Intestate Estate of Gonzales V People, GR 181409. Feb 11, 2010

7/22/2020 [G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010] INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA.
DE CARUNGCONG, REPRESENTED B…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 > February 2010 Decisions >
[G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010] INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
VDA. DE CARUNGCONG, REPRESENTED BY MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, AS
Review
ADMINISTRATRIX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILLIAM
SATO, RESPONDENTS. :
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010]
INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG,

REPRESENTED BY MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, AS ADMINISTRATRIX,
PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILLIAM SATO,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - No criminal, but only
civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft,
swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010februarydecisions.php?id=1206 1/26
7/22/2020 [G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010] INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG, REPRESENTED B…
following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in

the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to

the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the
possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living

together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to

strangers participating in the commission of the crime. (emphasis
supplied)
For purposes of the aforementioned provision, is the relationship by affinity created

between the husband and the blood relatives of his wife (as well as between the wife
and the blood relatives of her husband) dissolved by the death of one spouse, thus
ending the marriage which created such relationship by affinity? Does the beneficial
application of Article 332 cover the complex crime of estafa thru falsification?
Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix[1] of

petitioner intestate estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. de
Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit[2] for estafa against her brother-in-law,

William Sato, a Japanese national. Her complaint-affidavit read:
I, MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG Y GONZALE[S], Filipino, of legal age, single,
and resident of Unit 1111, Prince Gregory Condominium, 105 12th

Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, after being duly sworn, depose and state
that:
1. I am the duly appointed Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of

Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s], docketed as Spec. Procs. No. [Q]-95-
23621[,] Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, being one (1) of
her surviving daughters. Copy of the Letters of Administration dated June
22, 1995 is hereto attached as Annex "A" to form an integral part hereof.
2. As such Administratrix, I am duty bound not only to preserve the

properties of the Intestate Estate of Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s],
but also to recover such funds and/or properties as property belonging to
the estate but are presently in the possession or control of other parties.
3. After my appointment as Administratrix, I was able to confer with some

of the children of my sister Zenaida Carungcong Sato[,] who predeceased
our mother Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzales, having died in Japan in
1991.
4. In my conference with my nieces Karen Rose Sato and Wendy Mitsuko

Sato, age[d] 27 and 24 respectively, I was able to learn that prior to the
death of my mother Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s], [s]pecifically on
o[r] about November 24, 1992, their father William Sato, through
fraudulent misrepresentations, was able to secure the signature and
thumbmark of my mother on a Special Power of Attorney whereby my
niece Wendy Mitsuko Sato, who was then only twenty (20) years old, was
Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s] and of the heirs which include his six
[G.R. No. 188002 : February (6) children with my sister Zenaida Carungcong Sato. x x x[3]
01, 2010] GOODRICH
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
& MR. NILO CHUA GOY, Wendy Mitsuko Sato's supporting affidavit and the special power of attorney allegedly
issued by the deceased Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong in favor of Wendy
PETITIONERS, VS. EMERLINA
were attached to the complaint-affidavit of Mediatrix.
ATIVO, LOVITO SEBUANO,
MICHAEL FERNANDEZ, JUNIFERÂ·
CASAS, ROLANDO ISLA, ELISEO In a resolution dated March 25, 1997, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed
DEL ROSARIO, MARK JON the complaint.[4] On appeal, however, the Secretary of Justice reversed and set aside
MARTIN, EDISON GAMIDO, the resolution dated March 25, 1997 and directed the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
WARRY BALINTON, ROBERT to file an Information against Sato for violation of Article 315, paragraph 3(a) of the
RAGO AND ROBERTO MENDOZA, Revised Penal Code.[5] Thus, the following Information was filed against Sato in the
RESPONDENTS. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87:[6]
[G.R. No. 187155 : February

01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE INFORMATION
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO The undersigned accuses WILLIAM SATO of the crime of ESTAFA under
OFEMIANO ALIAS MANING, Article 315[,] par. 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
That on or about the 24th day of November, 1992, in Quezon City,
[G.R. No. 183577 : February Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of deceit, did, then and
01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud MANOLITA GONZALES
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. VDA. DE CARUNGCONG in the following manner, to wit: the said accused
HILARIO ESCOTON, APPELLANT. induced said Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong[,] who was already
then blind and 79 years old[,] to sign and thumbmark a special power of
[G.R. No. 177361 : February attorney dated November 24, 1992 in favor of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato,
01, 2010] ARMANDO VIDAR @ daughter of said accused, making her believe that said document involved
"RICKY", NORBERTO BUTALON, only her taxes, accused knowing fully well that said document authorizes
(â€ ) SONNY MARBELLA @ Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, then a minor, to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise
"SPIKE" AND JOHN DOES AND dispose of to any person or entity of her properties all located at Tagaytay
PETER DOES, PETITIONERS, VS. City, as follows:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
1. One Thousand Eight Hundred Seven(ty) One (1,871) square meters
more or less and covered by T.C.T. No. 3147;
01, 2010] HILARIO P. SORIANO,
2. Five Hundred Forty (540) square meters more or less and covered
PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
by T.C.T. No. 3148 with Tax Declaration No. GR-016-0722, Cadastral
PHILIPPINES, BANGKO SENTRAL
Lot No. 7106;
NG PILIPINAS (BSP), PHILIPPINE
DEPOSIT INSURANCE AND
3. Five Hundred Forty (540) square meters more or less and covered
CORPORATION (PDIC), PUBLIC
by T.C.T. No. 3149 with Tax Declaration No. GR-016-0721, Cadastral
PROSECUTOR ANTONIO C. BUAN,
Lot No. 7104;
AND STATE PROSECUTOR
ALBERTO R. FONACIER,
4. Eight Hundred Eighty Eight (888) square meters more or less with
RESPONDENTS.[1]
Tax Declaration No. GR-016-1735, Cadastral Lot No. 7062;
[A.M. No. 08-2-107-RTC :

February 01, 2010] REQUEST OF registered in the name of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong, and
JUDGE NIÃ‘O A. BATINGANA, once in the possession of the said special power of attorney and other
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, pertinent documents, said accused made Wendy Mitsuko Sato sign the
BRANCH 6, MATI, DAVAO three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale covering Transfer Certificate of Title
ORIENTAL FOR EXTENSION OF [TCT] No. 3148 for P250,000.00, [TCT] No. 3149 for P250,000.00 and
TIME TO DECIDE CRIMINAL CASE [Tax Declaration] GR-016-0735 for P650,000.00 and once in possession of
NO. 4745-05. the proceeds of the sale of the above properties, said accused,
misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to his own personal
use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Manolita
made her attorney-in-fact, to sell and dispose four (4) valuable pieces of
land in Tagaytay City. Said Special Power of Attorney, copy of which is
attached as ANNEX "A" of the Affidavit of Wendy Mitsuko Sato, was signed
and thumbmark[ed] by my mother because William Sato told her that the
documents she was being made to sign involved her taxes. At that time,
my mother was completely blind, having gone blind almost ten (10) years
prior to November, 1992.
5. The aforesaid Special Power of Attorney was signed by my mother in

the presence of Wendy, my other niece Belinda Kiku Sato, our maid Mana
Tingzon, and Governor Josephine Ramirez who later became the second
wife of my sister's widower William Sato.
6. Wendy Mitsuko Sato attests to the fact that my mother signed the
document in the belief that they were in connection with her taxes, not
knowing, since she was blind, that the same was in fact a Special Power of
Attorney to sell her Tagaytay properties.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid Special Power of Attorney, William Sato

found buyers for the property and made my niece Wendy Mitsuko Sato
sign three (3) deeds of absolute sale in favor of (a) Anita Ng (Doc. 2194,
Page No. 41, Book No. V, Series of 1992 of Notary Public Vicente B.
Custodio), (b) Anita Ng (Doc. No. 2331, Page No. 68, Book No. V, Series
of 1992 of Notary Public Vicente B. Custodio) and (c) Ruby Lee Tsai (Doc.
SPONSORED SEARCHES No. II, Page No. 65, Book No. II, Series of 1993 of Notary Public Toribio D.
Labid). x x x
intestate estate
criminal law cases 8. Per the statement of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, the considerations
appearing on the deeds of absolute sale were not the true and actual
invoice receipt considerations received by her father William Sato from the buyers of her
grandmother's properties. She attests that Anita Ng actually paid
criminal crime
P7,000,000.00 for the property covered by TCT No. 3148 and
is probate necessary when a spouse dies P7,034,000.00 for the property covered by TCT No. 3149. All the aforesaid
proceeds were turned over to William Sato who undertook to make the
SPONSORED SEARCHES proper accounting thereof to my mother, Manolita Carungcong Gonzale[s].
criminal law cases

9. Again, per the statement of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, Ruby Lee Tsai paid
is probate necessary when a spouse dies P8,000,000.00 for the property covered by Tax Declaration No. GR-016-
0735, and the proceeds thereof were likewise turned over to William Sato.
how to claim estate of deceased
10. The considerations appearing on the deeds of sale were falsified as
criminal digest
Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato has actual knowledge of the true amounts paid by
indian penal code the buyers, as stated in her Affidavit, since she was the signatory thereto
as the attorney-in-fact of Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s].
11. Wendy was only 20 years old at the time and was not in any position
to oppose or to refuse her father's orders.
12. After receiving the total considerations for the properties sold under
the power of attorney fraudulently secured from my mother, which total
P22,034,000.00, William Sato failed to account for the same and never
delivered the proceeds to Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s] until the
latter died on June 8, 1994.
13. Demands have been made for William Sato to make an accounting
and to deliver the proceeds of the sales to me as Administratrix of my
mother's estate, but he refused and failed, and continues to refuse and to
February-2010 Jurisprudence
fail to do so, to the damage and prejudice of the estate of the deceased
[A.M. No. P-10-2758 (Formerly Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong who died in 1994.
OCA IPI No. 08-2957-P) :
February 02, 2010] JUDGE DELIA Contrary to law.[7]
P. NOEL-BERTULFO, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT, PALOMPON, LEYTE,
Subsequently, the prosecution moved for the amendment of the Information so as to
COMPLAINANT, VS. DYNDEE P.
increase the amount of damages from P1,150,000, the total amount stated in the
NUÑEZ, COURT AIDE, MUNICIPAL
deeds of sale, to P22,034,000, the actual amount received by Sato.
TRIAL COURT, PALOMPON, LEYTE,
RESPONDENT.
Sato moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under Article 332 of the
Revised Penal Code, his relationship to the person allegedly defrauded, the deceased
Manolita who was his mother-in-law, was an exempting circumstance.
02, 2010] PHILIPPINE BRITISH
ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF The prosecution disputed Sato's motion in an opposition dated March 29, 2006.
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED

BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS In an order dated April 17, 2006,[8] the trial court granted Sato's motion and ordered
(BOC), RESPONDENT. the dismissal of the criminal case:

The Trial Prosecutor's contention is that the death of the wife of the
02, 2010] FLORENCIA G. DIAZ,
accused severed the relationship of affinity between accused and his
PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF
mother-in-law. Therefore, the mantle of protection provided to the
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
accused by the relationship is no longer obtaining.

A judicious and thorough examination of Article 332 of the Revised Penal
02, 2010] MALAYAN EMPLOYEES
Code convinces this Court of the correctness of the contention of the
ASSOCIATION-FFW AND
[d]efense. While it is true that the death of Zenaida Carungcong-Sato has
RODOLFO MANGALINO,
extinguished the marriage of accused with her, it does not erase the fact
PETITIONERS, VS. MALAYAN
that accused and Zenaida's mother, herein complainant, are still son[-in-
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
law] and mother-in-law and they remained son[-in-law] and mother-in-
RESPONDENT.
law even beyond the death of Zenaida.

Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, is very explicit and states no
02, 2010] ABDUL GAFFAR P.M.
proviso. "No criminal, but only civil liability[,] shall result from the
DIBARATUN, PETITIONER, VS.
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
committed or caused mutually by xxx 1) spouses, ascendants and
AND ABDUL CARIM MALA
descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line."
ABUBAKAR, RESPONDENTS.
Article 332, according to Aquino, in his Commentaries [to] Revised Penal

Code, preserves family harmony and obviates scandal, hence even in
02, 2010] RAYMUNDO S. DE
cases of theft and malicious mischief, where the crime is committed by a
LEON, PETITIONER, VS. BENITA
stepfather against his stepson, by a grandson against his grandfather, by
T. ONG.[1], RESPONDENT.
a son against his mother, no criminal liability is incurred by the accused
only civil (Vicente Alavare, 52 Phil. 65; Adame, CA 40 OG 12th Supp. 63;
Cristobal, 84 Phil. 473).
02, 2010] MARCELINO DOMINGO,
PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF
Such exempting circumstance is applicable herein.
APPEALS, AGAPITA DOMINGO,
ANA DOMINGO, HEIRS OF
WHEREFORE, finding the Motion to Quash Original Information
GAUDENCIO DOMINGO, NAMELY:
meritorious, the same is GRANTED and, as prayed for, case is hereby
DOROTEO DOMINGO, JULITA
DISMISSED.
DOMINGO, AMANDO DOMINGO,
AND ARCEL DOMINGO; HEIRS OF
JULIAN DOMINGO, NAMELY: SO ORDERED.[9] (underlining supplied in the original)
JULIAN DOMINGO, JR. AND

PONCIANO DOMINGO; HEIRS OF
The prosecution's motion for reconsideration[10] was denied in an order dated June 2,
EDILBERTA DOMINGO, NAMELY:
2006.[11]
ANITA DOMINGO AND ROSIE
DOMINGO; HEIR OF FELIPE
Dissatisfied with the trial court's rulings, the intestate estate of Manolita, represented
DOMINGO, NAMELY: LORNA by Mediatrix, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals[12] which, however,
DOMINGO; AND HEIRS OF
in a decision[13] dated August 9, 2007, dismissed it. It ruled:
GERONIMO DOMINGO, NAMELY:
EMILY DOMINGO AND ARISTON
DOMINGO REPRESENTED BY [W]e sustain the finding of [the trial court] that the death of Zenaida did
ROLANDO DOMINGO, not extinguish the relationship by affinity between her husband, private
RESPONDENTS. respondent Sato, and her mother Manolita, and does not bar the
application of the exempting circumstance under Article 332(1) of the
[G.R. No. 166356 : February Revised Penal Code in favor of private respondent Sato.
02, 2010] BENEDICTA M.
SAMSON AND MARCIAL M. We further agree with the submission of the [Office of the Solicitor
SAMSON, PETITIONERS, General (OSG)] that nothing in the law and/or existing jurisprudence
PRESENT: VS. HON. JUDGE supports the argument of petitioner that the fact of death of Zenaida
GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG, dissolved the relationship by affinity between Manolita and private
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE respondent Sato, and thus removed the protective mantle of Article 332 of
ISLANDS, FAR EAST BANK AND the Revised Penal Code from said private respondent; and that
TRUST CO., ATTY. JULIA CECILY notwithstanding the death of Zenaida, private respondent Sato remains to
COCHING-SOSITO, AND THE be the son-in-law of Manolita, and a brother-in-law of petitioner

REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR administratrix. As further pointed out by the OSG, the filing of the criminal
MARIKINA CITY, RESPONDENTS. case for estafa against private respondent Sato already created havoc
among members of the Carungcong and Sato families as private
[G.R. No. 165003 : February respondent's daughter Wendy Mitsuko Sato joined cause with her aunt
02, 2010] THE CITY MAYOR OF [Mediatrix] Carungcong y Gonzales, while two (2) other children of private
BAGUIO AND THE HEAD OF THE respondent, William Francis and Belinda Sato, took the side of their father.
DEMOLITION TEAM - ENGR.
NAZITA BAÑEZ, PETITIONERS, There is a dearth of jurisprudence and/or commentaries elaborating on
VS. ATTY. BRAIN MASWENG, the provision of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code. However, from the
REGIONAL HEARING OFFICER, plain language of the law, it is clear that the exemption from criminal
NCIP-CAR, THE HEIRS OF JUDITH liability for the crime of swindling (estafa) under Article 315 of the Revised
CARIÑO, JACQUELINE CARIÑO Penal Code applies to private respondent Sato, as son-in-law of Manolita,
AND THE HEIRS OF MATEO they being "relatives by affinity in the same line" under Article 332(1) of
CARIÑO AND BAYOSA ORTEGA,** the same Code. We cannot draw the distinction that following the death of
RESPONDENTS. Zenaida in 1991, private respondent Sato is no longer the son-in-law of
Manolita, so as to exclude the former from the exempting circumstance
[G.R. No. 163280 : February provided for in Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
02, 2010] DORIS U. SUNBANUN,

PETITIONER, VS. AURORA B. GO, Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. Basic is the rule in
RESPONDENT. statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, the courts
should not distinguish. There should be no distinction in the application of
[G.R. No. 164860 : February law where none is indicated. The courts could only distinguish where there
02, 2010] HILTON HEAVY are facts or circumstances showing that the lawgiver intended a
EQUIPMENT CORPORATION AND distinction or qualification. In such a case, the courts would merely give
PETER LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. effect to the lawgiver's intent. The solemn power and duty of the Court to
ANANIAS P. DY, RESPONDENT. interpret and apply the law does not include the power to correct by
reading into the law what is not written therein.

02, 2010] BIBIANA FARMS AND Further, it is an established principle of statutory construction that penal
MILLS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the
ARTURO LADO, RESPONDENT. accused. Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
In this case, the plain meaning of Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal
[G.R. No. 126297 : February Code's simple language is most favorable to Sato.[14]
02, 2010] PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER,
VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND The appellate court denied reconsideration.[15] Hence, this petition.
NATIVIDAD AND ENRIQUE

