People v.

Balmores
- Rafael Balmores pleaded guilty to attempted estafa through falsification of a security in the
Court of First Instance of Manila.
- On September 22, 1947, he tore at the bottom in a cross-wise direction a portion of a genuine
1/8 unit Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket, removing the true and real unidentified number
and substituting and writing in ink at the bottom on the left side of the ticket the number
074000, making the ticket bear the aforementioned combination of numbers. That was the
winning combination for the draw made on June 29, 1947.
- He presented the ticket to Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for the purpose of
exchanging the ticket for the corresponding cash the combination 074000 won, fraudulently
pretending that the 1/8 unit of a Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket he had is genuine and
that he is entitled to the corresponding amount of P359.55.
- However, he failed to perform these acts which would have produced the crime of estafa
through falsification of a security because Bayani Miller, the employee to whom Balmores
presented the said ticket, discovered that it was falsified. He immediately called a police
officer who arrested the accused.
- He was sentenced to not less than 10 days and one day of prision mayor and not more than
12 years and one day of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P100.
- He contended in his appeal that the facts of the case did not constitute an offense, and that
the court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he was illiterate not assisted by a counsel.
Issue: W/N the acts the accused allegedly committed constitute a crime
Held: YES
- The contention of the respondent that there could be no genuine 1/8 ticket issued by the
PCSO but only four 1/4 units for each ticket is not borne out by the record. The ticket used by
Balmores appears to be a 1/8 unit.
- Respondent also contended that the information does not show that the number torn was not
074000. The Court said that the assumption that the torn number was indeed 074000 is not
supported by the record.
- The information to which the appellant pleaded guilty alleged that he removed the true and
real unidentified number and substituted it with the winning combination. It is obvious that if
the number were the winning combination itself, then there would be no need for the accused
to tear it.
- The reckless and clumsiness of the falsification did not make the crime impossible under
paragraph 2, article 4, in relation to article 59 of the Revised Penal Code.
- From the appearance of the falsified ticket, it cannot be said that it would have been
impossible for the appellant to commit the crime of estafa rough falsification of the said ticket
if the employee, Bayani Miller, had not exercised due care.
- In the ultimate analysis of the case at bar, the appellant’s real offense was the attempt to
commit estafa (punishable by 11 days of arresto menor).

Bugayong v. Ginez
- In 1949, Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the United States Navy, married Leonila Ginez
while on furlough leave.
- After their wedding, they lived with Bugayong’s sisters in Asingan, Pangasinan, but before he
returned to the US they had an agreement that Ginez would stay with his sisters who later
moved to Sampaloc, Manila.
- After some time, Ginez left her sisters-in-law and informed Bugayong through writing hima
letter than she would reside with her mother in Asingan, but later moved to Dagupan to study.
- In July 1951, Bugayong received letters from Valeriana Polangco and from anonymous
writers that his wife allegedly committed acts of infidelity. He was also informed by his wife
through a letter that an “Eliong” kissed her.
- In October 1951, he consulted the navy legal department about the propriety of a legal
separation between him and his wife on the ground of infidelity.
- In August 1952, he went to Asingan, Pangasinan and sought for his wife. They stayed in his
cousin’s house for two nights and one day and lived as husband and wife.
 - Bugayong tried to verify the alleged infidelity of his wife but instead of answering him, she just
packed and left the house, which he took as confirmation.
- After this, he exerted efforts to look for her but failed to find her.
- Bugayong filed a complaint for legal separation in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
but it was dismissed.
Issue: W/N the petitioner and the defendant can be legally separated despite the petitioner
showing condonation after acquiring knowledge of the defendant’s alleged infidelity
Held: NO.
- There was no sufficient evidence that the defendant committed adultery, however, it is not a
question at issue. What needs to be considered is the petitioner’s line of conduct under the
assumption that he believed that his wife committed adultery.
- Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for legal separation.
- The conduct that the petitioner showed under the belief that his wife was adulterous deprives
him of any action for legal separation against his wife because his conduct comes within the
restriction of Art. 100 of the Civil Code, which was in effect at the time the case was filed.
Art. 100, NCC: The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse,
provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or
concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot be
claimed by either of them. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation
shall cause the dismissal of the petition.

- According to American jurisprudence, single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the
parties is sufficient to constitute condonation, and when they live in the same house, it is
presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation.

