Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

CRIMINAL LAW 1 unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the

CASE DIGESTS, ARTICLES 16 – 20 commission of the offense by performing another act


without which it would not have been accomplished.
PEOPLE v. DULAY Nothing in the evidence presented by the
prosecution does it show that the acts committed by
FACTS: appellant are indispensable in the commission of the
PROSECUTION crime of rape. Anyone could have accompanied AAA
Complainant AAA was only 12 years old when the and offered the latter's services in exchange for money
incident happened. Her sister introduced her to Dina and AAA could still have been raped. Even AAA could
Dulay (Dulay), which the former described as a nice have offered her own services in exchange for monetary
woman. Dulay convinced AAA to accompany her to the consideration and still end up being raped. Thus, this
wake at Parañaque, but before going there, they went to disproves the indispensable aspect of Dulay in the crime
casino to look for Dulay’s boyfriend. Since he was not of rape. However, she is still guilty of violation of
there, they went to a fish port and there they saw the Section 5 (a) of R.A. 7610, or the Special Protection
boyfriend. Thereafter, they proceeded to the KUBUHAN of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
located at the back of the fish port. Upon reaching the Discrimination Act, because she acted as a procurer
place, Dulay suddenly pulled AAA inside a room where a of a child prostitute.
man known as “SPEED” was waiting. SPEED gave Children, whether male or female, who for
money to Dulay and told the same to get her a younger money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the
girl, as seen and heard by AAA. Afterwards, SPEED coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
wielded a knife, tied AAA to the papag and raped her. indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
AAA asked for Dulay’s help, but even upon seeing the deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other
incident, no help was given. By the end of it all, SPEED sexual abuse. Thus, the act of Dulay in convincing AAA,
and Dulay told AAA not to tell anyone about the incident who was 12 years old at that time, to go with her and
or else she will be in trouble. AAA went to Laguna after thereafter, offer her for sex to a man in exchange for
the incident and told her sister, who in turn told their money makes her liable under the above-mentioned law.
mother, who then filed a complaint at the Barangay. The
Barangay referred the complaint to a police station. PEOPLE v. GAMBAO
Asking the assistance of the Child Protection Unit of
PGH, a doctor conducted the interview and physical FACTS:
examination upon AAA. It was evident from the PROSECUTION
assessment that there was sexual abuse, and that there Lucia Chan (Chan) was a fish dealer based in
were also abrasions on the back portion of the body. Manila. She usually expected deliveries from her
suppliers in the provinces. In the afternoon of August 11,
CHARGE 1998, two persons, one of them being Dilangalen, went
Charged w/ rape as co-principals to Chan’s residence to inquire about a certain passport
alleged to have been mistakenly placed inside a box of
DEFENSE fish to be delivered to her. Unable to locate such, the two
Dulay met AAA a few days beforehand when her left. The following day, they came back. With two failed
cousin, Eglay Akmad, introduced the latter to her during attempts to retrieve said passport, Dilangalen went back
the wake of a relative of AAA. The cousin of Dulay was the same evening accompanied by an unidentified
AAA's neighbor at Palanyag. Around 1:00AM on July 3, person. Upon going inside the house, the companion
2005, Dulay averred that she was at the fish port with pointed his gun at Chan’s son (Levy) and the house
her cousin Eglay and stayed there for about 30 minutes. companions. The same person forcibly dragged Chan.
They then proceeded to the house of Dulay’s cousin in Levy tried to stop the man but when the latter pointed a
Palanyag. In the said house, appellant saw “Speed” and gun to his head, he released his grip. Levy proceeded to
two (2) other male persons. She also saw AAA who was the police to report the incident. Chan was forced to
engaged in a conversation with “Speed” and his two (2) board an FX van, travelled for about two hours, and
companions. She asked AAA what she was doing there stopped at a certain house. Dukilman warned Chan not
and the latter said that it was none of her business. to shout as he has a gun pointed to her mouth. Chan
Because of the response of AAA, appellant left the was ordered to go with two women (Ronas and Evad),
house and went home to General Trias, Cavite. and was made to lied down on a bed, guarded by the
three plus Macalinbol. Ronas and Evad threatened Chan
RULING OF THE RTC that she would be killed if she did not pay 20 million
Dulay is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for rape pesos. Two days after, Chan was awakened and
as a co-principal by indispensable cooperation. The commanded to board the FX van. Chan was brought to a
Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the ruling of the RTC. room on the second floor of the house, with Macalinbol,
Udal, and Gambao inside the said room. Perpenian
RULING OF THE SC arrived thereafter. At about 9:00PM, Mandao asked
The SC subscribes to another view. To be a Chan why she told the police about what happened.
principal by indispensable cooperation, one must Karim ordered Mandao out of the room. Mandao
participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or haggled with Chan as to how much money she has,
eventually reaching the amount of 400,000 pesos, which (2) The trial court took note of the fact that
her son was asked to deliver at Chowking at Buendia. Perpenian, a minor at 17 years old, gave inconsistent
Inspectors Ouano and Mancao tailed a suspicious Red answers and lied several times under oath during the
Transport taxicab up to the Elizabeth Resort and trial. Perpenian lied about substantial details such as her
stopped in front of Cottage 1. Convinced that whom they real name, age, address and the fact that she saw Chan
saw in the cottage was the victim, they sought clearance at the Elizabeth Resort. When asked why she lied
