People vs. Kiichi Omine 61 Phil 609 July 24, 1935 1935 Facts Defendants Autor, Ladio, and Cortesano were working on the hemp plantation of Angel Pulido under the direction of their co-defendant Kiichi Omine, who was the overseer or manager, with a compensation of 1! of the receipts" Omine asked Pulido for permission to open a new road through the plantation, #ut there was a misunderstanding #ecause Pulido contends that he refused to grant this re$uest #ecause there was alread% an un&nished road" On the other hand, Omine contends that Pulido gave him the permission" 'hen Pulido, with his son (ilario, accompanied #% )aito Paton and a moro named *ara#adan, were returning home from a cockpit the% noticed that a considera#le num#er of hemp plants had #een destro%ed for the purpose of opening a new road" Angered #% the destruction of hemp plants, Pulido and his part% went to the house of the defendants where the crime happened" According to the prosecution+ 'hile oended part was talking with Omine, Autor attempted to intervene #ut was prevented #% (ilario and so he attacked him with a #olo #ut wounded him onl% on the left thum#" Ladion and Coretesano then held Pulido #% the arms and Autor struck Pulido in the #reast with his #olo" According to the defendants+ irst to arrive was (ilario, who after appl%ing to Omine an oensive epithet, struck him in the #reast with #rass knuckles" 'hen Autor attempted to intervene, Pulido and his son attacked him with their &sts, (.lario striking him on the right cheek" Ladion and Cortesano ran awa% #efore Pulido was wounded #% Autor" Autor" !ssue 'O/ Autor, Ladio, Cortesano, and Omine can #e convicted as principals" "el# 0) v .ndanan+ .n order that a person ma% #e convicted of a crime #% inducement, it is necessar% that the inducement it is necessar% that the inducement #e made directl% with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement #e the determining cause of the commission of the crime" )C of )pain+ Although the phrases pronounced were imprudent and culpa#le, the% were not so to the etent that the% ma% #e considered the principal and moving cause of the eect produced" Direct inducement cannot #e inferred from such phrases, as in inducement must #e precede the act induced and must #e so
in2uential in producing the criminal act that without it the act would not have #een performed" .t is necessar% that such advice or such words have great dominance and great in2uence over the person who acts, that it is necessar% that the% ma% #e as direct, as e3cacious, and as powerful as ph%sical or moral coercion or as violence itself" (ence, the 4 co-defendants of Autor are not responsi#le for the in5ur% in2icted #% him on Angel Pulido" 6udging from the nature of the wound, w7c was a#t 11 inches in length, it is pro#a#le that it was caused #% the point of the #olo on a downward stroke" .t was not a sta# wound, and was pro#a#l% given during a commotion and w7o #eing aimed at an% particular part of the #od%" 8oreover, as Autor struck the oended onl% once, it is indicative that it was not his intention to take the oended part%9s life" :hus, Omine, Ladion, and Cortesano are ac$uitted and Autor is lia#le onl% of lesion graves"
People vs. $atima% &' (os. 121651 ) 52 *u+ust 16, 2000
Facts ; %ear old 8%ra 'atimar testi&ed that one evening, she slept together with her #rothers and sisters, namel% *ernardo, 8arilou, Leonardo, Ariel and Lea, without her mother who went to the hospital as her aunt was a#out to give #irth< that her father slept with them in the same room" At earl% dawn, she felt that some#od% was on top of her and kissing her neck" :he defendant proceeded to threaten the victim and succeeded in having seual intercourse against her will" Another incident happened shortl% thereafter< when the victim was again assaulted in their communal kitchen while she was preparing her meals" Afterwards, she was threatened #% her father not to tell an%one a#out the incident" :he accused denied the incident and alleged the defense of ali#i, and that he was not at home when the said crime happened" !ssue 'hether or not the possi#ilit% of rape is negated #% the presence of famil% mem#er sin the place where the crime happened "el# :he possi#ilit% of rape is not negated #% the presence of even the whole famil% of the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of #eing discovered" .ndeed, the Court pointed out onl% recentl% in People v" Arteche Antonio % Pa%agan that =for rape to #e committed, it is not necessar% for the place to #e ideal, or the weather to