Reyes v. Ines-Luciano

- In 1976, the private respondent, Celia Ilustre-Reyes filed a complaint against the petitioner,
Manuel Reyes for legal separation on the ground that he attempted to kill her.
- She asked for support pendente lite for her and her children, which the petitioner opposed on
the ground that his wife had committed adultery with her physician.
- The respondent Judge issued an order granting Celia’s prayer for pendente lite in the amount
of P5,000 per month.
- Manuel filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating that his wife is not entitled to support and
that even if she was, the amount as excessive. The respondent Judge reduced it to P4,000
per month.
- Manuel filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals asking that the order granting his
wife’s prayer for pendente lite be annulled on the ground that the respondent Judge
committed a grave abuse of discretion and that the amount was excessive. CA dismissed the
petition on the ground that Manuel has not presented a clear case of grave abuse of
discretion and that he appears to be financially capable to support his wife and children.
Issue: W/N the private respondent is entitled to receive support pendente lite from her husband
Held: YES
- Adultery of the wife is a defense in an action for support, however, adultery must be
established. Mere allegation will not bar the wife to receive support pendente lite. The
petitioner failed to present any evidence to prove the allegation that his wife committed
adultery.
- Private respondent was asking support to be taken from their conjugal property, which was
managed by the petitioner, and not from his personal funds. It is therefore doubtful whether
adultery will affect her right to alimony pendente lite.
- In addition to this, in fixing the amount of monthly support pendente lite of P4,000, the
respondent Judge did not act capriciously and whimsically. When she originally fixed the
monthly support of P5,000, she considered the conjugal properties that were in the
possession of the petitioner who is also the president, manager, and treasurer of their
corporation namely: 2.) Standard Mineral Products, 2.) Development and Technology
Consultants, Inc., and 3.) The Contra-Pop Marine Philippines, Inc. Also, the Judge considered
that she needs P5,000 a month for her support in accordance with their station in life.
- Amount was reduced to P4,000 inasmuch as the children are in his custody and are being
 supported by him.
- The private respondent submitted documents showing that the corporations controlled by the
petitioner entered multi-million contracts.
- The amount of P4,000 a month for support pendente lite is not excessive.

US v. Adiao

Facts:

- “Stated in one sentence, the defendant, Tomas Adiao, a customs inspector, abstracted a
leather belt valued at P0.80, from the baggage of a Japanese named T. Murakami, and
secreted the belt in his desk in the Custom House, where it was found by other customs
employees.”
- He was found guilty of frustrated theft by the Municipal Court of Manila.
- He appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila and again was found guilty of frustrated
theft.

Issue: W/N the defendant committed FRUSTRATED theft

Held: NO.

- The crime Adiao committed cannot properly be classified as frustrated.

- He performed all of the acts of execution necessary, hence, he is guilty of the consummated
crime of theft.
- The fact that the defendant was under observation during the entire transaction and that he
was unable to get the merchandise out of the Custom house is not decisive, as all the
elements of the crime of theft were present.

People v. Alconga

Facts:

(Recitation ready facts)

- On May 27, 1943 at night, several persons were playing prohibited games, including the
deceased Silverio Barion, one of the witnesses Maria de Raposo, and the accused Dioscoro
Alconga, who was invited by Maria.
- The deceased was the banker in black jack, while de Raposo and the accused were partners in
the game. Each of them contributed P5 to the common fund.
- Maria played the game while the accused posted behind the deceased, spotting the cards. He
communicated by signs to Maria.
- The deceased suffered losses in the game because of the team work between Maria and the
accused.
- When Barion (deceased) found out about what Alconga (accused) and Maria did, he expressed
his anger to Alconga. Following an exchange of words, they would have come to blows.
- The deceased left the house after telling the accused, “tomorrow morning I will give you a
breakfast.”
- On the morning of May 29, 1943, the Barion and Alconga met, when the latter was in the
guardhouse where he works.
- Barion came along and said, “Coroy, this is your breakfast,” followed by a swing of his pingahan.
- Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground. A second blow was given by Barion but it did
not hit Alconga.
- The accused managed to escape by crawling. While the deceased was about to deliver the third
blow, the accused, while in a crawling position, shot him using his revolver (it hit the right breast of
the deceased). The deceased fell to the ground.
- Rising on his feet, Barion got his dagger and when he was about to hit Alconga, Alconga got his
bolo and they engaged in a hand-to-hand fight. Barion sustained many wounds and so he ran
away.
- Alconga followed him, and after running a distance of about 200 meters, Alconga had overtaken
Barion and that was when he hit his cranium with a bolo. Barion fell to the ground. Bracamonte
(leader of “home guards) arrived and took Alconga into custody.

(Actual facts; emphasis supplied)

On the night of May 27, 1943, in the house of one Mauricio Jepes in the municipality of San
Dionisio, Province of Iloilo several persons were playing prohibited games. The deceased
Silverio Barion was the banker in the game of black jack, and Maria de Raposo, a witness for
the prosecution, was one of those playing the game. Upon invitation of the said Maria de Raposo,
the accused Dioscoro Alconga joined her as a partner, each of them contributing the sum of
P5 to a common fund. Maria de Raposo played the game while the said accused posted
himself behind the deceased, acting as a spotter of the cards of the latter and communicating
by signs to his partner. The deceased appears to have suffered losses in the game because of
the team work between Maria de Raposo and the accused Alconga. Upon discovering what the
said accused had been doing, the deceased became indignant and expressed his anger at the
former. An exchange of words followed, and the two would have come to blows but for the
intervention of the maintainer of the games. In a fit of anger, the deceased left the house but not
before telling the accused Alconga, "tomorrow morning I will give you a breakfast" which
expression would seem to signify an intent to inflict bodily harm when uttered under such
circumstances.

The deceased and the accused Alconga did not meet thereafter until the morning of May 29,
1943, when the latter was in the guardhouse located in the barrio of Santol, performing his duties as
"home guard". While the said accused was seated on a bench in the guardhouse, the deceased
came along and, addressing the former, said, "Coroy, this is your breakfast," followed
forthwith by a swing of his "pingahan". The accused avoided the blow by falling to the ground
under the bench with the intention to crawl out of the guardhouse. A second blow was given but
failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench instead. The accused managed to go out of the
guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While the deceased was in the act delivering the third
blow, the accused, while still in a crawling position fired at him with his revolver, causing him to
stagger and to fall to the ground. Rising to his feet, the deceased drew forth his dagger and
directed a blow at the accused who, however. was able to parry the same with his bolo. A
hand-to-hand fight ensued. Having sustained several wounds, the deceased ran away but was
followed by the accused. After running a distance of about 200 meters, the deceased was
overtaken, and another fight took place, during which the mortal bolo blow the one which
slashed the cranium was delivered, causing the deceased to fall to the ground, face downward,
besides many other blows delivered right and left. At this instant, the other accused, Adolfo
Bracamonte, arrived and, being the leader of the "home guards" of San Dionisio, placed under his
custody the accused Alconga with a view to turning him over to the proper authorities.

On their way to San Dionisio, the two accused were stopped by Juan Collado, a guerrilla soldier.
Adolfo Bracamonte turned over Alconga to Collado who in turn took him to the headquarters. In the
afternoon of the same day, Collado delivered Alconga to Gregorio Barredo, a municipal policeman of
San Dionisio, together with the weapons used in the fight: a revolver, a bolo, and a dagger.

Issue: W/N the accused committed self-defense in killing the deceased

Held: NO.

- There were two stages in the fight. First: the deceased assaulted the accused without sufficient
provocation; second: accused inflicted many additional wounds upon the deceased
- During the first stage, Alconga was acting in self-defense. However, during the second stage, his
plea of self-defense cannot be sustained, as there can be no defense if there was no aggression.
- There was provocation during the first stage of the fight – when the deceased attacked him.
- For the second stage, the deceased ran for his life seemingly having no intention of returning to
 the fight. After the flight of the deceased, there was neither an assault nor a threatened assault
done to the accused.
- It would need to have a strong positive showing that he had not yet secured himself from “danger”
after shooting the deceased.
- Evidence was not sufficient to conclude that the provocation persisted. Alconga did not testify nor
offered other evidence to prove the persistence of the provocation. The burden of proof is on him.
- Alconga’s guilt of the crime of homicide has been established without reasonable doubt.

Matabuena v. Cervantes (1971)

Facts
- Felix Matabuena (now deceased), in 1956, executed a Deed of Donation in favor of Petronila
Cervantes (defendant) over the parcel of land which he owned. The donation was accepted
by the defendant. The donation took effect immediately.
- In 1962, Matabuena and Cervantes were married. A few months after, Matabuena died.
- Cornelia Matabuena, his sister and the plaintiff, claims the property by reason of being his
only sister and his nearest collateral relative. She had the land declared in her name and paid
the estate and inheritance taxes thereon.
- The lower court sustained the defendant’s stand, noting that the donation was done before
the marriage. It also reasoned out that under Art. 133 of the Civil Code, a donation is void if
made between the spouses during the marriage.

Issue: W/N the ban on donations between spouses during the marriage applies to common-law
relationships

Held: YES.
- “A donation between common-law spouses falls within the prohibition and is ‘null and void as
contrary to public policy.’”
- Although Art. 133 of the Civil Code prohibits such donation between spouses during the
marriage, policy considerations and dictates of morality entail the same prohibition to be
applicable to common-law spouses.
- If the policy of the law is to prohibit donations to protect one of the spouses and their
descendants from undue influence, improper pressure, and influence, then there is a reason
to apply this to persons living together without the benefit of marriage.
- As long as marriage remains the cornerstone of family law, reasons and morality demand that
the prohibitions in marriages should also apply to concubinage.
- However, the lack of validity of the donation does not give the plaintiff exclusive rights to the
property. Felix and Petronila were married, making her his widow. Under the Civil Code, she
is entitled to one-half of the inheritance; the other half should be given to the surviving sister,
Cornelia. Decision reversed.

Arroyo v. Vasquez de Arroyo (1921)

Facts
- Mariano Arroyo and Dolores Vazquez de Arroyo were married in 1910. They have lived
together as husband and wife until 1920, when Dolores left their conjugal home with the
intention of living separately from her husband.
- After Mariano’s efforts to induce her to resume marital relations, he filed this action to compel
his wife to return to their conjugal home and live with him as his wife.
- Dolores admitted that she left her husband’s home without his consent, but because of his
cruel treatment to her.
- She in turn prayed for affirmative relief to consist of 1.) decree of separation, 2.) liquidation of
conjugal partnership, and 3.) allowance for counsel fees and separate maintenance.
- The lower court granted the defendant an alimony of P400 per month, directed the plaintiff to
pay P1,000 for counsel fees, and authorized her to live separately from her husband.
- The trial judged reached a conclusion that the husband was more to blame than his wife for
 his continued ill-treatment towards his wife, giving his wife a sufficient justification for leaving
their conjugal home.

Issues:

1. W/N there was sufficient cause for the wife to leave their conjugal home, making her entitled
to the relief sought - NO
2. W/N the Court can grant the plaintiff restitution of conjugal rights - NO

Held: NO.
1. The tales of the husband’s cruelty was not proven. The Court found that wife is afflicted with
jealousy in an aggravated degree, causing many miseries to their marital life. The judgement
must be recorded that the wife’s abandonment was without sufficient justification.

Regarding the separate maintenance of the wife, the obligation of the husband to support the
wife is expressed in Arts. 142 and 143 of the Civil Code (old). Hence, where the wife was
forced to leave the conjugal abode, she can compel him to make provision for her separate
maintenance. He may also be compelled to pay for attorney’s fees and other expenses
incurred in enforcing this matrimonial obligation. However, the Court should move with
caution in enforcing this duty given that this involves a recognition of a de facto separation.
Therefore, provision for separate maintenance should not be made in favor of the wife unless
it has been proven that their cohabitation has become impossible and separation was
necessary due to the fault of the husband.

None of the relief sought can be granted.

2. The plaintiff has done nothing to forfeit his right to the marital society of his wife, and she is
under moral and legal obligation to return and cohabit with him. However, it is not within the
province of the courts to compel one spouse to cohabit with and render conjugal rights to
another. When property rights are invaded, an action for restitution can be granted.
Nonetheless, the court cannot compel the restitution of a personal right to consortium.

The Court cannot hold Mariano to be entitled to an absolute order for the return of his wife to
their marital domicile.

People v. Norma Hernandez (1959)

Facts
- After months of courtship, the accused Norma Hernandez finally accepted the complainant
Vivencio Lascano (19 years old) and on the same day they talked about their marriage.
Norma told Vivencio to bring his parents to her home so that they could talk about her
marriage.
- One month after, Vivencio’s parents together with 12 aunts, bringing along about 30 chickens
and three goats, went to Norma’s house to ask her hand for marriage. The parents of both
parties agreed to her marriage to Vivencio. They set the wedding to March 19, 1955 to be
held at the Roman Catholic Church in Taal, Batangas.
- They agreed that Vivencio’s parents would buy a wedding dress, two vestidos, a pair of shoes
for the bride, to advance P20 for fetching the sponsors of the wedding, and to repair the roof
of Feliciano Martinez’s house, an uncle of Norma.
- On February 21, 1955, Norma and Vivencio, together with their parents, went to the municipal
treasurer of Taal, Batangas to file their application for marriage and the consent of their
parents to their marriage. On March 5, the license was issued.
- After the issuance of marriage license, Vivencio, his parents, and Norma, went to the parish
priest of Taal, Batangas to arrange the proclamation of the coming marriage of the two.
Afterwards, they went to the house of Isidora Lascano to order Norma’s wedding gown. It was
brought to her house on March 16. No one was there so it was just left at the balcony.
- On the same day, Vivencio’s father gave P20 to Norma’s father as agreed upon, in the
presence of her mother. From the same day until March 18, Vivencio’s parents cleaned the
 yard of Norma’s house and did other household chores as tradition in the barrio.
- On March 18, they constructed a temporary shed where the wedding feast was to be held;
they also put up a temporary stove. They slaughtered pigs, goats, chickens and served
around 90 guests. The next day, they served around 70 guests because Vivencio’s parents
invited Norma’s friends and relatives.
- While the celebration was going on, Norma was nowhere to be found. Vivencio and his
parents waited for her until twelve midnight of March 19 but she did not show up, causing
them great shame and humiliation.

According to the accused:

- Vivencio was really courting her but she was not in love with him.
- Her parents tried to persuade her to accept his marriage proposal, and even sought the help
of her uncle Agapito Mortel. Being obedient to them, she accepted Vivencio’s proposal,
although she felt no love for him.
- Vivencio’s parents went to ask for her hand in marriage and brought chickens with them,
despite her telling them beforehand not to bring those chickens but they insisted such that
she had to tell them that they and Vivencio should not regret what should happen later.
- As the date of the wedding was approaching, she felt a sense of torture because she was not
in love with Vivencio. She decided to leave home as a last recourse in order to prevent the
marriage thinking that if it fails, she will be the one humiliated because she’s the girl.
- On March 11, without telling her parents, she went to Mindoro at stayed at her cousin’s house
until April 1955 when she was fetched by her cousin and brought to Taal because she was
under arrest.
- According to her, she did not receive any wedding gown, just an ordinary dress (bestida), and
that was before she accepted Vivencio’s love.
- Her parents corroborated her story.

Trial court ruling:

- Norma was convicted of serious slander by deed.
- Trial court found that she deliberately left to prevent the celebration of the marriage after the
preparations done.
- The steps taken by her to prevent the marriage constitute the crime of serious slander by
deed.

The appellee seeks reversal on the ground that Norma leaving for Mindoro with the deliberate
purpose of preventing the wedding because she does not love Vivencio does not constitute
the crime of slander by deed.

Issue: W/N the accused can be acquitted under Article 11(4) of the Revised Penal Code (avoidance
of greater evil or injury)

Held: YES
The Court agreed with the reasons adduced by the appellee (through the Solicitor General):
- Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander, was not proven; she was merely exercising
her right not to give her consent to the marriage after mature consideration
- She can freely refuse to give consent to the marriage despite a previous valid agreement to
marry.
- There were no strain relations between her, her parents, and Vivencio before the incident, so
there was no ill-will in frustrating the marriage. Therefore, there was no malice.
- To penalize the accused for not continuing the marriage would make the State instrumental to
compelling an unwilling party to contract marriage.
- The accused has the privilege to change or reconsider her prior commitment to marry
Vivencio, therefore, it would be inconsistent to convict her of serious slander by deed.
- If a party who agreed to marry backs out should be convicted of serious slander by deed,
then it would be an inherent way to compel unwilling parties to contract marriage without
his/her free consent. This contravenes principle of law that what cannot be done directly,
cannot be done indirectly.
- Norma Hernandez had the right to avoid herself the evil of going through a loveless
marriage pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Judgement
reversed.