from the task force to conduct a rescue operation. On several times, Perpenian claimed she was scared to be
August 14, 1998, Inspector Arnado received information included or identified with the other accused-appellants.
of the transaction that is about to take place. As such, The lying and the fear of being identified with people
they positioned themselves around the vicinity of the whom she knew had done wrong are indicative of
restaurant. By 2:00am, there was an FX van with 4 discernment. She knew, therefore, that there was an
people on board who took the ransom money and ongoing crime being committed at the resort while
headed towards SLEX. The team intercepted the van she was there. It is apparent that she was fully aware
and arrested the 4 men, identified as Karim, Abao, of the consequences of the unlawful act. As reflected
Gambao, and Dukilman. They also recovered the in the records, the prosecution was not able to proffer
ransom. On the same day, the police team assaulted the sufficient evidence to hold her responsible as a principal.
cottage and safely rescued Chan and apprehended the Seeing that the only evidence the prosecution had was
seven abductors—Dilangalen, Udal, Macalinbol, the testimony of Chan to the effect that on August 13,
Mandao, Perpenian, Evad, and Ronas. 1998, Perpenian entered the room where the victim was
detained and conversed with Evad and Ronas regarding
CHARGE stories unrelated to the kidnapping, this Court opines
Charged w/ kidnapping for ransom that Perpenian should not be held liable as a co-
principal, but rather only as an accomplice to the
DEFENSE crime.
Pleaded guilty
ELEMENTS OF ACCOMPLICE
RULING OF THE RTC
Gambao, Karim, Dukilman, Abao, Udal, (1) That there be community of design; that is knowing
Mandao, Dilangalen, Macalinbol, Ronas, Evan, and the criminal design of the principal by direct participation,
Perpenian are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of he concurs with the latter in his purpose;
kidnapping for ransom. CA AFFIRMED the decision. (2) That he cooperates in the execution by previous or
simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying
RULING OF THE SC material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in
(1) Accused-appellants Dukilman, Ronas and an efficacious way; and
Evad argue in their respective briefs that conspiracy, (3) That there be a relation between the acts done by the
insofar as they were concerned, was not convincingly principal and those attributed to the person charged as
established. The court rules that there was conspiracy. accomplice.
This Court has held before that to be a conspirator, one
need not participate in every detail of the execution; he The defenses raised by Perpenian are not
need not even take part in every act or need not even sufficient to exonerate her criminal liability. Assuming
know the exact part to be performed by the others in the arguendo that she just came to the resort thinking it was
execution of the conspiracy. Once conspiracy is shown, a swimming party, it was inevitable that she acquired
the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The knowledge of the criminal design of the principals when
precise extent or modality of participation of each of she saw Chan being guarded in the room. A rational
them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are person would have suspected something was wrong
principals. and would have reported such incident to the police.
The testimonies, when taken together, reveal Perpenian, however, chose to keep quiet; and to add
the common purpose of the accused-appellants and how to that, she even spent the night at the cottage. It has
they were all united in its execution from beginning to been held before that being present and giving moral
end. There were testimonies proving that (1) before support when a crime is being committed will make a
the incident, two of the accused- appellants kept person responsible as an accomplice in the crime
coming back to the victim’s house; (2) during the committed. It should be noted that the accused-
kidnapping, accused-appellants changed shifts in appellant’s presence and company were not
guarding the victim; and (3) the accused appellants indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the
were those present when the ransom money was kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only liable as an
recovered and when the rescue operation was accomplice. Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling
conducted. Seeing that conspiracy among Gambao, in People v. Clemente, et al., where it was stressed that
Karim, Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, Dilangalen, in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be
Macalinbol, Ronas and Evad was established beyond considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a
reasonable doubt based on the proffered evidence of the principal.
prosecution, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators.
ONG v. PEOPLE derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft; and
Guano was the owner of 44 Firestone truck tires. (4) There is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain
He acquired the same for the total amount of 223,401.81 for oneself or for another.
pesos from Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation, a
domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing and The court agrees with the RTC and the CA that
marketing of Firestone tires. The acquisition was shown the prosecution has met the requisite quantum of
by S.I. No. 4565 dated November 10, 1994 and an evidence in proving that all the elements of fencing are
Inventory List acknowledging receipt of the tires present in this case. First, the owner of the tires,
specifically described by their serial numbers. He, using private complainant Francisco Azajar (Azajar),
a piece of chalk before storing them inside a warehouse whose testimony was corroborated by Jose Cabal -
own by his relative named Guano, marked the tires the caretaker of the warehouse where the thirty-eight
using a piece of chalk. The caretaker of the warehouse (38) tires were stolen – testified that the crime of
was in charge of the tires. Guano sold 6 tires, and 38 robbery had been committed on Feb. 17, 1995. Azajar
