Criminal Law 2 Case Finals

Crimes against Public Morals

(1) Del Mar vs. PAGCOR: (a) Only those in the legislative have locus standi.
But, even if petitioners do not have locus standi, the issue at bar warrants
immediate exercise of jurisdiction for it involves public interest. (b) Franchise is
a special privilege conferred upon a corporation or individual by a government
duly empowered legally to grant it. If it is not in the charter enacted by Congress,
then it is not there. Gambling, which affects public interests and morals, should
be strictly construed.
(2) Jaworski vs. PAGCOR: (a) Internet gaming could not have been
contemplated when PAGCOR was enacted, hence it cannot form part.
Jurisdiction of PAGCOR is only Philippines, but internet gaming is international.
(b) PAGCOR cannot delegate a power which it has no authority to delegate.
Delegata potestas delegare non potest.
(3) Tienzo vs. Florendo: The law requires three convictions of gambling, not
three warnings.
(4) Lina, Jr. vs. Pano: Lotto is legalized by PCSO, a national charter. It cannot
be prohibited by local authorities, the power of local authorities emanating from
national legislature.
(5) People vs. Siton: To doubt is to sustain. Laws are presumed valid and
constitutional for they are an exercise of police power, unless there can be clear
showing, not an argumentative one, that it is repugnant with the Constitution.
Crimes committed by public officers
(6) Tad-y vs. People: In direct bribery, the act which the offender agrees to
perform must be related with the performance of official duties.
(7) Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan: RA 3019, Section 3(b) requires that the act be in
connection with contract or transaction. If this is not proved, guilt cannot be
established.
(8) Ocampo vs. People: (a) When NALGU funds were loaned, their public
character turns into a private one. Hence, there can be no malversation. (b)
Unenforceable contract, if ratified, becomes enforceable.
(9) Perez vs. People: (a) Missing funds are prima facie evidence of
malversation. (b) When public funds are used for personal things, there is
appropriation, hence malversation.
(10) Pondevida vs. Sandiganbayan: SC decided the case even if the appeal was
filed beyond the reglementary period, since the petitioner is to suffer three counts
of reclusion perpetua.
Crimes against persons
(11) People vs. Castro: Wife riding the escape van; relationship is a personal
qualifying circumstance. Wife is the mastermind, even if not at the scene of the
crime.
(12) People vs. Juan: Delicious food; proper penalty, there being no aggravating
circumstance in parricide, is reclusion perpetua, in relation to Article 63.
(13) Sullon vs. People: (a) Treachery is appreciated if killing is made while
victim is sleeping. (b) Self-defense is belied by failure to voluntary surrender.
(13-A) Soplente vs. People: Singing contest; self-defense appreciated, when two
are surrounded by many, weapons were knife versus guns and canes, and no
provocation on part of victim.
(14) People vs. Gutierrez: (a) Treachery cannot be appreciated if the witness
only saw the accused already stabbing the victim, not the commencement of the
attack. (b) Art. 13 NCC, 1 month = 30 days, hence less serious physical injuries
and not serious physical injuries.
(15) People vs. Dawaton: (a) Treachery appreciated when victim was killed
during slumber due to intoxication. (b) Voluntary surrender cannot be
appreciated merely because of voluntary going with the police after being caught
in the house of uncle.
(16) People vs. Paycana: (a) Self-defense belied by claim of 14 stab wounds. (b)
Wounds of accused possible to be self-inflicted.
(17) People vs. Lopez: (a) Attack upon unconscious victim, treachery. (b)
Vindication of grave offense cannot be appreciated because, it is already two
months thereafter, and the alleged "grave offense" is the calling his daughter a
flirt.
Crimes against personal liberty and security
(18) People vs. Nuguid: (a) No complex crime of rape with serious illegal

detention, only special complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape.
Intention is important. If it is only to rape, then no serious illegal detention. (b)
Sweetheart theory does not prosper if there is no corroborative evidence, e.g.
Love letters, etc. (c) Rape with deadly weapon, death.
(19) People vs. Pagalasan: (a) Kidnapping of child, kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. Kidnapping of father and got away few hours later, slight illegal
detention. (b) Aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated if not alleged in
information, Rule 110 Crim Proc.
(20) People vs. Llagano: (a) Elements of circumstantial evidence must be
satisfied. (b) Hanging a man by arms constitute deprivation of liberty, hence
slight illegal detention.
(21) Caluag vs. People: Gusto mo nito? In grave threats, the wrong threatened
amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition. In
light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is always
accompanied by a condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not
amount to a crime and there is no condition.
(22) Consulta vs. People: Intent matters. Complainant is prevented from going
to destination. Grave coercion is inherent in robbery.
Crimes against property
(23) People vs. Escote: Robbery with homicide, homicide happened on the
occasion of robbery, whoever may be killed. Robbery only if one prevented the
killing. If intention is murder or homicide then stealing after, two crimes of
murder/homicide and theft.
(24) People vs. Laurente: (a) The objective of PD 532 is to punish lawless
elements or outlaws who commit piracy or highway robbery, not robbery to
particular people. (b) In robbery with homicide, the robbery must also be proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
(25) Valenzuela vs. People: No crime of frustrated theft, theft being
consummated upon taking of things of others. Free disposal of the things taken is
not an element of theft.
(26) People vs. Malngan: (a) Destructive Arson applies if hotels, buildings,
establishments, trains or vessels. Simple arson, PD 1613, if houses, dwellings,
farms, mills. (b) No complex crime of arson with homicide, only special complex
crime of arson with homicide if intention is arson and homicide resulted. If
murder is intended, fire is qualifying circumstance. If murder/homicide intended
and arson committed to conceal it, separate crimes.
(27) Veloso vs. People: Malicious mischief committed, if taken law in own
hands.
(28) People vs. Otiz-Miyake: If complainants do not testify, and only one
testified, and only one count of crime is established beyond reasonable doubt,
crime convicted can only be simple illegal recruitment, not large-scale illegal
recruitment (3 or more persons) which causes economic sabotage.
(29) King vs. People: After the check bounced, complainant must first demand
to defendant the payment. If after five days, defendant does not communicate or
settle the amount, defendant guilty of BP 22.
Crimes against chastity
(30) People vs. Javier: Only simple rape if qualifying circumstance not proven,
no birth certificate presented. Age of modernism, 16 yr old may pass as 18 yr old
in physical features.
(31) Sombilon vs. People: Dalaga ka na ba? Acts of lasciviousness. Lust is no
respecter of time and place.
(32) People vs. Egan: Penal law regarding abduction is intended to punish the
offense against public morality and the insult to the family of the abducted girl.
Previous case laws, if ambiguous, no rape. Present rape law, mere touching of
penis to the vagina, consummates rape.
Crimes against civil status of persons/honor
(33) Manuel vs. People: In bigamy, reputation of wife irrelevant. Article II,
Section 12 of the Constitution, the State shall protect and strengthen the family
as a basic autonomous social institution. Three parties to contracting marriage,
two persons and state. Article 41, FC requires declaration of presumptive death
instituted in a summary proceeding.
(34) Brillantes vs. Court of Appeals: Libel and published in newspaper;
privileged communication includes private communication made by a person to
another in performance of any legal, moral or social duty. Absent this, crime is
libel.