failed to the voluntariness of the confession. Apparently the court became satisfied with
have them forthcoming upon proper demand. Clearly, the fact presumed is but the fiscal's information that he had investigated Mr. Ocampo and found that the
a natural inference from the fact proved, so that it cannot be said that there is same had nothing to do with this case. Such attitude of the court was wrong for
no rational connection between the two. Furthermore, the statute establishes the simple reason that a mere statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to
only a prima faciepresumption, thus giving the accused an opportunity to overcome a qualified plea of the accused. But above all, the court should have
present evidence to rebut it. The presumption is reasonable and will stand the seen to it that the accused be assisted by counsel especially because of the
test of validity laid down in the above citations. qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of the offense found to be
capital by the court.
There being no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is
hereby affirmed, with costs. People v. Ortega
G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997
People vs Frisco Holgado
Lessons Applicable: Indeterminate Sentence Law
Facts: Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of
Romblon with slight illegal detention because according to the information, Laws Applicable: Art. 4 RPC
being a private person, he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive,
kidnap and detain one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for FACTS:
about eight hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of her personal October 15, 1992 5:30 pm: Andre Mar Masangkay (courting Raquel Ortega),
liberty. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel) and said that he was just Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega, Roberto San Andres, Searfin, Boyet and
instructed by Mr. Ocampo, which no evidence was presented to indict the Diosdado Quitlong were having a drinking spree with gin and finger foods.
latter. October 15, 1992 11:00 pm: Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia who
were already drank joined them. October 16, 1992 midnight: Andre answering
a call of nature went to the back portion of the house and Benjamin followed successively, completely ignoring Benjamin who was grappling with
him. Suddenly, they heard a shout from Andre Dont, help me! (Huwag, Masangkay and that Andre was choking him while being stabbed.
tulungan ninyo ako!) Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of the
Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Benjamin on top of Andre who was lying accused to take advantage of such superiority none shown
down being stabbed. Ariel got Benjamin Ortega, Sr., Benjamins father while o Andre was a 6-footer, whereas Ortega, Jr. was only 54
Diosdado called Romeo to pacify his brother. Romeo, Benjamin and Manuel Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability shall
lifted Andre from the canal and dropped him in the well. They dropped stones be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
to Andres body to weigh the body down. Romeo warned Diosdado not to tell act done be different from that which he intended.
anybody what he saw. He agreed so he was allowed to go home. But, his o The essential requisites
conscience bothered him so he told his mother, reported it to the police and 1. the intended act is felonious assisting Benjamin by carrying the body to
accompanied them to the crime scene. the well
NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat: 2. the resulting act is likewise a felony - concealing the body of the crime to
o cause of death is drowning with multiple stab wounds, contributory prevent its discovery
o 13 stab wounds 3. the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the actors
o stab wound on the upper left shoulder, near the upper left armpit and left wrongful acts (praeter intentionem) still alive and was drowned to death
chest wall- front a person may be convicted of homicide although he had no original intent
o stab wound on the back left side of the body and the stab wound on the to kill
back right portion of the body back Garcia is a brother-in-law of Benjamin
Manuel Garcia alibi o Exempt by Article 20 of RPC
o He was asked to go home by his wife to fetched his mother-in-law who ART. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. -- The
performed a ritual called tawas on his sick daughter and stayed home after penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. story such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
o After Masangkay left, he left to urinate and he saw Andre peeking through natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
the room of his sister Raquel. Then, Andre approached him to ask where his same degrees with the single exception of accessories falling within the
sister was. When he answered he didnt know, Andre punched him so he bled provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
and fell to the ground. Andre drew a knife and stabbed him, hitting him on the The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the
left arm, thereby immobilizing him. Andre then gripped his neck with his left Revised Penal Code, which is imposable in its medium period, absent any
arm and threatened to kill him. Unable to move, Ortega shouted for help. aggravating or mitigating circumstance, as in the case of Appellant Ortega.
Quitlong came, seized the knife and stabbed Andre 10 times with it. Andre Because he is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
then ran towards the direction of the well. Then, he tended his wound in the minimum term shall be one degree lower, that is, prision mayor.
lips and armpit and slept.
RTC: Benjamin and Manuel through conspiracy and the taking advantage
of superior strength committed murder HON. GREGORIO. N. GARCIA, Judge of the City Court of Manila vs. HON.
FELIX DOMINGO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila
ISSUE: W/N Benjamin and Manuel should be liable for murder.
FERNANDO, J.:
HELD: NO. PARTLY GRANTED. Benjamin is guilty only of homicide. Manuel
deserves acquittal Facts:
If Ortegas version of the assault was true, he should have immediately
reported the matter to the police authorities. If Ortegas version of the assault In Branch I the City Court of Manila presided over by petitioner Judge,
was true, he should have immediately reported the matter to the police there were commenced, by appropriate informations eight (8) criminal actions
authorities. It is incredible that Diosdado would stab Andre 10 times
against respondent Edgardo Calo, and Simeon Carbonnel and Petitioner
Francisco Lorenzana.

The accused wanted for the speedy trial so they requested to held the
trial even on Saturday on the chamber of Judge Gamboa. The petitioner
granted the request.(as police officers under suspension because of the cases,
desired the same to be terminated as soon as possible and as there were
many cases scheduled for trial on the usual criminal trial days (Monday,
Wednesday and Friday).

On appeal the prosecution said that there was no trial, therefore the
petioner judge order should be reversed.

Issue:

Whether or not the judge denied the accused of public trial.

Held:

Yes. Public trial possesses that character when anyone interested in


observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may
do so. There is to be no ban on such attendance. His being a stranger to the
litigants is of no moment. No relationship to the parties need be shown.

There is the well-recognized exception though that warrants the


exclusion of the public where the evidence may be characterized as "offensive
to decency or public morals." 21

WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed for is granted .