remained in the warehouse. Guano learned one day that was able to prove ownership of the tires through Sales
38 truck tires were stolen from the warehouse, the gate Invoice No. 4565 dated Nov. 10, 1994 and an Inventory
of which were forcibly opened. This was reported to the List. Witnesses for the prosecution likewise testified that
police district, and they canvassed multiple robbery was reported as evidenced by their Sinumpaang
establishments in an attempt to locate the stolen tires. Salaysay taken at the Southern Police District at Fort
The tires were then located at Jong’s Marketing, and Bonifacio. The report led to the conduct of a buy-bust
were reported to Chief Inspector Mariano Fegarido of the operation at Jong Markerting, Paco, Manila.
police district. A buy-bust operation team was formed, Second, although there was no evidence to
and on February 27, 1995, at around 3:00PM, Atienza, link Ong as the perpetrator of the robbery, he never
the poseur-buyer, bought one tire of the kind that was denied the fact that thirteen (13) tires of Azajar were
stolen, and was told to bring out 12 of the same kind. caught in his possession. The facts do not establish
Upon doing such, found that they were the same tires that Ong was neither a principal nor an accomplice in the
which were stolen from him, based on their serial crime of robbery, but thirteen (13) out of thirty-eight (38)
numbers. Private complainant then gave the missing tires were found in his possession. This Court
prearranged signal to the buy-bust team confirming that finds that the serial numbers of stolen tires corresponds
the tires in appellant's shop were the same tires stolen to those found in Ong’s possession. Ong likewise
from the warehouse. Thereafter, the team went inside admitted that he bought the said tires from Go of Gold
the store. Ong insisted that his arrest and the Link in the total amount of ₱45,500 where he was issued
confiscation of the truck tires be witnessed by Sales Invoice No. 980.
representatives from the barangay and his own lawyer. It Third, the accused knew or should have known
was already past 10:00 in the evening when the that the said article, item, object or anything of value has
appellant, together with the tires, was brought to the been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery
police station for investigation and inventory. or theft. The words “should know” denote the fact
Ong denied that he had any knowledge that he that a person of reasonable prudence and
was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing. A certain intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance
Ramon Go, according to him, offered to sell 13 tires from of his duty to another or would govern his conduct
Caloocan for 3,500 each. Ong bought all the tires, for upon assumption that such fact exists. Ong, who
which he was issued a Sales Invoice with the letterhead was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the
Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise. past twenty-four (24) years, ought to have known the
ordinary course of business in purchasing from an
CHARGE: Fencing unknown seller. Admittedly, Go approached Ong and
RTC: Guilty beyong reasonable doubt of fencing offered to sell the thirteen (13) tires and he did not even
(violation of P.D. 1612). ask for proof of ownership of the tires. The entire
CA: Affirmed the findings. transaction, from the proposal to buy until the delivery of
tires happened in just one day. His experience from
SC the business should have given him doubt as to the
The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as legitimate ownership of the tires considering that it
follows: was his first time to transact with Go and the manner
(1) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed; it was sold is as if Go was just peddling the thirteen
(2) The accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice (13) tires in the streets. Dela Torre v. COMELEC states
in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, that “mere possession of any goods . . . object or
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing” — a
any article, item, object or anything of value, which has presumption that is, according to the Court, “reasonable
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery for no other natural or logical inference can arise from
or theft; the established fact of . . . possession of the proceeds of
(3) The accused knew or should have known that the the crime of robbery or theft.”
said article, item, object or anything of value has been
Moreover, Ong knew the requirement of the law
in selling second hand tires. Section 6 of P.D. 1612
requires stores, establishments or entities dealing in the
buying and selling of any good, article, item, object or
anything else of value obtained from an unlicensed
dealer or supplier thereof to secure the necessary
clearance or permit from the station commander of the
Integrated National Police in the town or city where that
store, establishment or entity is located before offering
the item for sale to the public. In fact, Ong has
practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances
from the police station for some used tires he
wanted to resell but, in this particular transaction, he
was remiss in his duty as a diligent businessman
who should have exercised prudence.
In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the
receipt issued to him by Go. Logically, and for all
practical purposes, the issuance of a sales invoice or
receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction and may be
raised as a defense in the charge of fencing; however,
that defense is disputable. In this case, the validity of
the issuance of the receipt was disputed, and the
prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its
address were fictitious. Ong failed to overcome the
evidence presented by the prosecution and to prove the
legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he was unable to
rebut the prima facie presumption under Section 5 of
P.D. 1612.
Finally, there was evident intent to gain for
considering that during the buy-bust operation, Ong was
actually caught selling the stolen tires in his store, Jong
Marketing.

