Case Digests

CASE DIGEST CRIMINAL LAW 2

RF LIM, JD1A

Contents GR No. 88189: PEOPLE VS ABALOS ................ ................. .................. ................. .................. ................. .................. ....2 G.R. No. 121047-57: LAYUG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN ....................................................................................................3 G.R. No. 93173: SAAVEDRA VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE........................................................................................4 G.R. No. 162187: VILLANUEVA VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE .................. ................. .................. ................. ................5 G.R. No. 178626: LEGRAMA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN ................. .................. ................. ................. .................. .............6 G.R. No. 197567: GARCIA VS. OMBUDSMAN .............................................................................................................7 G.R. No. 196966: PEOPLE VS. MAONGCO ..................................................................................................................8 G.R. No. 175939: PEOPLE VS. LAGMAN ......................................................................................................................9 G.R. No. 214490: LESCANO VS. PEOPLE .................................................................................................................. 10 G.R. No. 200748: DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE ............................................................................................................... 11 G.R. No. 157870: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD AND PDEA ........................................ 12 G.R. No. L-33254 & G.R. No. L-33253: PEOPLE VS. SENDAYDIEGO ......................................................................... 13 G.R. No. 190834: LIM VS. PEOPLE ........................................................................................................................... 14 G.R. No. 197562: FRANSDILLA VS. PEOPLE ................ ................. .................. ................. .................. ................. ....... 15 G.R. No. 200081: PEOPLE VS. CRUZ ......................................................................................................................... 16 G.R. No. 206442: CANCERAN VS. PEOPLE ............................................................................................................... 17


RF LIM, JD1A GR No. 88189: PEOPLE VS ABALOS

Facts: Tiburcio Abalos, the appellant, was the son of Police Major Cecilio Abalos. Pfc. Sofronio Labine, a member of Integrated National Police (INP), was the victim and was wearing his uniform during the incident. The incident transpired during a barangay fiesta in Canlapwas, Catbalogan, Samar. The victim was the police officer on duty to keep peace in order during the celebration of fiesta. The incident happened when a woman shouted that somebody was making trouble. The victim appeared in the scene and saluted to Major Abalos. As Major Abalos leveled his carbine at the victim, appellant hurriedly left and procured a piece of wood. When the appellant returned, he then, from behind, swiftly swung with that wooden piece of wood at the back right side of labine’s head.

