People vs.
Abarca Solicitor General recommends that we apply Article 247 of the
Facts:
Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of accused Francisco Abarca,
Jenny, had illicit relationship. The illicit relationship apparently
began while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar
examinations.  Whether or not Article 247 is applicable in the case of Francisco
On July 15, 1984, the accused was in his residence in Tacloban,
Leyte, he was supposed to fetch his daughter but he was not able
to catch the first trip so he tried catching the 2pm trip but the bus
had engine trouble so he decided to go to his father’s house then
he went home. Upon reaching home, the accused found his wife,
Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When
the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her
paramour who got his revolver. The accused who was then
peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran
away.
The accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City. He went
to the house of a PC soldier, C2C Arturo Talbo, he got Talbo's
firearm, an M-16 rifle, and went back to his house. He was not able
to find his wife and Koh there. He then proceeded to the "mahjong
session" as it was the "hangout" of Kingsley Koh and when he
found Koh playing mahjong. He fired at Kingsley Koh three times
with his rifle. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a
room adjacent to the room where Koh was playing mahjong were
also hit by the shots fired. Kingsley Koh died, Arnold Amparado
was hospitalized and operated on in the kidney to remove a bullet,
his wife, Lina Amparado, was also treated in the hospital as she
was hit by bullet fragments. Arnold Amparado was not able to
work for 1-1/2 months because of his wounds.
RTC:
Found Francisco Abarca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.
Revised Penal Code defining death inflicted under exceptional
circumstances, complexed with double frustrated murder.
ISSUE:
Abarca –Yes.
HELD:
There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her
paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as
a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of
passionate outburst. Article 247 prescribes the following
elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and
(2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case.
Though quite a length of time, had passed between the time the
accused discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the
victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must
be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim
by the accused. RPC, in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of
them or both of them “immediately" after surprising his spouse in
the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the
killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused
be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused
after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But
the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind
impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors.
The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.
Timoner vs. People
FACTS:
In the evening of December 13, 1971, petitioner, then Mayor of
Daet, Camarines Norte, accompanied by two uniformed policemen,
Samuel Morena and Ernesto Quibral, and six laborers, arrived in
front of the stalls along Maharlika highway, the main thoroughfare
of the same town. Upon orders of petitioner, these laborers
proceeded to nail together rough lumber slabs to fence off the
stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway.
Among the structures thus barricaded were the barbershop of
Pascual Dayaon, the complaining witness and the store belonging
to one Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos. These establishments had been
recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer, Dra.
Alegre, for non-compliance with certain health and sanitation
requirements.
petitioner filed a complaint in the CFI of Camarines Norte against
Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos and others for judicial abatement of their
stalls, alleging that these stalls constituted public nuisances as well
as nuisances per se. Dayaon was never able to reopen his
barbershop business.
petitioner and the two policemen, Morena and Quibral, were
charged with the offense of grave coercion before the Municipal
Court of Daet. As already noted, the said court exonerated the two
policemen, but convicted petitioner of the crime charged as
principal by inducement.
Petitioner contends that the sealing off of complainant Dayaon's
barbershop was done in abatement of a public nuisance and,
therefore, under lawful authority.
CA affirmed decision of trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioner is guity of grave coercion –No.
HELD:
Petitioner, as mayor of the town, merely implemented the
aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having
then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty, petitioner
incurred no criminal liability. 
Grave coercion is committed when "a person who, without
authority of law, shall by means of violence, prevent another from
doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something
against his will, either it be right or wrong." The three elements of
grave coercion are: [1] that any person be prevented by another
from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do
something against his will, be it right or wrong; [2] that the
prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by
material force or such display of it as would produce intimidation
and control the will of the offended party, and [3] that the person
who restrained the will and liberty of another had no right to do
so, or, in other words, that the restraint was not made under
authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right. 
The third element being absent in the case at bar, petitioner
cannot be held guilty of grave coercion. 
Buaya vs. Polo
FACTS:
Petitioner was an insurance agent of the private respondent, who
was authorized to transact and underwrite insurance business and
collect the corresponding premiums for and in behalf of the
private respondent. Under the terms of the agency agreement, the
petitioner is required to make a periodic report and accounting of
her transactions and remit premium collections to the principal
office of private respondent located in the City of Manila. Allegedly,
an audit was conducted on petitioner's account which showed a
shortage in the amount of P358,850.72. As a result she was
charged with estafa in Criminal Case No. 83-22252, before the RTC
of Manila with the respondent Hon. Wenceslao Polo as the
Presiding Judge. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, which motion
was denied by respondent Judge in his Order dated March 26,
1986. The subsequent motion for reconsideration of this order of
denial was also denied. These two Orders of denial are now the
subject of the present petition. It is the contention of petitioner
that the Regional trial Court of Manila has no jurisdiction because
she is based in Cebu City and necessarily the funds she allegedly
misappropriated were collected in Cebu City.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Buaya is guilty of the crime of Estafa

HELD:
The crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may
be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of
the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is
damage or prejudice to the offended party. The private respondent
has its principal place of business and office at Manila. The failure
of the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums she collected
allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in
Manila. Anent petitioners other contention that the subject matter
is purely civil in nature, suffice it to state that evidentiary facts on
this point have still to be proved.