#e &ne, for rapists #ear no respect for locale and time when the% carr% out their evil deed" >ape ma% #e committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist?s spouse was asleep, or in a small room where other famil% mem#ers also slept, as in the instant case" :he presence of people near#% does not deter rapists from committing their odious act"
People s. Pincalin 102 -'* 136 Janua%y 22, 191
Facts :o avenge those killings, the herein accused, 6ose Pincalin, >odolfo *eltran, @duardo @mpleo and Ale5andro 6andomon, all isa%ans Becept *eltran and mem#ers of the Oo and (app%-o-Luck% gangs, conspired at a#out ten o?clock in the morning of that same ood rida% to kill some of their fellow-prisoners in dormitor% E-A of the /ew *ili#id Prison, 8un-tinlupa, >iFal, who were mem#ers of the )putnik gang" :he% agreed that Pincalin would kill Leonardo rancisco, that *eltran and @mpleo would kill ictorino A#ril, and that 6andomon would kill lorentino :ilosa" :he accused armed themselves with improvised #laded weapons known among prisoners as matalas" A#out an hour later, the accused proceeded to implement the o#5ective of the conspirac%" 'hile A#ril was seated on his #ed watching someone who was making a #asket, *eltran and @mpleo approached him frontall% and sta##ed him" A#ril fell on the 2oor" 'hile in that position, @mpleo sta##ed him si times while *eltran sta##ed him &ve times" :he second victim, :ilosa, was standing near the door of the dormitor% when 6andomon sta##ed him on the right side of his #od%" As :ilosa resisted, 6andomon sta##ed him repeatedl% until he collapsed on the 2oor" :he third victim, rancisco, was standing near a wall facing the prison hospital and, as he heard A#ril asking wh% he was assaulted when he had not done an%thing wrong, rancisco was sta##ed #% Pincalin in the a#domen near the waist" rancisco avoided further assaults from Pincalin #% clim#ing a window" Afterwards, Pincalin, @mpleo, *eltran and 6andomon surrendered with their weapons to a prison inspector named 8aGalac and a prison guard named Pantua" On that same da% the% eecuted separate etra5udicial confessions in :agalog which were sworn to #efore the Assistant Director of Prisons" :he autops% disclosed that :ilosa, 4H, a native of 8ulana%, IueFon, suered si gaping sta# wounds in the chest and a#domen, two of which penetrated his right lung and liver, and two sta# wounds in the left forearm, or eight sta# wounds in all"
!ssue 'O/ the accused is lia#le for comple crime of murder and frustrated murder" "el# Jes - 'e &nd that the four accused are guilt% of the comple crime of dou#le murder and frustrated murder aggravated #% $uasi-recidivism" :his case is governed #% the rule that when for the attainment of a single purpose, which constitutes an oense various acts are eecuted, such acts must #e considered as onl% one oense, a comple one" .n other words, where a conspirac% animates several, persons with a single purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of eecution, giving rise to a comple oense" arious acts committed under one criminal impulse ma% constitute a single comple oense"
/atulanon vs. People &' (o. 1395 epteme% 15, 2006
Facts :his petition assails the Octo#er 4, 1E decision of the ca in ca-gr no"1;M, a3rming with modi&cation the april 1, 14 decision of the >:C of enera )antos Cit%, convicting Leonila #atulanon of @stafa through falsi&cation of commercial documents" :he complainant Polomok Credit cooperative incorporated BPCC. emplo%ed #atulanon as its cashier7manager from 8a% 1E up to Decem#er11, 1E;" )he was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the mem#er of the cooperative" During an audit conducted in Decem#er 1E;, certain irregularities concerning the release of loans were discovered" :hereafter, four informations of estafa thru falsi&cations was &led" !ssue 'O/ @stafa through falsi&cation of commercial documents are comple crime" "el# /o - :here is no comple crime of estafa through falsi&cation of private document< .f the falsi&cation of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to #e charged is falsi&cation< .f the estafa can #e committed without the necessit% of falsif%ing a document, the proper crime to #e charged is estafa"
