ASSAULT 1. PEOPLE v DOLLANTES (151 SCRA 592) June 30, 1987 G.R. 70639 FACTS Marcos Gabutero at the time of his death was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Maglihe, Tayasan, Negros Oriental. The Barangay Captain delivered a speech to start a dance for an approaching fiesta in the evening of April 21, 1983. While the Barangay Captain was delivering a speech, the accused Pedro Dollantes went to the middle of the dancing floor, making a dance movement known in the visayan as "nagkorantsa", brandishing his knife and challenging everyone as to who was brave among the people present; the Barangay Captain approached Pedro Dollantes and reprimanded him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance. However, the accused, instead of heeding to the advice of the Barangay Captain, stabbed the latter on the left arm . Immediately thereafter, accused Hamlet Dollantes, who rushed towards the Barangay Captain, stabbed the Barangay Captain at the back and the other co-accused also took turns in stabbing the Barangay Captain; the Barangay Captain at that time was not armed. When the Barangay Captain fell to the ground and died, the accused took turns in kicking the dead body of the Barangay Captain and were dancing around said dead body. The Barangay Captain suffered eleven (11) wounds in the different parts of his body, two of which happened to be at the back of his dead body. According to the attending physician, Dr. Rogelio Kho who examined the body of the deceased, the victim died of severe hemorrhage and cardiac tamponade due to stab wounds. ISSUE WON, the accused is guilty of the complex crime of assault upon a person in authority resulting to murder HELD When a Barangay Captain is in the act of trying to pacify a person who was making trouble in the dance hall, he is therefore killed while in the performance of his duties. As the Barangay Captain, it was his duty to enforce the laws and ordinances within the Barangay and if in the enforcement thereof, he incurs, the enmity of his people who thereafter treacherously slew him, the crime committed is murder with assault upon a person in authority.
2. JUSTO v COURT OF APPEALS (99 PHIL 453) June 28, 1956 G.R. L-8611 FACTS Nemesio de la Cuesta is a duly appointed District Supervisor of the Bureau of Public Schools stationed at Sarat, Ilocos Norte. On October 16, 1950, he went to Laoag to answer a call from the office to revise the plantilla of his district. At about 11:25 am, de la Cuesta was about to leave his office to take his meal when he saw Severino Justo conversing with Severino Caridad, an Academic Supervisor. Justo requested de la Cuesta to go with him and Caridad to the office of the latter. In the office, Justo asked about the possibility of accommodating a certain Miss Racela as a teacher. Caridad said that there was no vacancy except the position of shop teacher, Justo abruptly said “shet, you are a double crosser. One who cannot keep his promise”, Justo grabbed a lead paper weight and challenged de la Cuesta to go out. They left the office, when they’re in front of the table of Carlos Bueno, de la Cuesta asked Justo to put down the paper weight but instead Justo grabbed the neck and collar of the polo shirt of de la Cuesta, which was torn as a result. Carlos Bueno separated de la Cuesta, but not before de la Cuesta had boxed Justo several times. Justo argued that when de la Cuesta accepted his challenged to fight outside and followed him out of the room of Mr. Caridad where they had a verbal clash, de la Cuesta disrobed himself of the mantle of authority and waived the privilege of protection as a person in authority. ISSUE WON, the de la Cuesta is still a person in authority after accepting the challenge to “go out” and fight HELD The character of person in authority is not assumed or laid off at will, but attaches to a public official until he ceases to be in office. Assuming that the complainant is not actually performing the duties of his office when assaulted, this fact does not bar the existence of the crime of assault upon a person in authority, so long as the impelling motive of the attack is the performance of official duty. Also, where there is a mutual agreement to fight, an aggression ahead of the stipulated time and place would be unlawful since to hold otherwise would be to sanction unexpected assaults contrary to all sense of loyalty and fair play.
3. PEOPLE v RECTO (367 SCRA ___) October 17, 2001 G.R. 129069 FACTS On or about the 18th day of April 1994, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, in Barangay Ambulong, Municipality of Magdiwang, Province of Romblon,SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male together with Barangay Kagawad Macalipay, chairman of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), conducted an investigation on stolen palay in the bodega of certain Rance. At this point, Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto passed by and inquired. Barangay Captain Orbe told him that the palay were stolen. Orbe requested Melchor Recto to stay as he might be needed. While SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male were leaving the premises, the group of Julio Recto, Cornelio Regis, Jr., Dante Regis, Melvar Relox, Teodoro de la Serna, Enrica Regis and Nida Regis arrived. Barangay Captain Orbe advised them not to create trouble, but, Dante Regis pulled a piece of wood and threw it towards them. Thereafter, Julio Recto, while holding a balisong or fan knife, approached Orbe, stepped backward, opened his jacket and pulled out a gun, a de sabog and, immediately pulled the trigger, hitting Barangay Kagawad Macalipay, causing him to fall down on the ground. Then Cornelio Regis, Jr. approached the fallen Macalipay and flipped his bolo at the latter who rolled and fell into the rice paddy. Melchor Recto saw the shooting from his hiding place then ran inside the old dilapidated bathroom of the bodega, then jumped out of the bathroom window and ran. While running, Julio Recto shot him hitting the latter's thigh. Barangay Captain Orbe also got out of the bathroom and landed unto the ricefield. Before he could take a step, he was also shot by Julio Recto at his right elbow, but was still able to continue running. ISSUE WON, Recto is guilty of direct assault when he shot Melchor Recto knowing that the latter is a duly appointed Barangay Chief Tanod HELD In the case at bar, the victim, Melchor Recto — being then the barangay chief tanod of Ambulong, Magdiwang, Romblon — was clearly an agent of a person in authority. However, he was not engaged in the performance of his official duties at the time he was shot. Neither was he attacked on the occasion of such performance. Melchor Recto was on his way home when he happened to pass by the bodega of the Rance couple.Unquestionably, Melchor Recto was a barangay chief tanod; however, at the crime scene he was a mere bystander. Apparently, he was not acting and had no occasion to act in the performance of his official duties that afternoon. Thus, the attack on him did not amount to direct assault.The victim is considered a mere bystander even if he is a Barangay Chief Tanod, an agent of a person in authority, if he is not acting and had no occasion to act in the performance of his official duties. As such, the attacks on him do not amount to direct assault.
4. PEOPLE v RODIL (109 SCRA 306) November 20 1981 G.R. L-35156
FACTS Accused Floro Rodil was charged under an information that states that on April 24, 1971, with the use of a double-bladed dagger, attacked and stabbed to death Philippine Constabulary Lieutenant Guillermo Masana in Indang, Cavite, while Masana was in the performance of his official duties. April 24, 1971, Masana; deceased, together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Philippine Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and Patrolman Felix Mojica was having lunch inside a restaurant. While inside, they saw through the glass window, the accused Rodil blowing his whistle. Lt. Masana then in civilian clothing, accompanied by PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, went out of the restaurant, approached Rodil and asked the latter, after Identifying himself as a PC officer, whether the gun tucked in his waist had a license. Instead of answering, Rodil stepped backwards and tried to draw his gun but Fidel immediately grabbed the gun and surrendered it to Lt. Masana. The three went inside the restaurant. Masana and Rodil occupied a separate table. Masana placed the gun on the table, pulled out a piece of paper and wrote a receipt for the gun and signed it. He asked Rodil to countersign it, but he refused. Rodil asked Masana to return the gun but Masana refused the plea. As Masana was about to stand, Rodil pulled out a double- bladed dagger and stabbed Masana on the chest and stomach several times, which led to Masana’s death. ISSUE WON Rodil is guilty of a complex crime of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in authority HELD While the evidence definitely demonstrated that the Rodil knew because the victim, who was in civilian clothing, told him that he was an agent of a person in authority, he cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in authority for the simple reason that the information does not allege the fact that the accused then knew that, before or at the time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. Such knowledge must be expressly and specifically averred in the information, otherwise, in the absence of such allegation, the required knowledge, like a qualifying circumstance, although proven, would only be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
REBELLION 5. UMIL v RAMOS (187 SCRA 311) FACTS On February 1, 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received by their office, about a “sparrow man” (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male “sparrows” who murdered two (2) CAPCOM mobile patrols the day before, or on January 31 1988 at about 12 o’clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The wounded man’s name was listed by the hospital management as “Ronnie Javellon”, twenty- two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Binan, Laguna. However, it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols. ISSUE Whether or not Rolando was lawfully arrested HELD The arrest was legal. Subversion is a continuing crime. Subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness and violence until the objective of overthrowing organized government is attained. As such, authorities, upon determination of probable cause may execute a valid arrest pursuant to Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
6. PEOPLE v LOVERDIORO (250 SCRA 389) November 29, 1995 G.R. 112235 FACTS Elias Lovedioro with three (3) other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while the latter was walking along Burgos St. away from Daraga, Albay Public Market. SPO3 died on the same died due to massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was charged of the crime murder, and subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro appealed contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion, since it was confirmed that he was a member of the New People’s Army. ISSUE WON, Lovedioro was liable for the crime of rebellion instead of murder HELD In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for the courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political end. The political motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated as it is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven otherwise if no political motive is established and proved, the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.
7. PEOPLE v GERONIMO (100 PHIL 90) October 23, 1956 G.R. L-8936 FACTS On June 24, 1954 a certain Federico Geronimo, et. al. were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping. In the information alleged, five (5) instances including an ambush on Mrs. Aurora Quezon’s convoy, took Eighty Thousand Pesos (P 80, 000) from the Provincial Capitol Building, burned and looted private buildings, shot and cut the neck of said Nemesio Palo, ambushed and fired upon an Army Patrol and ending on February 1954 where Geronimo killed Policarpio Tipay a Barrio Lieutenant. He pleaded guilty to the accusation and the trial court found him guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. He appealed questioning the decision whether the crime committed by him is not the complex crime of rebellion but simply rebellion. ISSUE WON, rebellion be complex with murder, robbery or kidnapping HELD No. Not every act of violence is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it was committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion and the individual misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each other. The individual crime would not be a means necessary for committing the rebellion, as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter.
SEDITION 8. PEOPLE v UMALI (96 PHIL 185) November 29, 1954 G.R. L-5803 FACTS The complex crime of which appellants Narciso Umali, et. al. were found guilty was said to have been committed during the raid staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00- and 9:00 in the evening of November 14, 1951, by armed men. The raid took place resulting in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its content valued at P24, 023, the house of Valentin Robles, valued at P10, 000 and the house of one Mortega, the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five (5) civilians. During and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing one house and two Chinese stores; and that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the town by the Philippine Army stationed in the town led by Captain Alzate. ISSUE WON, Umali, et.al. are liable for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery HELD No. The crime committed here was not rebellion but rather that of sedition. The purpose of the raid and acts of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms, were not exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code under rebellion, but rather, by means of force and intimidation, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official. The raiders did not even attack the seat of the local government rather, the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc. one object, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official.
R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" 9. PEOPLE v BALIBAY ET. AL September 10, 2014 G.R. No. 202701 FACTS On June 16, 2004, at more or less 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon, at Barra, Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, accused Edilberto Balibay Labis and Maricel Balibay Bijaan, were arrested for violation R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" during a buy bust operation. During trial, the prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: SPO1 Mariano Durango, PO3 Danilo Radam, and PO1 Cotta Tanggote. However, PO1 Tanggote testimony failed to ascertain the identity of the seized substance, and failed to establish the manner of handling, storage, labeling and recording of the substance from the time it was seized until it was offered as evidence in court as the substance contained unidentified markings and sealing.Further, the evidence custodian, SPO1 Amacanim, was not presented in court, and due to his absence it cannot be ascertain that the substance offered as evidence in court was the same substance seized from the accused. ISSUE WON, the accused are guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 HELD When there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug. Failure to prove that the specimen allegedly seized from the accused was the same one presented in court is fatal to the prosecution’s case. The failure to identify the corpus delicti with moral certainty, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handing, storage, labeling and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.
10. PEOPLE v SUMILI February 04, 2015 G.R No. 212160 FACTS On June 7, 2006, the PDEA Iligan City Sub-Office received a report from a confidential informant that certain Sumili was selling shabu. Acting on the same,SPO2 Edgardo Englatiera dispatched SPO2 Diosdado Cabahug conduct surveillance on Sumili, which confirmed the truth of the report. At around 5:10 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team headed to the target area. Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer approached Sumili’s house to buy shabu. After Sumili let the poseur-buyer in, the latter gave the pre-arranged signal that the sale has been consummated. Almost immediately, the buy-bust team stormed the house but Sumili escaped by jumping through the window, throwing the marked money at the roof beside his house. The poseur-buyer turned over the sachet of suspected shabu to SPO2 Englatiera, who marked the same with “DC-1,” representing the initials of SPO2 Cabahug. SPO2 Englatiera then prepared a request for laboratory examination and instructed Non-Uniform Personnel Carlito Ong (NUP Ong) to bring the sachet together with the request to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. However, NUP Ong admitted in his testimony that he had failed to bring the sachet on the same day as the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed on June 7, 2006, and since it was a Friday, the delivery of the seized sachet was only done on June 9, 2006. It was only on June 9, 2006, or two (2) days after the buy-bust operation, that NUP Ong was able to bring and turn-over the seized sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory. However, contrary to their claims, June 7, 2006 is not a Friday, but a Wednesday. ISSUE WON Sumili’s conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld HELD When there was delay in the turn- over of the copus delicti to the PNP Crime Laboratory as it was alleged that the date the illegal sachet was seized falls on a Friday and therefore the PNP Crime Laboratory was closed but it appears that said date falls on a Wednesday, not on a Friday, conviction must be immediately set aside. It must be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of proving with the moral certainty that they are the same seized items.