AGANA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not reversing the orders of the
NO. 126467] NATIVIDAD trial court. It cites the commentary of Justice Luis B. Reyes in his book on criminal
[SUBSTITUTED BY HER law that the rationale of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code exempting the persons
mentioned therein from criminal liability is that the law recognizes the presumed
CHILDREN MARCELINO AGANA co-ownership of the property between the offender and the offended party.
III, ENRIQUE AGANA, JR., EMMA Here, the properties subject of the estafa case were owned by Manolita whose
AGANA-ANDAYA, JESUS AGANA daughter, Zenaida Carungcong-Sato (Sato's wife), died on January 28, 1991. Hence,
AND RAYMUND AGANA] AND Zenaida never became a co-owner because, under the law, her right to the
ENRIQUE AGANA, PETITIONERS, three parcels of land could have arisen only after her mother's death. Since
VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND Zenaida predeceased her mother, Manolita, no such right came about and
JUAN FUENTES, RESPONDENTS. the mantle of protection provided to Sato by the relationship no longer
[G.R. NO. 127590] existed.
[G.R. No. 183099 : February Sato counters that Article 332 makes no distinction that the relationship may not be
03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE invoked in case of death of the spouse at the time the crime was allegedly
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. committed. Thus, while the death of Zenaida extinguished her marriage with Sato, it
RACHELLE BALAGAN AND did not dissolve the son-in-law and mother-in-law relationship between Sato and
HERMINIA AVILA, APPELLANTS. Zenaida's mother, Manolita.
[G.R. No. 182221 : February For his part, the Solicitor General maintains that Sato is covered by the exemption
03, 2010] THEMISTOCLES A. from criminal liability provided under Article 332. Nothing in the law and
SAÑO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. jurisprudence supports petitioner's claim that Zenaida's death dissolved the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, relationship by affinity between Sato and Manolita. As it is, the criminal case against
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF Sato created havoc among the members of the Carungcong and Sato families, a
CANVASSERS OF DULAG, LEYTE, situation sought to be particularly avoided by Article 332's provision exempting a
FERDINAND A. SERRANO, IN HIS family member committing theft, estafa or malicious mischief from criminal liability
CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRMAN and reducing his/her liability to the civil aspect only.
OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS OF DULAG, LEYTE, The petition has merit.
AND MANUEL SIA QUE,
RESPONDENTS. The resolution of this case rests on the interpretation of Article 332 of the Revised
Penal Code. In particular, it calls for the determination of the following: (1) the effect
[G.R. No. 179117 : February of death on the relationship by affinity created between a surviving spouse and the
03, 2010] NORTHWEST blood relatives of the deceased spouse and (2) the extent of the coverage of Article
AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. 332.
SPOUSES EDWARD J. HESHAN
AND NELIA L. HESHAN AND DARA Effect of Death on Relationship
GANESSA L. HESHAN, By Affinity as Absolutory Cause
REPRESENTED BY HER PARENTS
EDWARD AND NELIA HESHAN, Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause[16] in the crimes of theft, estafa (or
RESPONDENTS. swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits the responsibility of the offender to civil
liability and frees him from criminal liability by virtue of his relationship to the
[G.R. No. 166577 : February offended party.
03, 2010] SPOUSES MORRIS
CARPO AND SOCORRO CARPO, In connection with the relatives mentioned in the first paragraph, it has been held
PETITIONERS, VS. AYALA LAND, that included in the exemptions are parents-in-law, stepparents and adopted
INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.
children.[17] By virtue thereof, no criminal liability is incurred by the stepfather who
commits malicious mischief against his stepson;[18] by the stepmother who commits
[GR. No. 166536 : February
theft against her stepson;[19] by the stepfather who steals something from his
04, 2010] FLOR MARTINEZ,
REPRESENTED BY MACARIO stepson;[20] by the grandson who steals from his grandfather;[21] by the accused
MARTINEZ, AUTHORIZED who swindles his sister-in-law living with him;[22] and by the son who steals a ring
REPRESENTATIVE AND from his mother.[23]
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONER,
VS. ERNESTO G. GARCIA AND Affinity is the relation that one spouse has to the blood relatives of the other spouse.
EDILBERTO M. BRUA,
It is a relationship by marriage or a familial relation resulting from marriage.[24] It is
RESPONDENTS.
a fictive kinship, a fiction created by law in connection with the institution of marriage
and family relations.
04, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE
If marriage gives rise to one's relationship by affinity to the blood relatives of one's
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS.
spouse, does the extinguishment of marriage by the death of the spouse dissolve the
relationship by affinity?
FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO,

APPELLANT. Philippine jurisprudence has no previous encounter with the issue that confronts us in
this case. That is why the trial and appellate courts acknowledged the "dearth of
[G.R. No. 179800 : February jurisprudence and/or commentaries" on the matter. In contrast, in the American legal
04, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE system, there are two views on the subject. As one Filipino author observed:
PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY
THE COMMISSIONER OF
In case a marriage is terminated by the death of one of the spouses, there
INTERNAL REVENUE,
are conflicting views. There are some who believe that relationship by
PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE
affinity is not terminated whether there are children or not in the marriage
AIRLINES, INC. (PAL),
(Carman vs. Newell, N.Y. 1 [Denio] 25, 26). However, the better view
RESPONDENT.
supported by most judicial authorities in other jurisdictions is that, if the
spouses have no living issues or children and one of the spouses dies, the
relationship by affinity is dissolved. It follows the rule that relationship by
04, 2010] EGAP MADSALI,
affinity ceases with the dissolution of the marriage which produces it
SAJIRON LAJIM AND MARON
(Kelly v. Neely, 12 Ark. 657, 659, 56 Am Dec. 288). On the other hand,
LAJIM, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE
the relationship by affinity is continued despite the death of one of the
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
spouses where there are living issues or children of the marriage "in
RESPONDENT.
whose veins the blood of the parties are commingled, since the
relationship of affinity was continued through the medium of the issue of
the marriage" (Paddock vs. Wells, 2 Barb. Ch. 331, 333).[25]
04, 2010] SPOUSES EULOGIO N.
ANTAZO AND NELIA C. ANTAZO,
PETITIONERS, VS. LEONIDES
The first view (the terminated affinity view) holds that relationship by affinity
DOBLADA, DIOSDADO CELESTRA,
terminates with the dissolution of the marriage either by death or divorce which gave
LEOPOLDO CELESTRA,
rise to the relationship of affinity between the parties.[26] Under this view, the
FERDINAND CELESTRA, AND
relationship by affinity is simply coextensive and coexistent with the marriage that
ROBERTO DOBLADA,
produced it. Its duration is indispensably and necessarily determined by the marriage
RESPONDENTS.
that created it. Thus, it exists only for so long as the marriage subsists, such that the
death of a spouse ipso facto ends the relationship by affinity of the surviving spouse
to the deceased spouse's blood relatives.
04, 2010] EDWARD N. LIM,
PETITIONER, VS. MA. CHERYL
The first view admits of an exception. The relationship by affinity continues even after
STA. CRUZ-LIM, RESPONDENT.
the death of one spouse when there is a surviving issue.[27] The rationale is that the
relationship is preserved because of the living issue of the marriage in whose veins
04, 2010] ASIAN TERMINALS, the blood of both parties is commingled.[28]
INC., PETITIONER, VS. DAEHAN

FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE The second view (the continuing affinity view) maintains that relationship by affinity
CO., LTD., RESPONDENT. between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even
after the death of the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the marriage produced
[A.C. No. 6593 : February 04, children or not.[29] Under this view, the relationship by affinity endures even after the
2010] MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO, dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a result of the death of one of the
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. parties to the said marriage. This view considers that, where statutes have indicated
ANGEL E. GARRIDO AND an intent to benefit step-relatives or in-laws, the "tie of affinity" between these
ROMANA P. VALENCIA, people and their relatives-by-marriage is not to be regarded as terminated upon the
RESPONDENTS. death of one of the married parties.[30]
[G.R. No. 162924 : February After due consideration and evaluation of the relative merits of the two views, we
04, 2010] MID-PASIG LAND hold that the second view is more consistent with the language and spirit of Article
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
PETITIONER, VS. MARIO
TABLANTE, DOING BUSINESS First, the terminated affinity view is generally applied in cases of jury disqualification
UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE and incest.[31] On the other hand, the continuing affinity view has been applied in the
ECRM ENTERPRISES; ROCKLAND interpretation of laws that intend to benefit step-relatives or in-laws. Since the
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; purpose of the absolutory cause in Article 332(1) is meant to be beneficial to relatives
LAURIE LITAM; AND MC HOME by affinity within the degree covered under the said provision, the continuing affinity
DEPOT, INC., RESPONDENTS. view is more appropriate.
[G.R. No. 179717 : February Second, the language of Article 332(1) which speaks of "relatives by affinity in the
05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE same line" is couched in general language. The legislative intent to make no
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. distinction between the spouse of one's living child and the surviving spouse of one's
NIEVA ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA, deceased child (in case of a son-in-law or daughter-in-law with respect to his or her
APPELLANT. parents-in-law)[32] can be drawn from Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code
without doing violence to its language.
05, 2010] ANGELITA DELOS Third, the Constitution declares that the protection and strengthening of the family as
REYES FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. a basic autonomous social institution are policies of the State and that it is the duty
of the State to strengthen the solidarity of the family.[33] Congress has also affirmed
RESPONDENT.
as a State and national policy that courts shall preserve the solidarity of the family.
[34] In this connection, the spirit of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and
obviate scandal.[35] The view that relationship by affinity is not affected by the death
05, 2010] MINDANAO TIMES
of one of the parties to the marriage that created it is more in accord with family
CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
solidarity and harmony.
MITCHEL R. CONFESOR,
RESPONDENT.
Fourth, the fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting criminal laws is to
resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for
05, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK the accused.[36] This is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the
AND TRUST CO. AND SOLIDBANK accused shall be presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is established beyond
CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, reasonable doubt.[37]

VS. BERNARDITA H. PEREZ,
REPRESENTED BY HER Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity.[38] The rule
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT PATRIA H. applies when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute,
PEREZ, RESPONDENT. one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule
calls for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.
05, 2010] JIMMY ARENO, JR., Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case is viewed through the lens of
PETITIONER, VS. SKYCABLE PCC- the basic purpose of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to preserve family
BAGUIO, RESPONDENT. harmony by providing an absolutory cause. Since the goal of Article 332(1) is to
benefit the accused, the Court should adopt an application or interpretation that is
[G.R. No. 175097 : February more favorable to the accused. In this case, that interpretation is the continuing
05, 2010] ALLIED BANKING affinity view.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Thus, for purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, we hold that the
REVENUE, RESPONDENT. relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives
of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the marriage which
[G.R. No. 169706 : February created the affinity. (The same principle applies to the justifying circumstance of
05, 2010] SPOUSES WILLIAM
defense of one's relatives under Article 11[2] of the Revised Penal Code, the
GENATO AND REBECCA GENATO,
mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of grave offense committed against
PETITIONERS, VS. RITA VIOLA,
one's relatives under Article 13[5] of the same Code and the absolutory cause of
RESPONDENT.
relationship in favor of accessories under Article 20 also of the same Code.)

SCOPE OF ARTICLE 332 OF
05, 2010] HERALD BLACK
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
DACASIN, PETITIONER, VS.
SHARON DEL MUNDO DACASIN,
The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the
RESPONDENT.
felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the State
condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the
05, 2010] ADELA B. DELGADO,
offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to
PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
hold the offender civilly liable.
PHILIPPINES AND EMMANUEL
ANG JARANILLA, RESPONDENTS.
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned
therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that
it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief.
08, 2010] G.G. SPORTSWEAR
It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed
MANUFACTURING CORP. AND with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.
NARESH K. GIDWANI, [39]
PETITIONERS, VS. BANCO DE

ORO UNIBANK, INC., PHILIPPINE The Information against Sato charges him with estafa. However, the real nature of
INVESTMENT ONE (SPV-AMC), the offense is determined by the facts alleged in the Information, not by the
INC. AND THE OFFICE OF THE
designation of the offense.[40] What controls is not the title of the Information or the
CLERK OF COURT AND EX
designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the Information.[41] In other
OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE
words, it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the nomenclature
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
of the offense, that determines the crime being charged in the Information.[42] It is
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 133, AS
REPRESENTED BY ATTY. the exclusive province of the court to say what the crime is or what it is named.[43]
ENGRACIO M. ESCASINAS, JR., The determination by the prosecutor who signs the Information of the crime
RESPONDENTS. committed is merely an opinion which is not binding on the court.[44]
[G.R. No. 180042 : February A reading of the facts alleged in the Information reveals that Sato is being charged
08, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF not with simple estafa but with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
INTERNAL REVENUE, public documents. In particular, the Information states that Sato, by means of deceit,
PETITIONER, VS. IRONCON intentionally defrauded Manolita committed as follows:
BUILDERS AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
(a) Sato presented a document to Manolita (who was already blind at that
time) and induced her to sign and thumbmark the same;
(b) he made Manolita believe that the said document was in connection
08, 2010] PANASONIC
with her taxes when it was in fact a special power of attorney (SPA)
COMMUNICATIONS IMAGING
authorizing his minor daughter Wendy to sell, assign, transfer or
CORPORATION OF THE
otherwise dispose of Manolita's properties in Tagaytay City;
PHILIPPINES (FORMERLY
(c) relying on Sato's inducement and representation, Manolita signed and
MATSUSHITA BUSINESS
thumbmarked the SPA in favor of Wendy Mitsuko Sato, daughter of
MACHINE CORPORATION OF THE
Sato;
PHILIPPINES), PETITIONER, VS.
(d) using the document, he sold the properties to third parties but he
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
neither delivered the proceeds to Manolita nor accounted for the same
REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
and despite repeated demands, he failed and refused to deliver the
proceeds, to the damage and prejudice of the estate of Manolita.
08, 2010] SESSION DELIGHTS
ICE CREAM AND FAST FOODS,
PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. The above averments in the Information show that the estafa was committed by
COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH attributing to Manolita (who participated in the execution of the document)
DIVISION), HON. NATIONAL statements other than those in fact made by her. Manolita's acts of signing the SPA
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and affixing her thumbmark to that document were the very expression of her
(SECOND DIVISION) AND specific intention that something be done about her taxes. Her signature and
ADONIS ARMENIO M. FLORA, thumbmark were the affirmation of her statement on such intention as she only
RESPONDENTS. signed and thumbmarked the SPA (a document which she could not have read)
because of Sato's representation that the document pertained to her taxes. In signing
[G.R. No. 169711 : February and thumbmarking the document, Manolita showed that she believed and adopted
08, 2010] HEIRS OF SARAH the representations of Sato as to what the document was all about, i.e., that it
MARIE PALMA BURGOS, involved her taxes. Her signature and thumbmark, therefore, served as her
PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF conformity to Sato's proposal that she execute a document to settle her taxes.
APPEALS AND JOHNNY CO Y YU,
RESPONDENTS. Thus, by inducing Manolita to sign the SPA, Sato made it appear that Manolita
granted his daughter Wendy a special power of attorney for the purpose of selling,
[G.R. No. 175590 : February assigning, transferring or otherwise disposing of Manolita's Tagaytay properties when
09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE the fact was that Manolita signed and thumbmarked the document presented by Sato
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- in the belief that it pertained to her taxes. Indeed, the document itself, the SPA, and
APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO everything that it contained were falsely attributed to Manolita when she was made
VILLAMIN Y SAN JOSE ALIAS to sign the SPA.
ANDOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Moreover, the allegations in the Information that
[A.M. No. P-95-1167 : (1) "once in the possession of the said special power of attorney and other
February 09, 2010] CARMELITA pertinent documents, [Sato] made Wendy Mitsuko Sato sign the three
LLEDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale" and
CESAR V. LLEDO, BRANCH CLERK
OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL (2) "once in possession of the proceeds of the sale of the above
COURT, BRANCH 94, QUEZON properties, said accused, misapplied, misappropriated and converted
CITY, RESPONDENT. the same to his own personal use and benefit"

raise the presumption that Sato, as the possessor of the falsified document and the
09, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE
one who benefited therefrom, was the author thereof.
PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
Furthermore, it should be noted that the prosecution moved for the amendment of
RESOURCES), PETITIONER, VS.
the Information so as to increase the amount of damages from P1,150,000 to
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVOCATES
P22,034,000. This was granted by the trial court and was affirmed by the Court of
FOR AGRO-FOREST PROGRAMS
Appeals on certiorari. This meant that the amended Information would now state
ASSOCIATION, INC. (TAFPA,
that, while the total amount of consideration stated in the deeds of absolute sale was
INC.), RESPONDENT.
only P1,150,000, Sato actually received the total amount of P22,034,000 as proceeds
of the sale of Manolita's properties.[45] This also meant that the deeds of sale (which
were public documents) were also falsified by making untruthful statements as to the
09, 2010] SARGASSO
amounts of consideration stated in the deeds.
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL Therefore, the allegations in the Information essentially charged a crime that was not
simple estafa. Sato resorted to falsification of public documents (particularly, the
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
special power of attorney and the deeds of sale) as a necessary means to commit the
(4TH DIVISION) AND GORGONIO
estafa.
MONGCAL, RESPONDENTS.
Since the crime with which respondent was charged was not simple estafa but the
complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, Sato cannot avail
10, 2010] H. HARRY L. ROQUE,
himself of the absolutory cause provided under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code
JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL R.
in his favor.
BAGARES, ALLAN JONES F.
LARDIZABAL, GILBERT T.
EFFECT OF ABSOLUTORY CAUSE UNDER
ANDRES, IMMACULADA D.
ARTICLE 332 ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY
GARCIA, ERLINDA T. MERCADO,
FOR THE COMPLEX CRIME OF ESTAFA
FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, MA.
AZUCENA P. MACEDA, AND ALVIN THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS
A. PETERS, PETITIONERS, VS.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
The question may be asked: if the accused may not be held criminally liable for
REPRESENTED BY HON.
simple estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
CHAIRMAN JOSE MELO, COMELEC
Code, should he not be absolved also from criminal liability for the complex crime of
SPECIAL BIDS AND AWARDS
estafa through falsification of public documents? No.
COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN HON. FERDINAND
True, the concurrence of all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification
RAFANAN, DEPARTMENT OF
of public document is required for a proper conviction for the complex crime of estafa
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
REPRESENTED BY HON. through falsification of public document. That is the ruling in Gonzaludo v. People.[46]
ROLANDO ANDAYA, TOTAL It means that the prosecution must establish that the accused resorted to the
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT falsification of a public document as a necessary means to commit the crime of
CORPORATION AND SMARTMATIC estafa.
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS. PETE QUIRINO- However, a proper appreciation of the scope and application of Article 332 of the
QUADRA, PETITIONER-IN- Revised Penal Code and of the nature of a complex crime would negate exemption
INTERVENTION. SENATE OF THE from criminal liability for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY documents, simply because the accused may not be held criminally liable for simple
ITS PRESIDENT, JUAN PONCE estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause under Article 332.
ENRILE, MOVANT-INTERVENOR.
The absolutory cause under Article 332 is meant to address specific crimes against
property, namely, the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Thus,
[G.R. No. 180050 : February all other crimes, whether simple or complex, are not affected by the
10, 2010] RODOLFO G. absolutory cause provided by the said provision. To apply the absolutory cause
NAVARRO, VICTOR F. BERNAL, under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to one of the component crimes of a
AND RENE O. MEDINA, complex crime for the purpose of negating the existence of that complex crime is to
PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE unduly expand the scope of Article 332. In other words, to apply Article 332 to the
SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document would be to
REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT mistakenly treat the crime of estafa as a separate simple crime, not as the
OF THE PHILIPPINES; SENATE OF component crime that it is in that situation. It would wrongly consider the indictment
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED as separate charges of estafa and falsification of public document, not as a single
BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT; charge for the single (complex) crime of estafa through falsification of public
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, document.
REPRESENTED BY THE HOUSE
SPEAKER; GOVERNOR ROBERT Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the
ACE S. BARBERS, REPRESENTING offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious
THE MOTHER PROVINCE OF mischief and considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by
SURIGAO DEL NORTE; the offender against certain family members as a private matter and therefore
GOVERNOR GERALDINE ECLEO subject only to civil liability. The waiver does not apply when the violation of the right
VILLAROMAN, REPRESENTING to property is achieved through (and therefore inseparably intertwined with) a breach
THE NEW PROVINCE OF DINAGAT of the public interest in the integrity and presumed authenticity of public documents.
ISLANDS, RESPONDENTS. For, in the latter instance, what is involved is no longer simply the property
right of a family relation but a paramount public interest.
[A.M. No. P-10-2763 [Formerly
OCA IPI No. 09-3056-P] : The purpose of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal.[47]
February 10, 2010] RE: Thus, the action provided under the said provision simply concerns the private
IRREGULARITY IN THE USE OF relations of the parties as family members and is limited to the civil aspect between
BUNDY CLOCK BY SOPHIA M. the offender and the offended party. When estafa is committed through falsification of
CASTRO AND BABYLIN V. TAYAG, a public document, however, the matter acquires a very serious public dimension and
SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICERS II, goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members among
[1]BOTH OF THE REGIONAL themselves. Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that breaches public
TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE interest in the integrity of public documents as a means to violate the property rights
CLERK OF COURT, ANGELES CITY. of a family member, he is removed from the protective mantle of the absolutory
cause under Article 332.
[A.M. No. 2007-02-SC :
February 10, 2010] RE: In considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime of estafa through
COMPLAINT OF JUDGE ROWENA falsification of public documents, it would be wrong to consider the component crimes
NIEVES A. TAN FOR LATE separately from each other. While there may be two component crimes (estafa
REMITTANCE BY THE SUPREME and falsification of documents), both felonies are animated by and result from one
COURT OF HER TERMINAL LEAVE
and the same criminal intent for which there is only one criminal liability.[48] That
PAY TO GSIS TO APPLY FOR
is the concept of a complex crime. In other words, while there are two crimes, they
PAYMENT OF HER SALARY LOAN
are treated only as one, subject to a single criminal liability.
TO SAID AGENCY.
As opposed to a simple crime where only one juridical right or interest is violated
(e.g., homicide which violates the right to life, theft which violates the right to
11, 2010] DARYL GRACE J.
property),[49] a complex crime constitutes a violation of diverse juridical rights or
ABAYON, PETITIONER, PRESENT:
interests by means of diverse acts, each of which is a simple crime in itself.[50] Since
VS. THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF
only a single criminal intent underlies the diverse acts, however, the component
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
crimes are considered as elements of a single crime, the complex crime. This is the
TRIBUNAL, PERFECTO C.
correct interpretation of a complex crime as treated under Article 48 of the Revised
LUCABAN, JR., RONYL S. DE LA
Penal Code.
CRUZ AND AGUSTIN C. DOROGA,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No.
In the case of a complex crime, therefore, there is a formal (or ideal) plurality of
189506] CONGRESSMAN JOVITO
crimes where the same criminal intent results in two or more component crimes
S. PALPARAN, JR., PETITIONER,
VS. HOUSE OF constituting a complex crime for which there is only one criminal liability.[51] (The
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document falls under this
TRIBUNAL (HRET), DR. category.) This is different from a material (or real) plurality of crimes where different
REYNALDO LESACA, JR., criminal intents result in two or more crimes, for each of which the accused incurs
CRISTINA PALABAY, RENATO M. criminal liability.[52] The latter category is covered neither by the concept of complex
REYES, JR., ERLINDA CADAPAN, crimes nor by Article 48.
ANTONIO FLORES AND JOSELITO
USTAREZ, RESPONDENTS. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the formal plurality of crimes (concursus
delictuorum or concurso de delitos) gives rise to a single criminal liability and requires
[A.M. No. MTJ-03-1462 the imposition of a single penalty:
(formerly OCA IPI No. 02-1515-
RTJ) : February 11, 2010] JUDGE
Although [a] complex crime quantitatively consists of two or more crimes,
DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL, RTC,
it is only one crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed and the
BRANCH 90, DASMARIÑAS,
two or more crimes constituting the same are more conveniently termed
CAVITE, COMPLAINANT, VS.
as component crimes.[53] (emphasis supplied)
JUDGE LORINDA B. TOLEDO-
MUPAS, MTC, DASMARIÑAS
-- âˆž -- -- âˆž -- -- âˆž --
CAVITE, RESPONDENT.
In [a] complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually

committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well
11, 2010] MAYOR VIRGILIO P.
as in the conscience of the offender. The offender has only one criminal
VARIAS, PETITIONER, VS.
intent. Even in the case where an offense is a necessary means for
AND JOSE "JOY" D. PEÑANO, committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is only one.[54]
RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
For this reason, while a conviction for estafa through falsification of public document
requires that the elements of both estafa and falsification exist, it does not mean that
11, 2010] CORAZON M.
the criminal liability for estafa may be determined and considered independently of
GREGORIO, AS ADMINISTRATRIX
that for falsification. The two crimes of estafa and falsification of public
OF THE ESTATE LITIGATED IN
documents are not separate crimes but component crimes of the single
THE CASE BELOW, RAMIRO T.
complex crime of estafa and falsification of public documents.
MADARANG, AND THE HEIRS OF
CASIMIRO R. MADARANG, JR.,
Therefore, it would be incorrect to claim that, to be criminally liable for the complex
NAMELY: ESTRELITA L.
crime of estafa through falsification of public document, the liability for estafa should
MADARANG, CONSUELO P.
be considered separately from the liability for falsification of public document. Such
MADARANG, CASIMIRO
approach would disregard the nature of a complex crime and contradict the letter and
MADARANG IV, AND JANE
spirit of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. It would wrongly disregard the
MARGARET MADARANG-
distinction between formal plurality and material plurality, as it improperly treats the
CRABTREE, PETITIONERS, VS.
plurality of crimes in the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
ATTY. JOSE R. MADARANG AND
document as a mere material plurality where the felonies are considered as separate
VICENTE R. MADARANG,
crimes to be punished individually.
RESPONDENTS.
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS MAY BE

A NECESSARY MEANS FOR COMMITTING
ESTAFA EVEN UNDER ARTICLE 315 (3[A])
VICTORIANO DELA CRUZ Y
The elements of the offense of estafa punished under Article 315 (3[a]) of the
LORENZO, APPELLANT.
Revised Penal Code are as follows:

11, 2010] GEN. ALEXANDER B. (1) the offender induced the offended party to sign a document;
YANO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, LT. (2) deceit was employed to make the offended party sign the document;
GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO,
COMMANDING GENERAL, (3) the offended party personally signed the document and
PHILIPPINE ARMY, AND MAJ.
GEN. RALPH A. VILLANUEVA, (4) prejudice is caused to the offended party.
COMMANDER, 7TH INFANTRY
DIVISION, PHILIPPINE ARMY,
While in estafa under Article 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the law does not
PETITIONERS, VS. CLEOFAS
require that the document be falsified for the consummation thereof, it does not
SANCHEZ AND MARCIANA
mean that the falsification of the document cannot be considered as a necessary
MEDINA, RESPONDENTS.
means to commit the estafa under that provision.
[G.R. No. 184740 : February The phrase "necessary means" does not connote indispensable means for if it did,
11, 2010] DENNIS A. B. FUNA, then the offense as a "necessary means" to commit another would be an
PETITIONER, VS. EXECUTIVE indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof.[55] In People
SECRETARY EDUARDO R.
v. Salvilla,[56] the phrase "necessary means" merely signifies that one crime is
ERMITA, OFFICE OF THE
committed to facilitate and insure the commission of the other.[57] In this case, the
PRESIDENT, SEC. LEANDRO R.
crime of falsification of public document, the SPA, was such a "necessary means" as it
MENDOZA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
was resorted to by Sato to facilitate and carry out more effectively his evil design to
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE
swindle his mother-in-law. In particular, he used the SPA to sell the Tagaytay
DEPARTMENT OF
properties of Manolita to unsuspecting third persons.
TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS, USEC. MARIA
When the offender commits in a public document any of the acts of falsification
ELENA H. BAUTISTA, IN HER
enumerated in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code as a necessary means to commit
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS
another crime, like estafa, theft or malversation, the two crimes form a complex
UNDERSECRETARY OF THE
crime under Article 48 of the same Code.[58] The falsification of a public, official or
DEPARTMENT OF
commercial document may be a means of committing estafa because, before the
TRANSPORTATION AND
falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of
COMMUNICATIONS AND AS
falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE
not being an element of the crime of falsification of a public, official or commercial
MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY
(MARINA), RESPONDENTS. document.[59] In other words, the crime of falsification was committed prior to the
consummation of the crime of estafa.[60] Actually utilizing the falsified public, official
[G.R. No. 184197 : February or commercial document to defraud another is estafa.[61] The damage to another is
11, 2010] RAPID CITY REALTY
caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document.[62]
AND DEVELOPMENT
Applying the above principles to this case, the allegations in the Information show
ORLANDO VILLA AND LOURDES
that the falsification of public document was consummated when Sato presented a
PAEZ-VILLA,[1] RESPONDENTS.
ready-made SPA to Manolita who signed the same as a statement of her intention in
connection with her taxes. While the falsification was consummated upon the
execution of the SPA, the consummation of the estafa occurred only when Sato later
11, 2010] INTESTATE ESTATE OF
utilized the SPA. He did so particularly when he had the properties sold and
MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE
thereafter pocketed the proceeds of the sale. Damage or prejudice to Manolita was
CARUNGCONG, REPRESENTED BY
caused not by the falsification of the SPA (as no damage was yet caused to the
MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, AS
property rights of Manolita at the time she was made to sign the document) but by
ADMINISTRATRIX, PETITIONER,
the subsequent use of the said document. That is why the falsification of the public
VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
document was used to facilitate and ensure (that is, as a necessary means for) the
AND WILLIAM SATO,
commission of the estafa.
RESPONDENTS.
The situation would have been different if Sato, using the same inducement, had
[G.R. Nos. 177857-58 :
made Manolita sign a deed of sale of the properties either in his favor or in favor of
February 11, 2010] PHILIPPINE
third parties. In that case, the damage would have been caused by, and at exactly
COCONUT PRODUCERS
the same time as, the execution of the document, not prior thereto. Therefore, the
FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED),
crime committed would only have been the simple crime of estafa.[63] On the other
MANUEL V. DEL ROSARIO,
hand, absent any inducement (such as if Manolita herself had been the one who
DOMINGO P. ESPINA, SALVADOR
asked that a document pertaining to her taxes be prepared for her signature, but
P. BALLARES, JOSELITO A.
what was presented to her for her signature was an SPA), the crime would have only
MORALEDA, PAZ M. YASON,
been the simple crime of falsification.[64]
VICENTE A. CADIZ, CESARIA DE
LUNA TITULAR, AND RAYMUNDO
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 9, 2007
C. DE VILLA, PETITIONERS, VS.
and the resolution dated January 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
95260 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the trial court
RESPONDENT. JOVITO R.
which is directed to try the accused with dispatch for the complex crime of estafa
SALONGA, WIGBERTO E.
through falsification of public documents.
TAÑADA, OSCAR F. SANTOS, ANA
THERESIA HONTIVEROS, AND
SO ORDERED.
TEOFISTO L. GUINGONA III,
OPPOSITORS-INTERVENORS.
Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Peralta, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, OSCAR F.
SANTOS, SURIGAO DEL SUR Endnotes:
FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL [1] Per letters of administration dated June 22, 1995 issued by the
COOPERATIVES (SUFAC) AND Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104 in SP. Proc. Q-95-23621.
MORO FARMERS ASSOCIATION
OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR [2] Docketed as I.S. No. 96-19651. Rollo, pp. 89-90.
(MOFAZS), REPRESENTED BY
ROMEO C. ROYANDOYAN; AND
[3] Id.
PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG MGA
SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA
[4] Id., pp. 85-88.
(PAKISAMA), REPRESENTED BY
VICENTE FABE, MOVANTS-
[5] Resolution No. 313, s. 2000 dated February 17, 2000. Id., pp. 81-84.
INTERVENORS.
[6] Docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-00-91385. Id., pp. 91-92.

11, 2010] RONILO SORREDA,
PETITIONER, VS. CAMBRIDGE [7] Id.
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,[1]
RESPONDENT. [8] Penned by Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala. Id., pp. 126-129.
[G.R. No. 172279 : February [9] Id.

11, 2010] VALENTIN MOVIDO,
SUBSTITUTED BY MARGINITO
[10] Dated April 26, 2006. Id., pp. 130-131.
MOVIDO, PETITIONER, VS. LUIS
REYES PASTOR, RESPONDENT.
[11] Id., p. 131.

[12] Docketed as CA-G.R. S.P. No. 95260.
11, 2010] CUA LAI CHU, CLARO
G. CASTRO, AND JUANITA
CASTRO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. [13] Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in
HILARIO L. LAQUI, PRESIDING by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong (retired) and Sixto C.
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Marella, Jr. of the Seventeenth Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp.
BRANCH 218, QUEZON CITY AND 28-40.
PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATION, [14] Id.
RESPONDENTS.
[15] Id., pp. 42-43.

11, 2010] GOVERNMENT
[16] An absolutory cause is a circumstance which is present prior to or
SERVICE, INSURANCE SYSTEM,
simultaneously with the offense by reason of which the accused who acts
PETITIONER, VS. ROSALINDA A.
with criminal intent, freedom and intelligence does not incur criminal
BERNADAS, RESPONDENT.
liability for an act that constitutes a crime (Regalado, Florenz, Criminal
Law Conspectus, Third Edition, 61-62 [2007]).
[A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :
February 11, 2010] RE: PETITION
[17] Id., p. 736.
FOR RECOGNITION OF THE
EXEMPTION OF THE
[18] People v. Alvarez, 52 Phil. 65 (1928).
GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM FROM
PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES. [19] Aquino, Ramon and Carolina Griño Aquino, The Revised Penal Code,
GOVERNMENT SERVICE Volume III, 374 (1997), citing People v. Adame, CA 40 O.G. Supp. No. 12,
INSURANCE SYSTEM, p. 63.
PETITIONER.
[20] Id. citing People v. Tupasi, 36 O.G. 2086.
12, 2010] LEONOR DANGAN- [21] Id. citing People v. Patubo, CA-G.R. No. 10616-R, 15 August 1953.
CORRAL, PETITIONER, VS.
[22] Id. citing People v. Navas, CA 51 O.G. 219.
AND ERNESTO ENERO
FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.
[23] Id. citing People v. Cristobal, 84 Phil. 473 (1949).
[G.R. No. 180945 : February [24] Blodget v. Brinsmaid, 9 Vt. 27, 1837 WL 1956 (Vt.).
12, 2010] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, AS THE ATTORNEY-IN- [25] Sta. Maria, Melencio, PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LAW, Fourth
FACT OF OPAL PORTFOLIO
Edition, 228-229 (2004).
INVESTMENTS (SPV-AMC), INC.,
PETITIONER, VS. MERCEDES
[26] Back v. Back, L.R.A. 1916C,752, 148 Iowa 223, 125 N.W. 1009,
CORPUZ, REPRESENTED BY HER
Am.Ann.Cas. 1912B, 1025 citing Blodget v. Brinsmaid, 9 Vt. 27; Noble v.
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT VALENTINA
State, 22 Ohio St. 541; State v. Brown, 47 Ohio St. 102, 23 N. E. 747, 21
CORPUZ, RESPONDENT.
Am. St. Rep. 790; Wilson v. State, 100 Tenn. 596, 46 S. W. 451, 66 Am.
St. Rep. 789; Johnson v. State, 20 Tex. App. 609, 54 Am. Rep. 535;
[G.R. Nos. 174599-609 :
Pegues v. Baker, 110 Ala. 251, 17 South. 943; Tagert v. State, 143 Ala.
February 12, 2010] PACIFICO R.
88, 39 South. 293, 111 Am. St. Rep. 17; Bigelow v. Sprague, 140 Mass.
CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE
425, 5 N. E. 144; Vannoy v. Givens, 23 N. J. Law, 201; 1 Bishop, New
SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH
Crim. Procedure, Â§ 901; 26 Cyc. 845.
DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE
[27] In this connection, one of the commentators on the Revised Penal
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND
Code wrote:
SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL TASK
FORCE 156, RESPONDENTS.
Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity (Kelly v. Neely,
[G.R. No. 171774 : February 12 Ark. 6[5]7, 659, 56 AmD 288; Chase v. Jennings, 38 Me. 44, 45)
12, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE unless the marriage has resulted in issue who is still living, in which case
PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. the relationship of affinity continues (Dearmond v. Dearmond, 10 Ind.
APOLINARIO CATARROJA, 191; Bigelow v. Sprague, 140 Mass. 425, 5 NE 144).
REYNALDO CATARROJA, AND

ROSITA CATARROJA-DISTRITO, See Reyes, Luis B., Revised Penal Code, Book I, Fifteenth Edition Revised
RESPONDENTS. 188, (2001).
[28] In re Bourdeux' Estate, 37 Wash. 2d 561, 225 P.2d 433, 26 A.L.R. 2d

12, 2010] CITY OF ILOILO 249.
REPRESENTED BY HON. JERRY P.
TREÑAS, CITY MAYOR, [29] Carman v. Newell, N.Y. 1 Denio 25.
PETITIONER, VS. HON. LOLITA
CONTRERAS-BESANA, [30] In re Bourdeux' Estate, supra. This view has been adopted and
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
applied in Security Union Casualty Co. v. Kelly, Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W.
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, AND
286; American General Insurance Co. v. Richardson, Tex.Civ.App., 132
ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, S.W.2d 161; Simcoke v. Grand Lodge of A. O. U. W. of Iowa, 84 Iowa
RESPONDENTS.
383, 51 N.W. 8, 15 L.R.A. 114; Faxon v. Grand Lodge Brotherhood of
Locomotive Firemen and M. E. Rhea, 87 Ill.App. 262; McGaughey v. Grand
Lodge A. O. U. W. of State of Minnesota, 148 Minn. 136, 180 N.W. 1001;
12, 2010] MODESTO PALALI,
Hernandez v. Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d
PETITIONER, VS. JULIET
346; Renner v. Supreme Lodge of Bohemian Slavonian Benevolent
AWISAN, REPRESENTED BY HER
Society, 89 Wis. 401, 62 N.W. 80 following Jones v. Mangan, 151 Wis.
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT GREGORIO
215, 138 N.W. 618; Steele v. Suwalski, 7 Cir., 75 F.2d 885, 99 A.L.R. 588;
AWISAN, RESPONDENT.
Benefield v. United States, D.C., 58 F.Supp. 904; Lewis v. O'Hair,
Tex.Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 379.
15, 2010] PHILIPPINE [31] Indeed, Kelly v. Neely, supra note 27, Paddock v. Wells, 2 Barb. Ch.
JOURNALISTS, INC., PETITIONER,
331, 333, Chase v. Jennings, supra note 27, Dearmond v. Dearmond,
VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
supra note 27 and Bigelow v. Sprague, supra note 27 are all jury
COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER
disqualification cases.
FEDRIEL S. PANGANIBAN AND
EDUARDO S. RIVERA,
[32] Or between the child of a living parent and the surviving child of a
RESPONDENTS.
deceased parent (in case of a stepchild with respect to the stepparent).

[33] Section 12, Article II and Section 1, Article 15.
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. [34] Section 2, Republic Act No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997).
ILDEFONSO MENDOZA Y BERIZO,
APPELLANT. [35] Aquino and Griño Aquino, supra note 19.