DULAY v. PEOPLE

FACTS: It was testified that in December 2000,


Delgado’s wife, Sonia, bought from accused Dimat a
1997 Nissan Safari. The deed of sale gave the vehicles
its respective engine number and chassis number. On
March 07, 2001, PO Ramirez and fellow officers of the
Traffic Management Group spotted the Nissan Safari on
E. Rodriguez Avenue, bearing a suspicious plate
number. After stopping and inspecting the vehicle, they
found out that it was on the list of stolen vehicles, and as
such it was brought to Camp Crame. Apparently, it was
stolen from its original owner, Mantequilla.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 anger was still apparent. To avoid further trouble, they
CASE DIGESTS, ARTICLES 16 - 48 proceeded to their camp. After they passed the sentry
gate, two SN1s flagged down a rushing maroon Nissan
PEOPLE v. QUIACHON van, approached it, and recognized Punzalan who was
reeking of alcohol. He was verbalizing his anger at the
FACTS: Rowel testified for the prosecution, saying time. Before he was given the signal to proceed, the van
initially that he refuses to use his father’s last name rushed away and swerved to the right, hitting the group
because he is a bad name. He narrated that on the night of walking navy personnel. As a result, Duclayna and
of May 21, 2001, he saw his father on top of his sister Andal died, while Kuya, Bacosa, and Bundang were
(Rowena) and they were covered by a blanket. He saw injured. Defense argues that the navy personnel laughed
the buttocks of his father move up and down and he at him as he sang out of tune. He was offered to make
could hear his sister crying. He did not do anything peace but he was suddenly punched by Bacosa. When
because he is afraid of his father. The following morning, they left, they used the Nissan van and upon passing the
he told the incident to his mother’s sister, Carmelita, who sentry gate, somebody threw stones at the van. Upon
then came with him to the police to report the incident. alighting the vehicle and inspection, he saw Bacosa and
Rowena, through sign language, testified that her father another man approaching him so he want back inside
had sexual intercourse with her and even touched her the van but the duo boxed him repeatedly through the
breasts against her will. She was only eight years old at van’s open window. When he saw four other personnel
the time. The medical examination revealed that her coming towards him, he accelerated the van.
genitals have suffered injuries and she has a kiss mark
on her left breast. The defense claims that he was CHARGE: MURDER
shocked to learn of the report because he was close to RTC: MURDER qualified by treachery with
his daughters, in effect, denying the allegations against ATTEMPTED MURDER w/ the aggravating
him. The only possible reason as to why he could have circumstance of use of motor vehicle.
been reported is that Carmelita as well as his son holds CA: Appellant used justifying circumstance of avoidance
a grudge against him. Apparently, his common-law wife of greater evil and that there was no treachery. Was not
died of cancer and her relatives were allegedly appreciated by CA because it did not match the facts
interested in their properties. and that the information read that the victims were
“unsuspecting”, thus, treachery was rightly appreciated.
CHARGE: Qualified Rape AFFIRMED RTC DECISION.
RTC: Rape, DEATH PENALTY SC: COMPLEX CRIME OF DOUBLE MURDER WITH
CA: Affirmed RTC, DEATH PENALTY MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED MURDER
SC: Affirmed CA and RTC, R.A. No. 9346 provides ⁃ Avoidance of greater evil should be taken as last
that in lieu of death penalty, it should be reduced to resort. Not considered because the elements are not
reclusion perpetua. present.
⁃ Treachery as qualifying circumstance was
⁃ Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws correct, because the victims were just walking inside the
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the camp and they were not given any warning regarding the
persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, assault.
as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this ⁃ Penalty should be death, however, in view of the
Code, although at the time of the publication of such enactment of Republic Act No. 9346,57 prohibiting the
laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty for the killing
convict is serving the same. of each of the two victims is reduced to reclusion
⁃ However, appellant is not eligible for parole perpetua without eligibility for parole.
because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides that
“persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to PEOPLE v. SALOME
reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be
eligible for parole.” FACTS: Sometime in July of 1997, Sally Idanan, who
was only 13 years old at the time, was sleeping with her
PEOPLE v. PUNZALAN three-year old brother inside their house when Salome
entered the house. She was awakened by the presence
FACTS: In August 2002, 1st Class of Navy Personnel of Salome who poked a knife at the base of her neck.
were sent for school at at the Naval Education Training While doing this, Salome undressed Sally and
Center in Zambales. At around 5-6PM, they proceeded threatened that she would kill her and her family is she
to a canteen to have a drink. By 10PM, they transferred told anyone of the incident. He inserted his genitals to
to Aquarius, a karaoke bar, where they continued their Sally’s, who only closed her eyes because calling for
drinking session. A heated argument ensued between help would be futile since the next house was about 800
SN1 Barcosa and Punzalan because of a flickering light meters away. Paying no mind that she might be
bulb, with the latter hearing that Barcosa wants him pregnant, she left her province to work as a domestic
dead, when in fact, Barcosa just wanted to turn off the helper. By November, she has undergone an ultrasound
lights. SN1 Cuya tried to pacify the two, but Punzalan’s which confirmed that she was indeed pregnant. The
medical assessment even showed that her hymen has a Dulay is guilty of frustrated murder. The requisites of a
deep healed laceration. The defense argued that he was frustrated felony are: (1) that the offender has performed
just fishing during the time. all the acts of execution which would produce the felony;
and (2) that the felony is not produced due to causes
CHARGE: RAPE independent of the perpetrator’s will.”
RTC: RAPE w/ USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON and ⁃ Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, Dulay
DWELLING; Penalty is DEATH has performed all acts of execution in throwing the
CA: AFFIRMED RTC DECISION grenade which could have caused Junior’s death as a
SC: SC: Affirmed CA and RTC, R.A. No. 9346 consequence, but because of immediate medical
provides that in lieu of death penalty, it should be assistance, a cause independent of Dulay’s will, Junior
reduced to reclusion perpetua. survived.

