PEOPLE vS.

REGALA

G.R. No. 130508. April 5, 2000.

Robbery with rape

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of robbery with rape.

Held:

It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be
considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14
of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same code
regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for
analogous circumstances.

It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery) would result in an anomalous situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of the
offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. However,
the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no
person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.

In view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant should not be
considered as aggravating. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper.

People v. Ortega
G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997

Lessons Applicable: Indeterminate Sentence Law

Laws Applicable: Art. 4 RPC

FACTS:
October 15, 1992 5:30 pm: Andre Mar Masangkay (courting Raquel Ortega), Ariel Caranto, Romeo
Ortega, Roberto San Andres, Searfin, Boyet and Diosdado Quitlong were having a drinking spree with gin
and finger foods.
October 15, 1992 11:00 pm: Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia who were already drank joined
them.
October 16, 1992 midnight: Andre answering a call of nature went to the back portion of the house
and Benjamin followed him. Suddenly, they heard a shout from Andre Dont, help me! (Huwag,
tulungan ninyo ako!)
Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Benjamin on top of Andre who was lying down being stabbed. Ariel
got Benjamin Ortega, Sr., Benjamins father while Diosdado called Romeo to pacify his brother. Romeo,
Benjamin and Manuel lifted Andre from the canal and dropped him in the well. They dropped stones to
Andres body to weigh the body down. Romeo warned Diosdado not to tell anybody what he saw. He
agreed so he was allowed to go home. But, his conscience bothered him so he told his mother, reported
it to the police and accompanied them to the crime scene.
NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat:
o cause of death is drowning with multiple stab wounds, contributory
o 13 stab wounds
o stab wound on the upper left shoulder, near the upper left armpit and left chest wall- front
o stab wound on the back left side of the body and the stab wound on the back right portion of the
body back
Manuel Garcia alibi
o He was asked to go home by his wife to fetched his mother-in-law who performed a ritual called
tawas on his sick daughter and stayed home after
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. story
o After Masangkay left, he left to urinate and he saw Andre peeking through the room of his sister
Raquel. Then, Andre approached him to ask where his sister was. When he answered he didnt know,
Andre punched him so he bled and fell to the ground. Andre drew a knife and stabbed him, hitting him
on the left arm, thereby immobilizing him. Andre then gripped his neck with his left arm and threatened
to kill him. Unable to move, Ortega shouted for help. Quitlong came, seized the knife and stabbed
Andre 10 times with it. Andre then ran towards the direction of the well. Then, he tended his wound in
the lips and armpit and slept.
RTC: Benjamin and Manuel through conspiracy and the taking advantage of superior strength
committed murder

ISSUE: W/N Benjamin and Manuel should be liable for murder.

HELD: NO. PARTLY GRANTED. Benjamin is guilty only of homicide. Manuel deserves acquittal
If Ortegas version of the assault was true, he should have immediately reported the matter to the
police authorities. If Ortegas version of the assault was true, he should have immediately reported the
matter to the police authorities. It is incredible that Diosdado would stab Andre 10 times successively,
completely ignoring Benjamin who was grappling with Masangkay and that Andre was choking him
while being stabbed.
Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of the accused to take advantage of
such superiority none shown
o Andre was a 6-footer, whereas Ortega, Jr. was only 54
Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
o The essential requisites
1. the intended act is felonious assisting Benjamin by carrying the body to the well
2. the resulting act is likewise a felony - concealing the body of the crime to prevent its discovery
3. the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the actors wrongful acts (praeter
intentionem) still alive and was drowned to death
a person may be convicted of homicide although he had no original intent to kill
Garcia is a brother-in-law of Benjamin
o Exempt by Article 20 of RPC
-- The penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the
next preceding article.
The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which is
imposable in its medium period, absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, as in the case of
Appellant Ortega. Because he is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum term shall be one degree lower, that is, prision mayor.

Secretary of Justice v Lantion 343 SCRA

FACTS:

Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines,
signed in Manila the extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the
Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note
Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez to the
United States.
On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to
handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Mark Jiminez through
counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the
U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have
received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the request for the consistency of
Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present
the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.

ISSUE: Whether or not to uphold a citizens basic due process rights or the governments ironclad duties
under a treaty.

RULING: Petition dismissed.

The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien , and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our
Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the
government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty
obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of
binding obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our
Constitution as part of the law of the land.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situation in
which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provision of the
constitution or statute of the local state.

Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition request and
its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his
comment with supporting evidence.

Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no
further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in
which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the
constitution or statute of the local state.

Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed
that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international
law in observance of the incorporation clause in the above cited constitutional provision.

In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule
of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by
the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly
bound by it in all circumstances.

The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply
the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of
incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal
standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex
posterior derogate priori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty.
In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines,
both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution

Conde v Rivera 4 Phil 650

Facts: Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena, Tayabas, has been forced to respond to
no less the five information for various crimes and misdemeanors, has appeared with her witnesses and
counsel at hearings no less than on eight different occasions only to see the cause postponed, has twice
been required to come to the Supreme Court for protection, and now, after the passage of more than
one year from the time when the first information was filed, seems as far away from a definite
resolution of her troubles as she was when originally charged.

Issue: Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial.

Held: Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. Aurelia Conde, like all other accused persons, has a
right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free, and she has been deprived of that right

in defiance of law. We lay down the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer, without good
cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period
of time, as in this instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in
mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas
corpus to obtain his freedom.

Garcia v Domingo 52 SCRA 143 (1973)

Facts: For the convenience of the parties the trial was held in the air conditioned chamber of the
respondent judge Garcia. The complaint was under the premise that such act is in violation of the right
to hold a public trial.

Issue: Whether or not such proceeding of holding trial in the chamber of the judge in violation to the
principle of right to a public trial.

Held: It is not in violation of the right to a public trial since the trial was still open to public and there is
no showing that the public was deprived to witness the trial proceeding.

SECRETARY PEREZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

AM 01-4-03 SC JUNE 29, 2001
Facts:
On 13 March 2001, the KapisananngmgaBroadKasterngPilipinas(KBP), an association representing duly
franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the country, sent a letter
requesting the Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other
criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to
assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history."2 The
request was seconded by Mr. Cesar N. Sarino in his letter of 05 April 2001 to the Chief Justice and, still
later, by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo.

ISSUE: What is the extent of the right to information of the press on covering judicial proceedings?

RULING:
An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him, more than anyone else, where
his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with

and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secrete conclaves of
long ago. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only implies that the court doors must
be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available seats, conduct themselves with decorum and
observe the trial process. In the constitutional sense, a courtroom should have enough facilities for a
reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings, not too small as to render the openness
negligible and not too large as to distract the trial participants from their proper functions, who shall
then be totally free to report what they have observed during the proceedings.

The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public
information. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive
means of conveying the proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public with the judicial process
in action; nevertheless, within the courthouse, the overriding consideration is still the paramount right
of the accused to due process17 which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional
proportions. Justice Clark thusly pronounced, "while a maximum freedom must be allowed the press in
carrying out the important function of informing the public in a democratic society, its exercise must
necessarily be subject to the maintenance of absolute fairness in the judicial process."

PEOPLE V. ORTIZ-MIYAKE
FACTS:
-Miyake was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale, following a complaint filed by
Elenita Marasigan, Imelda Generillo and Rosamar del Rosario. Marasigan had also charged her with
estafa by means of false pretenses.
said Ortiz-Miyake promised her a job as factory worker in Taiwan. The former gave her P5,000 initially
as placement fee, which amount subsequently became P23,000 paid in installments upon the demands
of the accused. Accused gave assurances that Marasigan would have no problem getting a visa and a
plane ticket. She was unable to go to Taiwan, as there was no ticket booked for her and, in fact, the
supposed agency did not even know Miyake.
court on the latters behalf. As they were not personally present, however, during the transactions with
Miyake, they could only claim they gave certain amounts that were supposed to go to Miyake, and
concluded that since their relatives had not been able to leave as promised by Miyake, then they were
necessarily victims of illegal recruitment by the accused. A POEA representative also testified that
Miyake had no authorization to recruit workers for overseas employment. [Miyake claiming she only
offered discounted plane tickets to the supposed victims]
Paranaque MeTC, where the two complainants now absent had filed charges of estafa against Miyake.
The Court there had convicted Miyake.

ISSUE: won Miyake can be held liable for illegal recruitment on a large scale

HELD/RATIO: OrtizAND PLACEMENT IS ". . . ANY ACT OF CANVASSING, ENLISTING, CONTRACTING TRANSPORTING,
UTILIZING, HIRING OR PROCURING WORKERS AND INCLUDES REFERRALS, CONTRACT SERVICES,
PROMISING OR ADVERTISING FOR EMPLOYMENT, LOCALLY OR ABROAD, WHETHER FOR PROFIT OR
NOT; BECOMES ILLEGAL IF ONE HAS NO AUTHORIZATION FOR PERFORMING SUCH ACTS; BECOMES
LARGE SCALE IF DONE AGAINST THREE OR MORE PERSONS WHETHER INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A GROUP

People v. Seneris

parricide; prosecution witness died While the right of confrontation and cross-examination are
fundamental rights, they can be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation
of the right; If the party was given the opportunity to confront or cross-examine a witness but failed to
take advantage of it, he forfeits the right and the testimonies given in direct examination will be
received or ed on record; Where the prosecution witness was partially cross-examined but prior to the
next hearing, he dies, his testimony cannot be stricken off the record.

Tatad vs Sandiganbayan
159 SCRA 70
Facts: The complainant, Antonio de los Reyes, originally filed what he termed "a report" with the Legal
Panel of the
Presidential Security Command (PSC) on October 1974, containing charges of alleged violations of Rep.
Act No. 3019
against then Secretary of Public Information Francisco S. Tatad. The "report" was made to "sleep" in the
office of
the PSC until the end of 1979 when it became widely known that Secretary (then Minister) Tatad had a
falling out with
President Marcos and had resigned from the Cabinet. On December 12, 1979, the 1974 complaint was
resurrected in the
form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April
1, 1980 which
was around two months after petitioner Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. Marcos by referring
the complaint to

the CIS, Presidential Security Command, for investigation and report. On June 16, 1980, the CIS report
was submitted
to the Tanodbayan, recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against former
Minister Tatad
and Antonio L. Cantero. By October 25, 1982, all affidavits and counter-affidavitswere in the case was
already for
disposition by the Tanodbayan. However, it was only on June 5, 1985 that a resolution was approved by
the Tanodbayan.
Five criminal informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 12, 1985, all against petitioner
Tatad alone. (1)
Section 3, paragraph (e) of RA. 3019 for giving D' Group, a private corporation controlled by his brotherin-law,
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions; (2) Violation of
Section 3,
paragraph (b) for receiving a check of P125,000.00 from Roberto Vallar, President/General Manager of
AmityTrading
Corporation as consideration for the release of a check of P588,000.00 to said corporation for printing
services rendered
for the Constitutional Convention Referendum in 1973; (3) Violation of Section 7 on three (3) counts for
his failure to file
his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the calendar years 1973, 1976 and 1978. A motion to quash
the information
was made alleging that the prosecution deprived accused of due process of law and of the right to a
speedy disposition of
the cases filed against him. It was denied hence the appeal.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused.
Held: YES. Due process (Procedural) and right to speedy disposition of trial were violated. Firstly, the
complaint came to
life, as it were, only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. Secondly, departing
from established
procedures prescribed by law forpreliminary investigation, which require the submission of affidavitsand
counteraffidavits by the complainant and the respondent and their witnesses, the Tanodbayan referred the
complaint to the

Presidential Security Command for finding investigation and report. The law (P.D. No. 911) prescribes a
ten-day period
for the prosecutor to resolve a case under preliminary investigation by him from its termination. While
we agree with
the respondent court that this period fixed by law is merely "directory," yet, on the other hand, it can
not be disregarded
or ignored completely, with absolute impunity. A delay of close to three (3) years can not be deemed
reasonable or
justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar.

Cabal vs. Kapunan

6 SCRA 1059
FACTS: Petitioner Cabal, then-Chief of Staff of the AFP, faced an administrative case against him after
a complainant, member of the Philippine army, charged the former of violating R.A. 1379. The
committee in-charge of hearing the case required petitioner to take the stand and testify. However,
the petitioner desisted since it would violate his right against self- incrimination. Thru the
fiscal, a charge of contempt was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner assails the charge in
this case.

HELD/RATIO: The petitioner cannot be forced to testify since it would violate his right to selfincrimination. The administrative case seeks to punish the accused by forfeiting the items should
he be adjudged guilty. As such, the nature of the case is criminal. In a criminal case, the accused
cannot be forced to testify.