[36] See Justice Renato C. Corona's separate (concurring) opinion in
16, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE
People v. Temporada (G.R. No., 173473, 17 December 2008, 574 SCRA
258, 318-328).
APPELLEE, VS. IGNACIO PORAS,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
[37] See Section 14 (2), Article III, Constitution.
[A.M. No. P-09-2721 (Formerly

[38] Justice Corona's separate (concurring) opinion in People v.
A.M. No. 09-9-162-MCTC) :
February 16, 2010] REPORT ON Temporada, supra.
THE FINANCIAL AUDIT

[39] Regalado, Florenz, supra note 16, p. 736.
CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF
ACCOUNTS OF THE MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, [40] Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, 21 September 2007, 533 SCRA
MONDRAGON-SAN ROQUE, 643.
NORTHERN SAMAR.
[41] Id. citing People v. Resayaga, G.R. No. 49536, 30 March 1988, 159
[A.M. NO. P-10-2772
SCRA 426 and Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429, 29 January 1990, 181
(Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I NO. 07-
SCRA 487.
2615-P) : February 16, 2010]
DOMINGO PEÑA, JR., [42] Id. citing People v. Elesterio, G.R. No. 63971, 09 May 1989, 173
COMPLAINANT, VS. ACHILLES
SCRA 243.
ANDREW V. REGALADO II,
SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL
[43] Herrera, Oscar, Remedial Law, Volume Four - Criminal Procedure, 59
COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
(1992 Edition reprinted in 2001).
COURT, NAGA CITY,
RESPONDENT.
[44] People v. Gorospe, 53 Phil. 960 (1928).

[45] While the parties as well as the CA and RTC decisions spoke of an
16, 2010] JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR.,
MATIAS V. DEFENSOR, JR., amended Information, the said amended Information was not included in
RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, DANILO the records of this case.
E. SUAREZ, SOLOMON R.
CHUNGALAO, SALVACION [46] G.R. No. 150910, 06 February 2006, 481 SCRA 569.
ZALDIVAR-PEREZ, HARLIN CAST-
ABAYON, MELVIN G. MACUSI AND [47] Aquino, Ramon and Carolina Griño Aquino, The Revised Penal Code,
ELEAZAR P. QUINTO, Volume III, 374 (1997).
PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, MANUEL A. [48] Regalado, supra note 16, p. 172.
ROXAS II, FRANKLIN M. DRILON
AND J.R. NEREUS O. ACOSTA,
[49] Aquino, Ramon and Carolina Griño Aquino, supra note 47 at p. 662.
RESPONDENTS.
[50] Id.
[51] Regalado, supra note 6, p. 172.
APPELLEE, VS. LEOZAR DELA
CRUZ Y BALOBAL, ACCUSED- [52] Id.
APPELLANT.
[53] Id., p. 176.
16, 2010] OFFICE OF THE [54] Reyes, supra note 8, p. 650.
OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS.
MAXIMO D. SISON,
[55] People v. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163, 26 April 1989, 184 SCRA 671.
RESPONDENT.
[56] Id.
16, 2010] GEN. AVELINO I. [57] Id.
RAZON, JR., CHIEF, PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE (PNP); POLICE
[58] Reyes, supra note 20 at p. 226.
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT RAUL
CASTAÑEDA, CHIEF, CRIMINAL
[59] Id.
INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION
GROUP (CIDG); POLICE SENIOR
[60] Id.
SUPERINTENDENT LEONARDO A.
ESPINA, CHIEF, POLICE ANTI-
[61] Id.
CRIME AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE (PACER); AND GEN.
JOEL R. GOLTIAO, REGIONAL [62] Id.
DIRECTOR OF ARMM, PNP,
PETITIONERS, VS. MARY JEAN B. [63] See United States v. Berry, 5 Phil. 370 (1905) and United States v.
TAGITIS, HEREIN REPRESENTED Malong, 36 Phil. 821 (1917).
BY ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR.,
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, [64] See United States v. Capule, 24 Phil. 12 (1913).
RESPONDENT.

16, 2010] SOUTH AFRICAN
AIRWAYS, PETITIONER, VS.
Back to Home | Back to Main

16, 2010] ROLANDO P. ANCHETA,
PETITIONER, VS. DESTINY
FINANCIAL PLANS, INC. AND
ARSENIO BARTOLOME,
RESPONDENTS.

16, 2010] NELSON LAGAZO,
PETITIONER, VS. GERALD B.
SORIANO AND GALILEO B.
SORIANO, RESPONDENTS.

16, 2010] BSB GROUP, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, MR. RICARDO
BANGAYAN, PETITIONER, VS.
SALLY GO A.K.A. SALLY GO-
BANGAYAN, RESPONDENT.

16, 2010] PHILIPPINE HAWK
VIVIAN TAN LEE, RESPONDENT.

16, 2010] LOLITA REYES DOING
BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME
AND STYLE, SOLID BROTHERS
WEST MARKETING, PETITIONER,
VS. CENTURY CANNING


16, 2010] FELICITAS M.
MACHADO AND MARCELINO P.
MACHADO, PETITIONERS, VS.
RICARDO L. GATDULA,
COMMISSION ON THE
SETTLEMENT OF LAND
PROBLEMS, AND IRINEO S. PAZ,
SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE
PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, SAN
PEDRO, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS.

17, 2010] SANDRA Y. ERIGUEL,
PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND MA.
THERESA DUMPIT-MICHELENA,
RESPONDENTS.

17, 2010] ELAND PHILIPPINES,
INC., PETITIONER, VS. AZUCENA
GARCIA, ELINO FAJARDO, AND
HEIR OF TIBURCIO MALABANAN
NAMED TERESA MALABANAN,
RESPONDENTS.

17, 2010] FRANCISCO APARIS Y
SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS.
RESPONDENT.

17, 2010] ROSE MARIE D.
DOROMAL, PETITIONER, VS.
HERNAN G. BIRON AND
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENTS.

17, 2010] ATTY. LUCKY M.
DAMASEN, PETITIONER, VS.
OSCAR G. TUMAMAO,
RESPONDENT.

17, 2010] PNCC SKYWAY
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND
SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS
ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, RENE SORIANO,
PETITIONER, VS. PNCC SKYWAY
[A.M. No. 05-8-463-RTC :

February 17, 2010] REQUEST OF
JUDGE NIÃ‘O A. BATINGANA,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 6, MATI, DAVAO
ORIENTAL FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO DECIDE CIVIL CASES
NOS. 2063 AND 1756

17, 2010] ARLIN B. OBIASCA, [1]
PETITIONER, VS. JEANE O.
BASALLOTE, RESPONDENT.

MICHAEL A. HIPONA, APPELLANT.

18, 2010] LOURDES D. RUBRICO,
JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO, AND
MARY JOY RUBRICO CARBONEL,
PETITIONERS, VS. GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN.
HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR.
GEN. AVELINO RAZON, MAJ.
DARWIN SY A.K.A. DARWIN
REYES, JIMMY SANTANA, RUBEN
ALFARO, CAPT. ANGELO
CUARESMA, A CERTAIN
JONATHAN, P/SUPT. EDGAR B.
ROQUERO, ARSENIO C. GOMEZ,
AND OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.

18, 2010] KULAS IDEAS &
CREATIONS, GIL FRANCIS
MANINGO AND MA. RACHEL
MANINGO, PETITIONERS, VS.
JULIET ALCOSEBA AND
FLORDELINDA ARAO-ARAO,
RESPONDENTS.

18, 2010] TERESITA L. ARAOS,
CORAZON L. BALAGBIS,
ROBERTO B. BAUTISTA, MARITA
S. BELTRAN, RAUL A. CASIANO,
HIDELZA B. CASTILLO,
ELEONORA CINCO, MAY
CATHERINE C. CIRIACO, ERLINDA
G. DEL ROSARIO, AMELITA C.
DELA TORRE, ALMA R. FAUSTO,
ANTONETTE L. FERNANDEZ,
CORITA M. GADUANG, VIRGINIA
E. GALLARDE, MA. LUZ C.

GENEROSO, MA. TERESA C.
IGNACIO, EDDIE A. JARA, JOSIE
MAGANA, ANTONIO G. MARALIT,
NANCIANCINO L. MONREAL,
MARIBEL D. ORTIZ, ALAN GENE
O. PADILLA, JESUS C. PAJARILLO,
MIGUEL E. ROCA JR., EDGAR M.
SANDALO, AGNES E. SAN JOSE,
EVELYN P. SAAYON, JUDY
FRANCES A. SEE, MARIO R.
SIBUCAO, CARMEN O. SORIANO,
AND ARNOLD A. TOLENTINO,
PETITIONERS, VS. HON. LEA
REGALA, PRESIDING JUDGE,
RTC, BRANCH 226, QUEZON CITY
AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
(SSS), RESPONDENTS.

18, 2010] JORDAN CHAN PAZ,
PETITIONER, VS. JEANICE PAVON
PAZ, RESPONDENT.

20, 2010] ROMER SY TAN,
PETITIONER, VS. SY TIONG GUE,
FELICIDAD CHAN SY, SY CHIM,
SY TIONG SAN, SY YU BUN, SY
YU SHIONG, SY YU SAN AND
BRYAN SY LIM, RESPONDENTS.

22, 2010] ELEAZAR P. QUINTO
AND GERINO A. TOLENTINO, JR.,
PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON,
APPELLANT.

22, 2010] BANDILA SHIPPING,
INC., MR. REGINALDO A. OBEN,
BANDILA SHIPPING, INC. AND
FUYOH SHIPPING, INC.,
PETITIONERS, VS. MARCOS C.
ABALOS, RESPONDENT.

22, 2010] IRENE SANTE AND
REYNALDO SANTE, PETITIONERS,
VS. HON. EDILBERTO T.
CLARAVALL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH
60, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF

BAGUIO CITY, AND VITA N.
KALASHIAN, RESPONDENTS.
[A.M. No. CA-08-45-J

(Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-130-
CA-J) : February 22, 2010] ATTY.
DENNIS V. NIÑO, COMPLAINANT,
VS. JUSTICE NORMANDIE B.
PIZARRO, RESPONDENT.

PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS.
HEIRS OF JULIO RAMOS,
REPRESENTED BY REYNALDO
RAMOS MEDINA, ZENAIDA
RAMOS MEDINA, DOLORES
RAMOS MEDINA, ROMEO RAMOS
AND MEDINA, VIRGIE RAMOS
MEDINA, HERMINIA RAMOS
MEDINA, CESAR RAMOS MEDINA
AND REMEDIOS RAMOS MEDINA,
RESPONDENTS.

22, 2010] WILFREDO M. BARON,
BARRY ANTHONY BARON, RAMIL
CAYAGO, DOMINADOR GEMINO,
ARISTEO PUZON, BERNARD
MANGSAT, MARIFE BALLESCA,
CYNTHIA JUNATAS, LOURDES
RABAGO, JEFFERSON DELA ROSA
AND JOMAR M. DELA ROSA,
PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
AND MAGIC SALES, INC.
REPRESENTED BY JOSE Y. SY,
RESPONDENTS.

APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO
TABARNERO AND GARY
TABARNERO, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.

24, 2010] MOZART P. PANLAQUI,
PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND NARDO M.
VELASCO, RESPONDENTS.

APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO TAMAYO

Y TENA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

24, 2010] OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO),
PETITIONER, VS. ASTERIA E.
CRUZABRA, RESPONDENT.

PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS.
CAYETANO L. SERRANO,[1] AND
HEIRS OF CATALINO M. ALAAN,
REPRESENTED BY PAULITA P.
ALAAN, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. Nos. 182382-83 :

February 24, 2010] JAIME S.
DOMDOM, PETITIONER, VS. HON.
THIRD AND FIFTH DIVISIONS OF
THE SANDIGANBAYAN,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
[A.C. No. 8158 : February 24,

2010] ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON,
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMIL
E. MACALALAD, RESPONDENT.

24, 2010] TERESITA DE MESA
REFORZADO, PETITIONER, VS.
SPOUSES NAZARIO C. LOPEZ
AND PRECILA LOPEZ,
RESPONDENTS.

24, 2010] INTEGRATED BAR OF
THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED
BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, H.
HARRY L. ROQUE, AND JOEL
RUIZ BUTUYAN, PETITIONERS,
VS. HONORABLE MANILA MAYOR
JOSE "LITO" ATIENZA,
RESPONDENT.

25, 2010] SILKAIR (SINGAPORE)
PTE. LTD., PETITIONER, VS.

25, 2010] MACTAN-CEBU
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY AND AIR

TRANSPORTATION OFFICE,
PETITIONERS, VS. BERNARDO L.
LOZADA, SR., AND THE HEIRS OF
ROSARIO MERCADO, NAMELY,
VICENTE LOZADA, MARIO M.
LOZADA, MARCIA L. GODINEZ,
VIRGINIA L. FLORES, BERNARDO
LOZADA, JR., DOLORES
GACASAN, SOCORRO CAFARO
AND ROSARIO LOZADA,
REPRESENTED BY MARCIA
LOZADA GODINEZ,
RESPONDENTS.

25, 2010] ALFREDO P. PACIS AND
CLEOPATRA D. PACIS,
PETITIONERS, VS. JEROME
JOVANNE MORALES,
RESPONDENT.

25, 2010] SUSIE CHAN-TAN,
PETITIONER, VS. JESSE C. TAN,
RESPONDENT.

25, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY,
PETITIONER, VS. EDGARDO D.
VIRAY, RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. 07-6-6-SC :

February 26, 2010] RE: NON-
OBSERVANCE BY ATTY. EDEN T.
CANDELARIA, CHIEF OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
(OAS), OF EN BANC RESOLUTION
A.M. NO. 05-9-29-SC DATED
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 AND EN
BANC RULING IN OFFICE OF
OMBUDSMAN V. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION (G.R. NO. 159940
DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2005),

26, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
PETITIONER, VS. SM PRIME
HOLDINGS, INC. AND FIRST ASIA
REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

26, 2010] MAYOR JOSE MARQUEZ
LISBOA PANLILIO, PETITIONER,
VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND SAMUEL ARCEO DE JESUS,

SR., RESPONDENTS.
[A.M. No. 2009-23-SC :

February 26, 2010] RE: SMOKING
AT THE FIRE EXIT AREA AT THE
BACK OF THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICE

ELMER PERALTA Y DE GUZMAN
ALIAS "MEMENG", APPELLANT.

26, 2010] ATTY. MANGONTAWAR
M. GUBAT, PETITIONER, VS.
NATIONAL POWER

26, 2010] BAGUIO MARKET
VENDORS MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE (BAMARVEMPCO),
REPRESENTED BY RECTO INSO,
OPERATIONS MANAGER,
PETITIONER, VS. HON.
ILUMINADA CABATO-CORTES,
EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BAGUIO CITY,
RESPONDENT.

26, 2010] TIGER CONSTRUCTION
AND DEVELOPMENT
REYNALDO ABAY, RODOLFO
ARCENAL, ROLANDO ARCENAL,
PEDRO BALANA, JESUS DEL
AYRE, ARNEL EBALE, ARNEL
FRAGA, ANGEL MARAÑO,
METHODEO SOTERIO, MANUEL
TAROMA, PIO ZETA, ISAIAS
JAMILIANO, ARNALDO RIVERO,
NOEL JAMILIANO JOEL ARTITA,
DANIEL DECENA, ZENAIDA
LAZALA, RONNIE RIVERO,
RAMON ABAY, JOSE ABAY,
HECTOR ABAY, EDISON ABAIS,
DIOGENES ARTITA, FLORENTINO
B. ARTITA, ROLANDO ANTONIO,
JERRY ARAÑA, MAXIMENO M.
BARRA, ARMANDO BAJAMUNDI,
DANIEL BARRION, RENANTE
BOALOY, ROLANDO BONOAN,
FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, NOEL
BENAUAN, EDGARDO BOALOY,
REYNALDO BONOAN, DIONISIO

BOSQUILLOS, ROGELIO B.
COPINO, JR., RONNIE DELOS
SANTOS, FELIX DE SILVA,
REYNALDO LASALA, LARRY
LEVANTINO, DOMINGO LOLINO,
ROSALIO LOLINO, PERFECTO
MACARIO, ROLANDO MALLANTA,
ANASTACIO MARAVILLA,
ROSARIO MARBELLA, GILBERTO
MATUBIS, RODEL MORILLO,
LORENZO PAGLINAWAN, JOSE
PANES, RUBEN PANES, MATEO
PANTELA, SANTOS SALIRE,
GERMAN TALAGTAG, HILARIO
TONAMOR, JESUS TAMAYO, JOSE
TRANQUILO, EDISON VATERO,
AND ROBERTO VERGARA,
RESPONDENTS.
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

Intestate Estate of Gonzales V People, GR 181409. Feb 11, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intestate Estate of Gonzales V People, GR 181409. Feb 11, 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intestate Estate of Gonzales V People, GR 181409. Feb 11, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/22/2020 [G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010] INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA.

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

[G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010]

INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG,

Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in

2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to

3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living

The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to

For purposes of the aforementioned provision, is the relationship by affinity created

Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix[1] of

Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit[2] for estafa against her brother-in-law,

I, MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG Y GONZALE[S], Filipino, of legal age, single,

and resident of Unit 1111, Prince Gregory Condominium, 105 12th

1. I am the duly appointed Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of

2. As such Administratrix, I am duty bound not only to preserve the

3. After my appointment as Administratrix, I was able to confer with some

4. In my conference with my nieces Karen Rose Sato and Wendy Mitsuko

[G.R. No. 187155 : February

[A.M. No. 08-2-107-RTC :

5. The aforesaid Special Power of Attorney was signed by my mother in

7. On the basis of the aforesaid Special Power of Attorney, William Sato

criminal law cases

THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED

(BOC), RESPONDENT. the dismissal of the criminal case:

[G.R. No. 181502 : February

[G.R. No. 181357 : February

[G.R. No. 170365 : February

Article 332, according to Aquino, in his Commentaries [to] Revised Penal

JULIAN DOMINGO, JR. AND

COCHING-SOSITO, AND THE be the son-in-law of Manolita, and a brother-in-law of petitioner

02, 2010] DORIS U. SUNBANUN,

[G.R. No. 157861 : February

NATIVIDAD AND ENRIQUE

FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO,

INC., PETITIONER, VS. DAEHAN

CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, reasonable doubt.[37]

[G.R. No. 168785 : February

PETITIONERS, VS. BANCO DE

RESPONDENTS. committed is merely an opinion which is not binding on the court.[44]

[G.R. No. 165333 : February

In [a] complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually

FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS MAY BE

[G.R. No. 186640 : February

[6] Docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-00-91385. Id., pp. 91-92.

[G.R. No. 172279 : February [9] Id.

[G.R. No. 169190 : February

[15] Id., pp. 42-43.

APOLINARIO CATARROJA, 191; Bigelow v. Sprague, 140 Mass. 425, 5 NE 144).

REYNALDO CATARROJA, AND

RESPONDENTS. 188, (2001).

[28] In re Bourdeux' Estate, 37 Wash. 2d 561, 225 P.2d 433, 26 A.L.R. 2d

[G.R. No. 188669 : February

[G.R. No. 177747 : February

[A.M. No. P-09-2721 (Formerly

THE FINANCIAL AUDIT

[G.R. No. 188920 : February