The appellant, on his defense, alleged that the victim was a member of New People’s Army (NPA) and was about to attack his father. The court found the Tiburcio Abalos guilty of direct assult with murder. Issue: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of a complex crime of direct assault with murder. Ruling: The court ruled in the affirmative. Under Article 148, there are two ways of committing direct assault. One of those was committed by the appellant which has the following elements: (1) there must be an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent; (2) the assault was made when the said person was performing his duties or on the occasion of such performance; (3) and the accused knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is, that the accused must have the intention to offend, injure or assault the offended party as a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority. In the instant case, the victim was a duly appointed member of the INP and, thus, was an agent of a person in authority. There was also no dispute that he was in the actual performance of his duties when assaulted by the appellant, that is, he was maintaining peace and order during the barangay fiesta. Moreover, the appellant himself testified that he personally knew the victim to be a policeman and, in fact, the victim was then wearing his uniform. These facts should have sufficiently deterred appellant from attacking him, and his defiant conduct clearly demonstrates that he really had the criminal intent to assault and injure an agent of the law. The killing in the instant case constituted the felony of murder qualified by alevosia through treacherous means deliberately adopted because Labine was struck from behind while he was being confronted at the same time by appellant's father. The evidence shows that appellant deliberately went behind the victim whom he then hit with a piece of wood which he deliberately got for that purpose.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 121047-57: LAYUG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: Ponciano Layug, the petitioner, was duly appointed as a secondary public school teacher of Davao del Sur National High School. The subjects assigned to him were English and Science. However, the petitioner refused to teach the Science subjects because he said that he was inexperienced and incompetent with regard to the subject. Thereafter, it was found out that the science classes assigned to him were unattended for almost a week, even if he was inside the campus talking with friends and security guards. It was alleged that he has falsified his daily time record (DTR) from June 1986 to Arpil 1987. In June 1986, he submitted a signed daily time record but the principal did not sign it. Thus, a complaint for estafa through falsification of documents against him was filed. It was alleged that he made it appear that he had completed the required number of work hours in his DTR. On May 1986, the petitioner filed with Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (DECS) in Davao City complaint for harassment and oppression and for unjustifiable refusal to release his vacation salary. He wrote a letter indicating his request for the subjects that he was competent, experienced and ready. It was found out the he was not paid his salary from June 1986 to April 1987. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of falsification of public documents. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime filed against him. Under Article 171 of RPC, to convict an accused of crime of falsification of public documents, the following requisites must be established: (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in narration of facts; (2) he has the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; (3) the facts narrated by him was absolutely false; and (4) the act of falsification was committed to the damage of a third party or with intent to cause such damage. In the case at bar, the Supreme court found that the entry made by the petitioner in his daily time record was not absolutely false as he did report for work at the DSNHS. The entry in his DTR was made in good faith, he just acted in an erroneous belief that he had the choice of what subjects to be taught. Moreover, with regard to the fourth requisite stated above, it was found that he did not unduly benefit from his DTR because actually he was deprived of his salary from June 1986 to April 1987, thus no government fund was paid to him.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 93173: SAAVEDRA VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Facts: Honorio Saavedra, the petitioner, bought the stocks of Pine Philippines Inc. (PPI) for P1.2 million from the owners of the company, including the Gregorio Ramos, the private respondent. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Deed of Assignment (DOA) were executed to evidence the transaction. The MOA has an automatic rescission clause in cause any installment was not paid on its due date. The last installment payment due on September 15, 1987 was withheld by the petitioner for the reason that the sellers failed to comply with their warranties. The installment payment was deposited in an escrow fund and will be released once the warranties were complied with. On November 5, 1987, the petitioner filed a verified civil complaint claiming for damages in behalf of PPI against the private respondent, alleging that the petitioner was the President and principal stockholder of the company. However, it was challenged by the private respondent claiming that the petitioner ceased to be its president when the sale of PPI stocks was automatically rescinded on September 15, 1987. On December 7, 1987, the private respondent filed a criminal case for p erjury against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner perjured himself when he declared himself as president in the verified civil complaint. The Provincial Prosecutor found a prima facie evidence case for perjury. Issue: Whether or not there is a prima facie case of perjury when the petitioner filed a verified civil case as president in behalf of PPI on November 5, 1987. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that there was no prima face case of perjury. There are four elements of perjury, to wit: (1) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (2) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (3) that in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (4) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence that would prove that the falsehood made was done willfully and deliberately. As a matter of fact, the assertion of the petitioner was done in good faith, in the belief that the non- payment of the last installment price was justified by the seller’s non -compliance of their warranties. Furthermore, another element of perjury was absent – the sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law. The falsehood made in a verified pleading is not mandated by law to be verified.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 162187: VILLANUEVA VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

Facts: Refractories Corporation of the Philippines (RCP), represented by its Senior Vice President Criste Villanueva, the petitioner, and Assistant General Manager Jesus Borgonia, had a conference with Hamburg Trading Corporation (HTC), represented by its President Horst-Kessler Von Sprengeisen, the private respondent, and Sales Manager Dennis Gonzales. The conference ensued to come up with an agreement that HTC shall reform its price policy of its importation and sale of refractory bricks from Germany to conform to the provision of RA 7843. Thereafter, Borgonio prepared the compromised agreement which was signed by Borgonio and petitioner. It was delivered to the private respondent for signature, but it was not signed. Borgonio revised the agreement by inserting the phrase “based on the findings of the BIS” and then signed by Borgonio and petitioner. It was delivered to the private respondent and then it was signed by him. Thereafter, HTC filed a Motion to declare the Compromise Agreement null and void on the grounds that there was fraud during negotiation and that insertion and/or substitution of the facts not agreed upon was deliberately and surreptitiously made by RPC. HTC averred that the petitioner violated Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The RCP opposed the motion when Villanueva filed a criminal complaint of perjury against the private petitioner in its (private petitioner) Urgent Motion. Issue:

Whether or not there was a probable cause for the private respondent’s indictment for perjury. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Perjury has the following elements: (a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. In the case at bar, the court found that there was no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood on the part of the private respondent. Even if the private respondent erred in its allegation that it was Villanueva who inserted the phrase in the agreement, the former cannot be held liable of perjury because it is natural for one to presume that the latter made the insertion because he was a signatory to the agreement.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 178626: LEGRAMA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts: Cecilla Legrama, the petitioner, was the Treasurer of the Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales. Commission on Audit (COA) conduted an examination of cash and account of the petitioner. Thereafter, the audit team found that the petitioner is short of P1,152,900.75. A criminal case of Malversation of Public Funds was charged against the petitioner. Petitioner denied that she put the amount involved to personal use and presented various sales invoice, chits, vale forms, and disbursement voucher to prove her claim. During trial, the petitioner failed to account for the shortage after she was demanded to do so. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of committing Malversation of Public Funds. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Under Articlce 217 of the RPC, Malversation of Public Funds has the following elements: (1) that the offender be a public officer; (2) he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and (4) he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. Under Article 217, a presumption was installed that upon demand by any duly authorized officer, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property – with which said officer is accountable – should be prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or properties to personal use.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 197567: GARCIA VS. OMBUDSMAN

Facts: Leonardo Roman, Romeo Mendiola, Pastor Vichuaco, Aurora Tiambeng and Numeriano Medina were the former officers of Bataan Provincial Office as Governor, Executive Assistance, Provincial Treasurer, Budget Officer, and incumbent Provincial Accountant, respectively. They were the respondents in this case. While the petitioner is the incumbent Governor of Bataan, Enrique Garcia. During the term of Roman as Governor in 2003, he entered into a contract with VF Construction for the construction of mini-theater at Bataan State College. He signed and issued a certification of acceptance stating that the project is 100% completed. Thereafter, two (2) checks amounting to P1,655,318.18 each were issued by Roman and Vichuaco pursuant to two (2) separate Disbursement Vouchers prepared and issued by De Pano, Medina, and Vichuaco, approved for payment by Roman. In addition, an Allotment and Obligation Slips (ALOBS) was issued, prepared, and signed by De Pano, T iambeng, and Medina to reimiburse VF Construction for the cost of labor and materials. Tiambeng also certified in the ALOBS the “existence of an appropriation for the project,” which was later on found that there was no valid appropriation of the project, hence the construction contract was null and void. Garcia authorized the inspection of the project and discovered that while the construction already commenced, it remained unfinished. Then, Garcia filed a complaint charging the respondents the crime of Malversation of public funds through Falsification of Public Documents. Issue: Whether or not the respondents are guilty of the said crime charged. Ruling: The Supreme Court did not find the respondents guilty of Malversation of public funds through Falsification of Public Documents. Under Article 217 of the RPC, in the crime of Malversation of P ublic Funds, the offender misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such public funds for the latter’s personal use. , the Court observes that there lies no evidence which would give a prima facie indication that the funds disbursed for the project were misappropriated for any personal use. The CoA Memo shows that the Province’s funds were used for a public purpose, i.e., the mini -theater project, albeit without any allotment issued therefor. Garcia also fails to convince the Court that the Province’s funds were diverted to some personal purpose.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 196966: PEOPLE VS. MAONGCO

Facts: Alvin Carpio was apprehended for illegal possession of dangerous drug (shabu) during the conduct of special operation. When he was asked about the source of the shabu, he told the police that it was Michael Maongco. Thereafter, police officers conducted an operation involving Carpio buying two (2) “bulto” of shabu from Maongco. Thereafter, the police officers went to the place where Maongco was waiting and was apprehended after the latter showed the one (1) “bulto” of shabu. Arugay asked where the other “bulto” was, Maongco said that it was in the possession of Phans Bandali who was waiting in Jollibee, Pantranco Branch. Thereafter, they went to that place and Maongco told the police officers that Bandali was wearing a blue t-shirt. Vener Ong, a polic officer, approached Bandali and demanded from the latter the other half of the drugs ordered. Bandali voluntarily handed over a sachet of shabu. Then, Bandali was apprised of his violation and of his constitutional rights. The seized shabu was properly preserved in accoradance with Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165. Maongco and Bandali, the petitioner, were both charged for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Acto of 2002). The petitioners alleged there was no legitimate buybust operation because there was no actual sale of dangerous drug in the operation conducted by police officers. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners may still be held criminally liable under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 even if there was no legitimate buy-bust operation. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Well-settled in jurisprudence that the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The same ruling may also be applied to the other acts penalized under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 because for the accused to be able to trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or transport any dangerous drug, he must necessarily be in possession of said drugs. Thus, still, the petitioner are held liable.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 175939: PEOPLE VS. LAGMAN

