People of the Philippines vs.

Lol-lo and Saraw

Facts:

Sometime in 1920 one of the boats of Dutch possession arrived between the islands of Buang
and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies carrying eleven men, women and children were surrounded by six
vintas manned with twenty-four Moros alarmed who was then asked for food but once on the Dutch boat,
they took all the cargoes and attacked some men and raped two women were held captive until they
arrive at Maruro where the two women eventually escaped.
Lol-lo and Saraw then returned to South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu and were arrested and charged
in the CFI of Sulu with the crime of piracy. The two were interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros,
based on the grounds that the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI nor of any court
in the Philippines, therefore did not constitute a public offense.
Upon the ruling of the trial court, a judgement was rendered finding the two defendants guilty and
sentencing each of them to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua).

Issue:

Does the Court of First Instance of Sulu have jurisdiction?

Ruling:

Yes. Aside from the fact that all the elements of a crime were present as stipulated in Article 3 of
the RPC, it also speaks for the territoriality of the committed crime as mentioned in Article 2 paragraph 5
which states, “When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and the
law of nations”. as to its jurisdiction, piracy is a crime not against any particular State but against all
mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or
into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits.
Therefore, in the case of presented the CFI of Sulu is one of the competent tribunals in the country thus
this case must be heard and put into trial. Furthermore, it does not matter that the crime committed within
the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, “for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to
crime.” (U.S. vs. Furlong [1820], 5 Wheat., 184.)

Edgardo Ganaan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Facts:

In a case handled by Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon against Leonardo Laconico
for a direct assault filed at the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu, the former was discussing on the terms on
withdrawing the said case. When Montebon called Laconico, Mr. Edgardo Ganaan secretly listen to the
telephone conversation through an extension line as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the
settlement. They agreed to make the settlement at the Igloo Restaurant where right then and there Mr.
Montebon was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary.
The following day Mr. Ganaan executed an affidavit stating that he heard the complainant’s
demands and filed for robbery/extortion. Since Mr. Ganaan listened to the conversation of both parties
without the consent of Mr. Montebon, the complainant charged the appellant and Mr. Laconico with
Violation of Anti-Wiretapping Law.
After the trial on the merits, the lower court found both Ganaan and Laconico guilty in violating
Section 1 of RA No. 4200. They were sentenced to one year imprisonment each.
The IAC affirmed the decision of the trial court with the facts provided in line with the provisions of
Art. 1 of RA 4200. A petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioner Ganaan against IAC assailing its
decision whether or not the telephone conversation was private in nature; whether or not an extension
telephone line is covered by the term” device or arrangement”; whether or not the petitioner had authority
to listen or overheard said telephone conversation; and whether or not RA No. 4200 is ambiguous and
should be construed in favor of the petitioner.

Issue:
WON that the telephone extension line be considered “any other device or arrangement” as
enumerated by the R.A. 4200 where the petitioners are guilty of a crime in violation of the R.A. 4200.

Ruling:
NO. The main issue in the resolution of the petition revolved around the meaning of the phrase “any other
device or arrangement”. The telephone extension line was not installed for the mere purpose of
overhearing or listening to the conversation of both parties in this case. Therefore, it should be construed
to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature which is tapping the main line of a telephone.
The petition was granted. The decision of the then IAC is annulled and set aside. The petitioners were
acquitted of the crime of violation of RA No. 4200.

THE UNITED STATES vs. AH CHONG

Facts:
Defendant was a cook and the deceased Pascual Gualberto, was a house boy, and both were
employed in the same place and usually slept in the same room. One night, after the defendant had gone
to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door, and called out twice, "Who is there?" He
received no answer, and fearing that the intruder was a robber, leaped from the bed and again called out:
"If you enter the room I will kill you." At that moment he was struck by a chair which had been placed
against the door. Believing that he was being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally
wounded the intruder, who turned out to be his roommate. Thereupon he called to his employers and
rushed back into the room to secure bandages to bind up the wound.
Defendant was charged with murder. While there can be no doubt of defendant's exemption from
liability if the intruder had really been a robber, the question presented is whether, in this jurisdiction, a
person can be held criminally responsible when, by reason of a mistake of facts, he does an act for which
he would be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but would constitute murder if he had
known the true state of facts at the time. 
Rules by reason of the nature of the crime committed, the accused should be sentenced to the
penalty of one year and one month of prision correctional, and to pay an indemnity of Php 1,000 to the
heirs of the deceased.

