Constitutional law 2 Rights of the accusedFull description
digest
consti2Full description
salazar v peopleFull description
people vs durango case digestFull description
Search and Seizures, Search Warrant can be severed.Full description
Full description
political law - double jeopardyFull description
Digest in Crim 2
Constitutional Law Bill of RightsFull description
CRIMCRIM
CaseFull description
Lumauig v. People - G.R. No. 166680 (July 7, 2014) Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code - Failure of Accountable Officer to Render AccountsFull description
G.R. No. 137405Full description
Digest of Comerciante v. PeopleFull description
Criminal Procedure digest
People v Padan: FIGHTING NEMO V-CREW™ A Quality Digest by The V-CREW™
Montemayor, J. Montemayor, J. • 1957
[FACTS] In CFI of Manila: Marina Padan (performer), Jose Fajardo y Garcia (manager), Cosme Espinosa (performer), and Ernesto Reyes (ticket collector and/or exhibitor) were charged with a violation of Art. 201, RPC: Alleged to have conspired to have exhibited or cause to be exhibited o immoral scenes and acts Jose Fajardo (manager) and Ernesto Reyes (ticket collector and/or o exhibitor) hired co-accused Marina Padan and Cosme Espinosa to act as performers or exhibitionists to perform and in fact performed fact performed sexual intercourse in the presence of many spectators, thereby performing highly immoral and indecent acts or shows thereat All pleaded not guilty (except Padan who changed change d her plea to guilty) o Eventually, all were found guilty. o Facts according to the CFI: Inside a shed (in Tondo, Manila) M anila) normally used for Ping-Pong, an o exhibition of human “FIGHTING FISH” was held. (Fighting fish = the act of sex performed in front of a crowd) Tickets sold at P3 each (90 paying customers; 16 watched for free) o Fajardo made the crowd choose between Marina Padan and “Concha” o (Padan = louder round of applause); Fajardo then chose Espinosa to perform with her. They performed first beside then on an army bed. o Manila Police must have heard about it; bought tickets and some o plain-clothes officers attended. AFTER the show, they conducted a raid and made arrests. They took o pictures of Padan and Espinosa naked for evidence. (V-Crew: please take note na talagang tinapos nila ang show. Enjoy siguro sila.) Guilty; All 4 accused appealed. (Although Espinosa and Reyes failed to to file their briefs within the prescribed period.) Padan appeal: since she pleaded guilty, urges the reduction of her penalty. Fajardo appeal: denied being a manager and said only participation was due to the crowd’s demand (he was popular for his siga-siga character) so he chose one man and woman to perform and did not even watch the show.
[HELD] DECISION AFFIRMED. Fajardo is actually the MOST GUILTY of the 4: organized it and probably earned the most. On Padan’s appeal: Court said it won’t interfere with CFI Judge Gatmaitan’s discretion and that her guilty plea was already taken into consideration (fiscal’s recommendation of P600 fine reduced to P200). Penalty given is neither excessive nor unreasonable. On Fajardo’s appeal: Evidence strong that he was clearly the manager and participated. His name was even stamped on the tickets.
Error in computation of penalties though. Minimum should be reduced from 1yr 1mo 10 days of prision prision correccional to correccional to only 6 mos of arresto mayor. Court: “As far as we know, this is the first time that the courts in this jurisdiction, at least this Tribunal, have been called upon to take cognizance of an offense against morals and decency of this kind.” Court: In the past, offenses “like the exhibition of still moving pictures of women in the nude: have been condemned by the SC for obscenity and as offensive to morals, even though in such, “one might yet claim that there involved the element of art.” But an actual exhibit of a sexual act has no redeeming value. No room for art here. o
