People v.

Temporada Facts: Employees of the Alternative Travel and Tours Corporation namely Baby Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan and Jojo Resco and appellant Beth Temporada, without prior procurement of a license from the Department of Labor and Employment, engaged in acts of recruiting and promising foreign employment to the following complainants: -Rogelio Legaspi as a technician in Singapore, -Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn Estacio and Dennis Dimaano as factory workers in Hongkong An information for illegal recruitment and estafa were charged against these five offenders, and among them only Temporada was brought into trial as others remained at large. After the joint trial on May 14, 2004, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, rendered judgment convicting appellant of all the charges and ordered to pay jointly and severally the complainants actual damages as follows: Rogelio Legaspi P66,520 Evelyn Estacio P88,520 Soledad Atle P69,520 Luz Minkay P69,520 Dennis Dimaano P69,520 RTC Temporada is mainly sentenced for: -life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 for illegal recruitment -indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correcional as minimum, to nine years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum for the estafa committed against complainant Rogelio A. Legaspi, Jr -indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correctional as minimum to ten years and one day of prision mayor as maximum each for the estafas committed against complainants, Dennis Dimaano, Soledad B. Atle and Luz T. Minkay; -indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correcional as minimum, to eleven years and one day of prision mayor as maximum for the estafa committed against Evelyn Estacio.

Temporada raised the case to the Court of Appeals and on February 24, 2006, the penalties for estafa were modified. All other respects were affirmed. CA Modified penalties: -As for estafa commited against Dimaano, Atle, Minkay, indeterminate penalty of six years of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, to ten years and one day of

prision mayor maximum, as maximum -As for estafa commited against Estacio, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum Issues: 1.) Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC with regards to large scale illegal recruitment and estafa 2.) Whether or not the CA erred in applying the indeterminate penalty for the five counts of estafa

Held/Ratio: I Large Scale Illegal Recruitment. In this particular case, all the elements reflected in Article 13 of the Labor Code contemplating large scale illegal recruitment are present. To wit: a) offender has no valid license or authority to undertake recruitment and placement of workers b) offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" the Labor Code any of the prohibited practices enumerated therein c) offender committs the same against threeor more persons, individually or as a group In conspiracy with the other accused, Temporada misrepresented to have the power, influence, authority and business to obtain overseas employment upon payment of a placement fee which was duly collected from complainants. Since there were five victims, the trial court correctly found appellant liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Estafa. A person convicted for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa. The same evidence proving appellants criminal liability for illegal recruitment also established her liability for estafa II Indeterminate Penalty. The decision should be reversed with respect to the indeterminate penalties it imposed. The maximum terms, as determined by the CA, were erroneously computed and must necessarily be corrected. As per the RPC, when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty for estafa is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. For every P10,000 in excess of P22,000 necessarily follows an additional one year incremental penalty. Following the case of Pabalan, the fraction in excess of such value are not to be added since penal laws are to be construed in favor of the accused. Minimum term. Taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium. Consequently, the RTC correctly fixed the minimum term for the five estafa cases at 4 years and 2 months of prisin correccional since this is within the range of prision correccional minimum and medium. As in the case of Gabes, the penalty next lower

(i.e., prision mayor) was determined without considering in the meantime the effect of the amount defrauded in excess of P22,000.00 on the prescribed penalty. Maximum term. To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period. Since the amount involved in the present case exceeds P22,000.00, this should be taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence, not in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty. The plain terms of the ISL show that the legislature did not intend to limit "attending circumstances" as referring to Articles 13 and 14 of the RPC, despite the decision of the CA that the incremental penalty rule should not be considered as analogous to a modifying circumstance because it merely limits such to mitigating circumstances. The question whether the incremental penalty rule is covered within the letter and spirit of "attending circumstances" under the ISL was answered in the affirmative in Gabres when the SC ruled that the incremental penalty rule is analogous to a modifying circumstance. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED with respect to the indeterminate penalties imposed on appellant for the five counts of estafa:

As for the crime against Legaspi, the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum, to 9 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum. As for the crime against Dimaano, Atle and Minkay, the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months and 21 days of prisin mayor as maximum for each of the aforesaid three estafa cases. As for the crime against Estacio, the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum, to 12 years, 8 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal as maximum

Mamangun v. People Facts: In a certain house at the town of Meycauayan, Bulacan, around 8:00pm in the evening of July 31, 1992, a certain Liberty Contreras allegedly saw a burglar and subsequently screamed for help. Several residents pursued the perpetrator as he fled into the yard of another resident named Abacan, and thereafter proceeded to the rooftop of said resident. About an hour later following the incident, the desk officer of the Meycauayan PNP Police Station received a telephone call that a robbery-holdup was in progress in the area and immediately dispatched to the scene several policemen including appellant PO2 Rufino Mamangun. Version of the Prosecution: Three policemen including PO2 Mamangun, and a certain Ayson searched the rooftop. Ayson was following petitioner Mamangun who was ahead of the group. He was beside Mamangun when they saw, some four to five arms-length away, a man whom Ayson recognized as Gener Contreras. Mamangun pointed his pistol at the man, who instantly exclaimed, "Hindi ako, hindi ako!," to which Mamangun replied, "Anong hindi ako?" Mamangun fired his gun, hitting and thereafter causing the death of the man who turned out to be Contreras. Version of the Defense: Aysons presence was denied by the defense. Mamangun chased said person when he saw him. They announced that they were police officers but the person continued to run in a crouching position until Mamangun caught up with him and shouted, "Pulis. Tigil," whereupon the person suddenly stopped, turned around, faced Mamangun, and raised a stainless steel pipe towards the latters head but Mamangun was able to evade the attack. This prompted Mamangun to shoot the person (who turned out to be Contreras) on the left arm. Trial at the Sandiganbayan The court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only the crime of homicide. The said court rejected the petitioners claim that the shooting was justified by self-defense but neveretheless ruled that the crime of homicide was attended by an incomplete justifying circumstance of the petitioner having acted in the performance of his duty as a policeman and likewise appreciated in his favor the generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Issue: Whether or not PO2 Mamangun can avail of the justifying circumstance of self defense

Ratio/Held: Self Defense? Petitioners pretense that Contreras struck him with a steel pipe is intriguing and hence untenable. Petitioner did not report the same to the Police Investigator when he reported back to the police station after the shooting incident. It was only when a lead pipe was recovered from the scene and brought to the police station that petitioner conveniently remembered Contreras trying to hit him with a pipe. Such a vital information could not have escaped the petitioners mind. Fulfillment of Duty. Since PO2 Mamangun admitted killing Contreras on the night of July

31, 1992, petitioner is charged with the burden of adducing convincing evidence to show that the killing was done in the fulfillment of his duty as a policeman. The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty, in order to be invoked, necessitates that the following requisites concur: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty. The first requisite is indeed present but as to the second requisite, the court had all the reason to doubt whether or not it was indeed necessary for Mamangun to shoot Contreras after the latter has shouted Hindi ako!

Penalty -The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of a duty must first be applied to lower the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal by one degree before the minimum of the IS can be determined. -With a generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstances, the maximum of the ISL must be implemented somewhere in the minmum of prision mayor -The decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed in all respects. Mamangun is sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of from Three (3) Years and Three (3) Months of prision correccional as minimum, to Seven (7) years of prision mayor, as maximum

People v. Baxinela Facts: Version of the Defense On October 19, 1996, at about 12:35 a.m., Regimen was on the way home with Baxinela when someone reported that there was an armed man (Sgt. Lajo) in a bar causing trouble. While seated at the table, they saw the deceased with a handgun visibly tucked at the back of his waist. Regimen then instructed Baxinela to take a closer look at this person while he calls for backup but before Regimen could stand up, the man with a gun started to walk towards the door. As he passed by their table, Baxinela stood up, introduced himself as a policeman and asked the man why he had a gun with him. The man did not respond and, instead, suddenly drew out his gun. Baxinela then drew his sidearm and was able to fire first, hitting the man on his upper left arm. Version of the Prosecution There was a minor altercation between the deceased Sgt. Lajo and another customer at the pub but eventually the two were able to patch things up. Lajo was then on his way out when Baxinela followed Lajo with a gun already drawn out. Then, from behind, Baxinela held Lajos left arm and said "Ano ka hay? Mam-an may baril ka?" He then heard Lajo respond "I am a MIG, Pare" after that Alvarez heard an explosion coming from Baxinelas gun. Baxinela then got a gun from Lajos waist and handed it over to Regimen.

Decision of the RTC The court found SPO2 Baxinela guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but considered the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and provocation, and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 4 years of prision correccional medium as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor medium as maximum. Decision of the CA The appellate court disallowed the mitigating circumstance of provocation. As a consequence, the penalty was modified to an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as Minimum to 12 years, 10 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal, as Maximum. Not being contented, SPO2 Baxinela raised the matter to the supreme court on certiorari. Issue: Whether or not the lower courts erred in not considering the privileged mitigating circumstance of fulfillment of duty against the accused Held/Ratio:

The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty, in order to be invoked, necessitates that the following requisites concur: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty

(2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty. While the first condition is present, the second is clearly lacking. Baxinelas duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was what Baxinela was doing when he confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety, edginess or the desire to take no chances, Baxinela exceeded his duty by firing upon Lajo who was not at all resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be considered due performance of a duty if at that time Lajo posed no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in the pub. Penalty -The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of a duty must first be applied to lower the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal by one degree before the minimum of the IS can be determined. -With a generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstances, the maximum of the ISL must be implemented somewhere in the minmum of prision mayor -Baxinelas sentence is reduced to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.

Estioca v. People Facts: At about 8:00 am on July 28, 200 several offenders namely Bacus, Boniao, Handoc, and Estioca, all residents of the City of Ozamiz, maliciously broke into a classroom of Ozamiz City Central School and took away several items belonging to said school. According to police reports, the stolen items include: -One Panasonic Colored TV 14 worth P6,000.00; -One Sharp Karaoke Tower Single Player color black worth P6,000.00; and -One D Rota Aire Stand Fan color brown worth P3,000.00; Woven Testimonies of Witnesses Nico and his cousin were asked by their teacher to clean their classroom and were promised P30.00 each in return. Having finished the task, Nico was then requested by his teacher to get some waya-waya and dapna in the school canal to be used as food for the fish. While in the school canal, Nico saw petitioner and Bacus enter the premises by climbing over the gate. Estioca and Bacus then proceeded to the classroom of another teacher, Mrs. Panal, which was located near the canal. Thereupon, petitioner and Bacus destroyed the padlock of the classroom's door using an iron bar and entered therein. Subsequently, petitioner and Bacus walked out of the classroom carrying a television, a karaoke and an electric fan, and immediately brought them to the school gate. They went over the gate with the items and handed them over to Boniao and Handoc who were positioned just outside the gate. The items were placed inside a tricycle. After petitioner, Bacus and Boniao boarded the tricycle, Handoc drove the same and they sped away. RTC Decision RTC rendered a decision convicting Estioca, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc of robbery under Article 299 of the RPC. The trial court imposed on petitioner, Bacus and Handoc an indeterminate penalty ranging from six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Since Boniao was only 14 years old when he perpetrated the heist, he was sentenced to a lower prison term of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum. Motion for Reconsideration RTC issued an Order partially granting the motion. The trial court lowered the penalty imposed on them but affirmed its earlier finding of conspiracy and conviction. To wit, the penalty now ranges from four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum with accessory penalty provided for by law; and for minor accused Kevin Boniao, the penalty of four months of arresto mayor upon applying the privileged mitigating circumstance in Art. 68. All of the accused shall indemnify jointly the civil liability. It also ordered the DSWD to release and turn over Boniao to his parents. Bacus, Boniao and Handoc were satisfied with the modifications but Estioca wanted to raise the matter to the CA. CA Decision