People vs. Pat%ia%cha
&' (o. 13545 epteme% 29, 2000 Facts On August 1N, 1, an .nformation for murder was &led against 6ose Patriarca, 6r", alias Ka D5ango, Carlos /arra, Ka 6essie, et al", for killing Alfredo Arevalo" Accused-appellant 6ose Patriarca, 6r" was also charged with 8urder for the killing of one >ud% de *or5a and a certain @lmer Cadag under .nformations docketed as Criminal Cases /os" ;NN and ;NH;, respectivel%" On 6anuar% ;, 1E, the lower court rendered its decision convicting the herein accused-appellant" :hus, Accused-Appellant &led his appeal" (owever, while his appeal was pending, he applied for amnest% under Proclamation /o" H;M amending Proclamation /o" 4MH, dated 8arch ;, 1M, entitled ranting Amnest% to >e#els, .nsurgents, and All Other Persons 'ho (ave or 8a% (ave Committed Crimes Against Pu#lic Order, Other Crimes Committed in urtherance of Political @nds, and iolations of the Article of 'ar, and Creating a /ational Amnest% Commission" (is application was favora#l% granted #% the /ational Amnest% *oard" After a careful veri&cation and evaluation on the claims of the applicant, the Local Amnest% *oard concluded that his activities were done in the pursuit of his political #eliefs" .t, thus, recommended on ; 8a% 1E the grant of his application for amnest%" :he Commission, in its deli#eration on the application on ;; Octo#er 1, resolved to approve the recommendation of the Local Amnest% *oard" :he O3ce of the )olicitor eneral, in its letter dated 6une ;4, ; to the /ational Amnest% Commission, re$uested information as to whether or not a motion for reconsideration was &led #% an% part%, and the action, if there was an%, taken #% the /AC" .n his repl% dated 6une ;E, ;, /AC Chairman :adiar wrote, among other things, that there has #een no motion for reconsideration &led #% an% part%" Accused-appellant 6ose /" Patriarca, 6r" was granted amnest% under Proclamation /o" H;M on 8a% 1H, 1N" !ssue 'hether or not the grant of amnest% in favor of 6ose Patriarca, 6r" - while the various criminal cases &led against him were pending - shall completel% etinguished his criminal lia#ilit% "el# Amnest% commonl% denotes a general pardon to re#els for their treason or other high political oenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grant to the su#5ects of another, who have oended, #% some #reach, the law of nations" Amnest% looks
#ackward, and a#olishes and puts into o#livion, the oense itself< it so overlooks and o#literates the oense with which he is charged, that the person released #% amnest% stands #efore the law precisel% as though he had committed no oense" Paragraph 4 of Article E of the >evised Penal Code provides that criminal lia#ilit% is totall% etinguished #% amnest%, which completel% etinguishes the penalt% and all its eects" .n the case of People vs" Casido, the dierence #etween pardon and amnest% is given+ Pardon is granted #% the Chief @ecutive and as such it is a private act which must #e pleaded and proved #% the person pardoned, #ecause the courts take no notice thereof< while amnest% #% Proclamation of the Chief @ecutive with the concurrence of Congress, is a pu#lic act of which the courts should take 5udicial notice" Pardon is granted to one after conviction< while amnest% is granted to classes of persons or communities who ma% #e guilt% of political oenses, generall% #efore or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction" Pardon looks forward and relieves the oender from the conse$uences of an oense of which he has #een convicted, that is, it a#olishes or forgives the punishment, and for that reason it does Qnot work the restoration of the rights to hold pu#lic o3ce, or the right of surage, unless such rights #e epressl% restored #% the terms of the pardon,Q and it Qin no case eempts the culprit from the pa%ment of the civil indemnit% imposed upon him #% the sentenceQ BArticle 4N, >evised Penal Code" 'hile amnest% looks #ackward and a#olishes and puts into o#livion the oense itself, it so overlooks and o#literates the oense with which he is charged that the person released #% amnest% stands #efore the law precisel% as though he had committed no oense" :his Court takes 5udicial notice of the grant of amnest% upon accused-appellant 6ose /" Patriarca, 6r" Once granted, it is #inding and eective" .t serves to put an end to the appeal"