⁃ RAPE was indeed committed. Rape is


committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using
force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the
woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The
crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
When there is use of deadly weapon, penalty shall be
death.
⁃ Aggravating circumstance of dwelling is also
present as it was committed in the house of the victim.
⁃ Appellant is not eligible for parole because
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides that “persons
convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,
or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for
parole.”

PEOPLE v. DULAY

FACTS: In the evening of Dec. 30, 2002, Junior, a child


about 6 years old, was outside the kitchen of their
house. His father, Orlando Sr., was also somewhere in
the yard and was asking Junior to hand him a chair.
Because the dog was barking loudly, Mrs. Legaspi
peeped from inside the kitchen and noticed Dulay’s dog
in the vicinity. She thought that Dulay was also nearby.
Melanie, Junior’s elder sister, went out to look for the
leash of the dog to transfer it to another area. Using a
flashlight, Junior directed a beam towards the grassy
area and saw Dulay whom he recognized due the
mumps below his left ear. Melanie also saw Dulay
staring at their father. Dulay then threw something that
resembled a ball which turned out to be a grenade.
When this exploded, Junior was hurt in the pelvic area
while Orlando Sr., was fatally hit by a shrapnel, and so
even though he was rushed to the hospital. Dulay’s
defense merely consists in narrations saying that he
could not have been in the area and as such he did not
commit the crime.

CHARGE: MURDER w/ ATTEMPTED MURDER


RTC: COMPLEX CRIME OF MURDER WITH
ATTEMPTED MURDER
CA: AFFIRMED RTC, but stated that he should be liable
for frustrated murder because Junior would have died
without timely medical assistance.
SC: AFFIRMED CA
⁃ As regards the crime committed against Junior,
the Court is in accord with the CA’s conclusion that