On June 30, 2006 the appeal was dismissed but subject to the modification that Boniao was to be exempt from criminal save for his civil liability pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act that took effect about a month earlier on May 22, 2006. Penalties The lower courts have correctly implemented the penalties for Estioca, Handoc and Bacus. According to the RPC, robbery with use of force upon things where the value of the property taken exceeds P250.00 and the offender does not carry arms, as in this case, is prision mayor. Taking into consideration the IS law, the minimum should be determined by determining the range one degree lower or somewhere in prision correccional. Given that no aggravating or mitigating circumstances are attendant, then the maximum should be prision mayor in its medium period. With regards to Boniao, he was only 14 years of age when he perpetrated the crime. By that time, the law in force merely gave the opportunity to avail of a privileged mitigating circumstance of 2 degrees lower to that of the prescribed penalty. However, one month prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, the Juvenlie Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 took effect which consequently exempted minors below 15 years of age from criminal liability. It is a settled rule in the Philippine jurisprudence that penal laws are to be given retroactive effect if it is favorable to the accused, provided that such peson is not a habitual delinquent and the law does not expressly provide that it be inapplicable to pending actions. Thus, the acquittal of Boniao is correctly implemented.

Kristian Angelo Palmares 1-E Criminal Law 1 1. Applying Article 68 of the RPC as amended by RA 9344, Mr. A shall be exempt from criminal liablility if he is proven to have acted without discernment. If Mr. A acted with discernment, he shall be ordered to undergo a diversion program, thus suspending his sentence pursuant to Chapter 2 of RA 9344. If despite such program he remains incorrigible ,he shall be brought before the court for the execution of judgment but is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance of minority which would lower the prescribed penalty of arresto mayor by one degree. Applying article 71 in reducing the degree, the penalty would now be destierro in the medium period. The IS Law is inapplicable in this particular instance because a felony to which the law attaches a penalty of destierro does not qualify for the application of indeterminate sentencing. 2a. The alternative circumstance of intoxication can be appreciated in favor of Mr. B. According to Article 15 of the RPC, intoxication will be mitigating if is proven that (1) the accused has taken such quantity of alcohol as to blur his reason and deprive him of self control (2) not habitual and not subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. In this case, Mr. B has been shown to be drinking the whole afternoon before he even came up with the resolution to kill Mr. C. Furthermore, he drank 3 bottles of vodka on his own, suggesting that he has taken more than enough quantity of alcohol for any ordinary person, as to blur his reason. -The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilt can also be appreciated in Mr. Bs favor. As for voluntary surrender, there must be 3 requisites: a.) that the offender has not been arrested, b.) that the offender has surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, c.) that the surrender was voluntary. In this case, all three requisites concur. Given that he saved the state the trouble and resources for his capture by voluntarily and spontaneously giving himself up the first chance he got. As for voluntary plea of guilt, three requisites must also be met: a.) spontaneous confession of guilt, b.) such confession made in open court, c.) done before the presentation of evidence for the prosectution. Such requisites likewise concur, hence this circumstance can be considered in his favor. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be applied since the offender did not especially seek the darkness to facilitate the commission of the act. 2b. According to the Article 63(3) of the RPC, when the penalty is composed of two indivisble penalties and where the commission of the crime is attended by mitigating circumstances without being offset by aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. The penalty shall not be reduced to a lower degree regardless of how many generic mitigating circumstances are attendant. The penalty which should be imposed therefore, is reclusion perpetua.

3a. I would convict B. His situation does not qualify for the justifying circumstance of state of necessity which would extinguish his criminal liability. In order for his situation to fall within the ambit of Art. 11(4), the following requisites must concur: a.) That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists b.) That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it c.) That there be no other practical or less harmful means to prevent or repel it. In this case the requisites do not qualify because the evil which he might seek to avoid must actually exist and must not be merely imaginary. Given if there indeed exists such evil, there would be other practical means to pr 3b. In his favor is the presence of two mitigating circumstance of restitution analogous to voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilt. 3c. According to the RPC, when there are two or more mitigating and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower, in the period applicable according to the number and nature of such circumstances should be applied. Thus one degree lower from the prescribed penalty would be arresto mayor minimum to arresto mayor medium. Note: IS law is inapplicable because the duration of the penalty is less than one year Applying Article 65 in dividing such penalty into three periods, we have: Arresto Mayor (Minimum-Medium) 1 month 1 day to 4 months 4 months 1 month = 3 months 3/3 = 1 month

Minimum: 1 month 1 day to 2 months Medium: 2 months 1 day to 3 months Maximum: 3 months 1 day to 4 months

The penalty to be imposed would be somewhere from 2 months 1 day to 3 months.