al+a#o vs. -* 19 -'* 304 *u+ust 30, 1990
Facts Petitioner was charged with the crime of serious ph%sical in5uries #efore the >:C of IueFon Cit%" After trial, 5udgment was rendered on Octo#er 1N, 1EN &nding him guilt% #e%ond reasona#le dou#t of the crime charged" On Octo#er 1H, 1EN, petitioner &led an application for pro#ation with the trial court" :he application was granted in an Order dated April 1, 1EH" :he order
contained with condition to pa% the victim in the amount of ;, ever% month during the entire period of his pro#ation" or the months of 8a%, 6une, 6ul%, August, )eptem#er and Octo#er, 1EH, petitioner complied with the a#ove condition #% pa%ing in checks the said sum of P;, " monthl%, through the Cit% Pro#ation O3cer, Perla DiaF AlonFo" Private respondent rancisco Luk#an, 6r" voluntaril% accepted the checks and su#se$uentl% encashed them" On )eptem#er 1, 1EH, private respondent rancisco Luk#an, 6r" &led a motion for the issuance of a writ of eecution for the enforcement of the civil lia#ilit% ad5udged in his favor in the criminal case" ew months later, the motion was granted #% the court" )u#se$uentl%, a motion for reconsideration was &led #% petitioner #ut it was denied on Decem#er ;;, 1EH" After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner &led directl% with this Court a petition for review of the trial court?s order granting the motion for issuance of a writ of eecution" On 8arch 1N, 1E, respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision a3rming the order of the trial court granting the motion for the issuance of a writ of eecution" A motion for reconsideration was &led #% petitioner #ut respondent Court of Appeals denied the motion in a resolution dated August 4, 1E" !ssue 'O/ the court of appeals erred in holding that the condition in the pro#ation order modif%ing or altering the civil lia#ilit% of the oender is unauthoriFed and not sanctioned #% law" "el# es wherein we ruled that, although the eecution of sentence is suspended #% the grant of pro#ation, it does not follow that the civil lia#ilit% of the oender, if an%, is etinguished"
"ei%s o 'aymun#o -ast%o vs. /ustos 2 -'* 32 Fe%ua%y 2, 1969 Facts *ustos was convicted of homicide for killing Castro, ; mitigating circumstance R passion or o#fuscation S voluntar% surrender" !ssue
'O/ the claim therefor is made in the criminal proceedings itself or in a separate civil action" "el# :he items of damages in cases of death caused #% a crime are recovera#le either claim is made in the criminal proceedings itself or in a separate civil action" .n the instant case, recover% of such damages is #eing sought in the criminal proceedings, #ut even if it were claimed otherwise, the indemnit% and damages would #e the same, for generall%, the items of damages are identical in #oth procedures, ecept with respect to attorne%?s fees and epenses of litigation which can #e awarded onl% when a separate civil action is instituted" 'hen the commission of a crime results in death, the civil o#ligations arising therefrom are governed #% the penal laws, = su#5ect to the provisions of Art" ;1HH, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter T... of this *ook B*ook . regulating damagesU" BArt" 11N1, Civil Code @ver% person criminall% lia#le for a felon% is also civill% lia#le" BArt" 1, >evised Penal Code :his civil lia#ilit%, in case the felon% involves death, includes indemni&cation for conse$uential damages BArt" 1M, id" and said conse$uential damages in turn include = those suered #% his famil% or #% a third person #% reason of the crime"U BArt" 1H, id"