Issue:
WON the defendant is criminally liable in killing his roommate.

     
Held:
NO. That, under such circumstances, there is no criminal liability, provided that the ignorance or
mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. In other words, if such ignorance or mistake of
facts is sufficient to negative a particular intent which, under the law, is a necessary ingredient of the
offense charged it destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal; except in those cases where
the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing negligence, and in cases
where, under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code, a person voluntarily committing an act incurs
criminal liability even though the act be different from that which he intended to commit. Therefore the
judgement was reversed and the defendant was acquitted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CEILITO “LITO” ORITA

Facts:
1:30 in the morning Cristina Abayan (victim) went home from a party when Ceilito “Lito” Orita with
lewd designs and using a Batangas knife suddenly held the victim and poked the said knife to her neck.
She pleaded to release her but she was ordered to go upstairs. They used the back door leading to the
second floor. Reaching the second floor, he commanded her to look for a room with the Batangas knife
still to her neck, they entered to the victims room. Orita push Abayan who hit her head on the wall. With
one hand holding the knife, Orita undressed himself and ordered the victim to take off her shirt. Orita
pulled off her under wears.

Orita made Abayan hold his manhood and insert it in her female genital. The appellant could not
penetrate on the position that he was on top. Changing position, Orita lay down on his back and
commanded the victim to mount him. Still by the said position the appellant was not able to fully
penetrate. Victim thought of escaping, she run to the next room and locked herself. Orita chased her and
eventually Abayan escaped by jumping through a window.

Naked, Abayan rushed to the municipal building which was 8 meters in front of the boarding
house and was found by Pat. Donceras. She was brought to Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital for
physical examination. Based on the result from the physical examination for Pertinent Findings:
Circumscribed hematoma at anterior neck; Abrasions in the left and right knees; Linear abrasion below
the left breast; Multiple pinpoint marks; No visible abrasion or marks at the perineal area or over the
vulva; No laceration fresh and old noted; Vaginal canal tight; no discharges noted.

Accuse assails the testimonies of the victim and policeman because they show remarkable and
vital inconsistencies and its incredibility amounting to fabrication where according to the accused “this is
the only case where an aggressor’s advances is being helped-out by the victim in order that there will be
a consummation of the act.”

Issue:
WON the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.

Held:
YES. Article 335 of the RPC defines and enumerates the elements of the crime of rape, the
following were: using oof force or intimidation; deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; when the
woman is under 12 years old. Moreover, as stated in Article 6 of the same Code provides: consummated
felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. RTC modified the decision
and accused Ceilito Orita sa found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced to
reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the amount of P 30,000.

PEOPLE vs. MERLO RAMIREZ

Facts:
Merlo Ramirez, a sergeant in Pangasinan fired a pistol at former Vice Mayor Aureo “Alo”
Zaragoza III four times and resulted to his death within two hours. On the same occasion, Ramirez also
allegedly shot at another person, Rogelio Robosa, but failed to hit him.

Sgt. Ramirez and Alo Zaragoza are having conversation at one of the interior rooms of a
restaurant together with PC Sgt. Mamenta, a court officer and two local police officers Pat. Carbonel and
Castulo. At another table in the main dining area outside the room were two other acquaintances, Rogelio
Robosa and Antonio Arestado who both could see the group through the doorway. The conversation dealt
with the setting up of jueteng gambling operations in the town. It was not clear who precisely was making
the proposal but certain is that Alo Zaragoza very shortly became agitated and stood up, angrily uttering
some words and pounding the table with his hands. Ramirez walked away from the table towards the
comfort room. Zaragoza did the same and went to the main eating area to drink beer while standing, head
up, pouring beer down his throat when Ramirez suddenly reappeared and fired three shots at Zaragoza
with a hand gun; Robosa grabbed Ramirez from behind to stop him from firing yet Ramirez was able to
squeeze off one more shot to Zaragoza; Robosa embraced Ramirez causing the pistol to slip on the floor
but was able to set himself free and quickly retrieved his gun and fired at Robosa; and that Ramirez fled
from the restaurant.