Facts: The PNP – Olongapo City conducted a test-buy operation against Lagman, the petitioner, as he was suspected as dealer of Marijuana. During the search operation in the house o f the petitioner, a 750 grams of dried leaves of Marijuana, a prohibited drug, was found. Thereafter, a case of illegal sale of prohibited drugs was filed against him initially, but the prosecutor of the case wanted to modify the crime charged to illegal possession of prohibited drugs. However, the RTC did not act on the motion to modify. The RTC convicted the petitioner of illegal possession which was affirmed by the CA. Issue: Whether or not the offense of illegal possession of prohibited drugs is necessarily included in the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. While no conviction for the unlawful sale of prohibited drugs may be had under the present circumstances, the established principle is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 214490: LESCANO VS. PEOPLE

Facts: An informant sought the assistance of the City Anit-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Team (CAIDSOT) – Olangapo City on the alleged drug-pushing activity of Howard Lescano, the petitioner. After CAIDSOT found out the information was true, it conducted a buy-bust operation to apprehend the petitioner. During the buybust operation, PO3 Javier bought marijuana to the petitioner and paying a marked P100 bill. The seized transparent plastic sachet contained 1.4 grams of marijuana. PO3 Javier marked the seized plastic sachet with the initials “HJ” and turned it over to SPO1 Delos Reyes. At the CAIDSOT office, an inventory was conducted and photographs of marked money and seized plastic sachet were taken. The plastic sachet then was brought to PNP Crime Laboratory and was tested positive as Marijuana. Thereafter, the petitioner was charged of the illegal sale of prohibited drugs. Issue: Whether or not the accused-petitioner is guilty of illegal sale of prohibited drugs. Ruling: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused. In the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, 2 elements must be proved by the prosecutions, to wit: (1) the proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish the second element which is the corpus delicti. The requirement of Section 21(1) of RA 9165 as to the seizure of drugs were not complied with. Further, it was claimed by the prosecution that the seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia is the result of carefully planned operations, and not as what has been provided in RA 9165 Section 21(1).


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 200748: DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE

Facts: An entrapment operation was conducted by NBI after a complaint from Corazon Absin that James Dela Cruz, the petitioner, was demanding P100,000 in exchange o f the release of her live-in partner Ariel for the alleged selling of drugs. The petitioner was nabbed by the NBI by using a pre-marked P500-bill with fluorescent powder, which was part of the money demanded by James. Thereafter, the petitioner was brought to the Forensic Office of NBI wherein he was required to submit a urine sample for drug testing even after his refusal and he wanted it done by the PNP Crime Laboratory, and he also requested to call his lawyer prior to taking of his urine sample but was denied. The drug test result was positive. Thus, he was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 for the illegal use of Shabu. Issue: Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner was legal. Ruling: The Supreme Court declared that the drug testing conducted upon the petitioner was not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence. The drug testing in Section 15 of RA 9165 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the same law. The court failed to see how a urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion which was the crime for which the reason of apprehension was conducted. Hence, the drug test was inadmissible as evidence and the petitioner was acquitted for the offense charged against him.


RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 157870: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD AND PDEA Facts: The constitutionality of the Section 36 of RA 9165 was contested in 3 cases consolidated with regard to mandatory drug testing on public officers, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses. The drug test is to be conducted by drug testing laboratory accredited and monitored by Department of Health. And, those found out to be positive for dangerous drugs shall be subjected to the provision of Section 15 of RA 9165. Issue: Whether or not some provisions of Article 36 of RA 9165 violate the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure and the equal protection clause. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory drug test on student of secondary and tertiary schools and officers and employees and public and private offices are constitutional. In the case of student, there was a primary waiver on their part of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntary submitting their persons to the parental authority of the school authority. In case of employees, the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing emanates from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement of the employer. On persons charge before the prosecutor’s office of crimes with penalty of more than 6 years and 1 day of imprisonment was unconstitutional because it is a blatant attempt to harness medical test as a tool from criminal prosecution, which violates the right to privacy.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. L-33254 & G.R. No. L-33253: PEOPLE VS. SENDAYDIEGO

Facts: Licerio Sendaydiego, the provincial treasure of Pangasinan, and Anastacio Quimirit, the provincial auditor, in conspiracy with Juan Samson, the employee of lumber and hardware store in Dagupan, were the defendant in the case of committing Malversation of funds through falsification of public documents charged against them. Six (6) vouchers for the payment of lumber and hardware materials used for the repairs of bridges. The signatures in supporting documents of one of the vouchers were forged, and the signatures of the 2 signatories of the other 5 vouchers were also forged and denied by those signatories. Juan Samson played a stellar role in the processing of the six vouchers. He used to be an employee of the provincial treasurer's office. He resigned and worked with several firms doing business with the provincial government. He was in possession of the said vouchers and the supporting documents for presentment for payment in the provincial treasurer’s office. His 2 sig natures on the margin of each of 6 vouchers were authentic. Issue: Whether or not Juan Samson, a private person, may be held liable for Malversation through falsification of public documents. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. It said that Samson was a co-principal with Sendaydiego whom is a public official in the commission of 6 counts of malversation through falsification of public documents. A private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation.


RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 190834: LIM VS. PEOPLE Facts: Ariel Lim, the petitioner, issued 2 checks amounting to P100,000 each in favor of Willie Castor as campaign donation. Thereafter, Castor used the checks for the payment of printing materials. Castor ordered Lim to make a stop-payment order for the said checks. Then, the checks, upon presentment for payment by Magna Badiee, were dishonored. Badiee, the private complainant, sent 2 demand letters to Lim. After 1 month from the receipt of demand letters, he received a subpoena from prosecutor’s officer and he wrote a check amounting to P200,000 which was encashed by Dabiee. 6 months after payment, two cases of violation of BP 22 were filed against Lim. Issue: Whether or not Lim still violated BP 22 despite payment 6 months before the filing of the case. Ruling: The Supreme Court found the petitioner not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of BP 22. The spirit of the law which, for B.P. Blg. 22, is the protection of the credibility and stability of the banking system, would not be served by penalizing people who have evidently made amends for their mistakes and made restitution for damages even before charges have been filed against them. In effect, the payment of the checks before the filing of the informations has already attained the purpose of the law.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 197562: FRANSDILLA VS. PEOPLE

Facts: Aurora Engson Fransdilla, the petitioner, along with 4 men was able to enter the house of Cynthia Yreverre by introducing herself that she was from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). They were able to rob the house and took in possession of the jewelries, bags, watch and cash belonging to Cynthia and her sister Lalaine Yreverre. During the robbery, it was the 4 men who used threats to rob the ho use. They herded the maids, lalaine’s cousin and niece inside the bodega. A case was filed against Fransdilla and 4 men, charging them of complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed persons and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed persons and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons even if she was not the one who inflicted violence or intimidation upon the victim. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The case at bar is complex crime, it being having the elements of both crimes in a single act. It is immaterial whether the petitioner was not the one inflicted injury and intimidation because she was principally l iable on the crime committed, it being done in conspiracy with those 4 men who inflicted violence and intimidation. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 200081: PEOPLE VS. CRUZ

Facts: Edgardo Cruz, the accused, registered and manage the business of Chromax Marketing “Chromax”. He was responsible to attend to the needs of the customers, receive orders, issue receipts and accept payments, and to prepare daily sales report for Carlos, the owner of the business, to be able for the latter to monitor the sales, credits and collection. There was suspicion when despite the increase in the number of clients, the financial capital remained unimpressive. Thereafter, it was found out that Cruz was stealing from Chromax. In the balance sheet, there was an acknowledgment that the amount lost was actually used by Cruz which he promises to pay. Furthermore, irregularity in the issuance of receipt was discovered. Thus, Carlos filed a case against of Qualified Theft against Cruz. Issue: Whether or not Cruz was guilty of Qualified Theft. Ruling: The Supreme Court found Cruz guilty of Qualified Theft. In the crime of qualified theft, the following elements are necessary, to wit: (1) taking of personal property; (2) said property belongs to another; (3) said taking was done with intent to gain; (4) taking was done without owner’s consent; (5) taking was done without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and (6) taking was done with grave abuse of confidence. And all these elements were present in the instant case as he confessed that he was the one who took the money for his personal use without the consent of Carlos. He has done this in violation of trust given him by Carlos as he was the one responsible in the collection of money from customers.


RF LIM, JD1A G.R. No. 206442: CANCERAN VS. PEOPLE

Facts: In Ororama Mega Center, Canceran approach one of the counters with pushing cart containing 2 boxes of magic flakes which he paid P1,423. However, upon inspection of the boxes it was found out that the contents were 14 smaller boxes of Ponds Beauty White Cream worth P28,627.20. He was charged of frustrated theft. Issue: Whether or not there is a crime of frustrated theft. Ruling:

Case Digests

Recommend Documents