Ramirez’s version was different. It was Zaragoza who suggested in setting up jueteng operation.
Ramirez simply said that he was a mere NCO operations officer, and that the proposal should be made to
people higher up, Zaragoza in a loud voice become agitated and begun slapping the table pointing a
finger to Ramirez uttering cursing words. Zaragoza turning to his companion, Pat. Castulo ordering him to
give his gun and he will shoot Ramirez. To avoid trouble, Ramirez bid goodbye to the group and went to
the toilet. On his way out, Pat. Carbonel held him by the waist and instructed to go home as Alo Zaragora
was very angry. Ramirez shoved Carbonel causing him to fall. As he was walking towards the door, he
saw Zaragoza emerged from the inner room, cursing him and saying “I am going to kill you,” fearing that
he had indeed succeeded in getting Pat. Castulo’s firearm, Ramirez drew his gun and started shooting at
Zaragoza while making his way towards the exit.

In either case Zaragoza’s acts could not be deemed to constitute unlawful aggression on his part,
or to have place Ramirez in an emergency situation. Ramirez however invokes the mistake of fact
doctrine.

Issue:
WON Ramirez is guilty of the felony of homicide and attempted homicide respectively.

Held:
YES. Ramirez was charged with consummated and attempted murder in the Regional Trial Court
of Pangasinan under separate indictments. The accused pleas of not guilty to both offenses. The cases
were consolidated, and tried and decided jointly. The Trial Courts judgment rejecting Merlo Ramirez’s
claim of self-defense, and pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of 8 years and 1 day prison mayor as minimum to 16 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, the sum of
P57,000 compensatory damages and P50,000 as indemnity for death and to suffer the indeterminate
penalty from 2 months and 1 day arresto mayor as minimum to 3 years and 3 months prison correccional.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA
G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943

Facts:
One afternoon, Capt. Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector of Cabanatuan,
received a telegram from Major Guido which states: “ Information received escaped convict Anselmo
Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive.” The same instruction was given
to the chief of police Oanis who knew one of loose morals of the same name, Irene, a bailarina. The
Provincial Inspector divided the group making Oanis, Galanta and private Fernandez in the same group
heading to Rizal street leading to the house where Irene was supposedly living.

Upon arriving at Irene’s house, Oanis approached Mallare and asked where Irene’s room was.
Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and an seeing a man sleeping with his
back towards the door where they were simultaneously fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber
revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour already wounded, and looking at the door
where the shots came, she saw the defendants still firing at him. It turned out later that the person shot
and killed was not the notorious criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen names
Serapio Tecson, Irene’s paramour.

Charged with the crime of murder of one Serapio Tecson, the accused Antonio Z. Oanis and
Alberto Galanta after due trial found guilty by the lower court of homicide through wreckless imprudence.
Hence, the present appeal, it is contended that, as appellants acted in innocent mistake of fact on the
honest performance of their police duties, both believing that Tecson was Balagtas, they incur no criminal
liability.

Issue:
WON appellants are criminally liable for the death of Tecson.

Held:
Yes. The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being
intentional and not accidental.

Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is reasonably
necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him
if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm yet he is never justified in using unnecessary force or
in treating him with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be
effected. And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force
or violence in making an arrest. Notoriety rightly supplies a basis for redoubled official alertness and
vigilance; it never can justify precipitate action at the cost of human life.

Appellants’ invocation of honest mistake of fact is misplaced. In the instant case, appellants found
no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. The person in the room being
then asleep, appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made,
as the victim was unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate course of action for appellants to follow
even if the victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest
him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him.

As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with the qualifying
circumstance of alevosia. There is, however, a mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the
incomplete justifying circumstance – a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of
a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office (Par. 5)
Romarico J. Mendoza v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 183891, October 19, 2011

Facts: