TIRSO SIBBU v PEOPLE OF TIIE PHlLIPPINES

G. R. No. 214757, March 29, 2017

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

FACTS
Between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. of December 6, 2004, Bryan Julian was with his daughter,Trisha
May Julian, his mother Ofelia Julian, and his father, Warlito Julian in the azotea of his parents' house
in Barangay Elizabeth, Marcos, llocos Norte when he saw from a distance of about five meters a
person in camouflage uniform with a long firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet over his
head. When the armed man inched closer to the house, he tried to fix his bonnet thereby providing
Bryan the opportunity to see his face; Bryan had a clear look at the armed man because there were
Christmas lights hanging from the roof of their porch. Bryan recognized the armed man as the Tirso
Sibbu. Brian also saw two men in crouching position at a distance of three meters away from Sibbu.
Fearing the worst, Bryan shouted a warning to his family. Sibbu then fired upon them killing Trisha,
Ofelia and Warlito. Bryan ran inside the house where he saw his brother, Warlito Julian, Jr. coming
out of the bathroom. Bryan then proceeded to the pigpen at the back of the house to hide. Another
prosecution witness, Eddie Bayudan testified that on December 6, 2004, he was by a well near his
house when he heard gunshots coming from the house of Warlito and Ofelia where he saw a man
about five meters away wearing a black bonnet and a long-sleeved camouflage uniform and holding a
long firearm.Bryan was shouting for help. When he went out to investigate, he saw the dead bodies
of Warlito, Ofelia, and Trisha. Warlito Jr. also testified that he heard gunshots coming from outside
their house. When he went out of the bathroom, Bryan told him that Sibbu gunned down their parents
and his niece. Sibbu interposed the defense of denial and alibi. His father-in-law, Eladio Ruiz testified
that on December 6, 2004, he did not leave their house because they had a visitor,Elpidio Alay;
moreover, Sibbu tended to his child. This was also the same defense made by hismother-in-law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Tirso Sibbu should be charged guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder
against Bryan Julian and murder against the latter’s mother, father and daughter?

Are the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling, nighttime and employment of disguise can
be meritorious in this case?

RULING:
Tirso Sibbu should be charged guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder against Bryan
Julian and murder against the latter’s mother, father and daughter qualified by treachery, dwelling,
nighttime and employment of disguise. On Bryan’s testimony, he clearly identified the identity of the
criminal. Bryan was able to get a glimpse of Sibbu’s face when the latter fixed his bonnet. In addition,
Christmas lights hanging from the roof of the porch provided illumination enabling Bryan to identify
Sibbu. Moreover, Bryan is familiar with the Sibbu’s built,height, and body movements. The crime
should be qualified by aggravating circumstances such as treachery and concealment of identity
because Sibbu was seen with a gun slung over his neck and a bonnet covered his face to conceal his
identity. It is clear that his purpose is to harm and kill his victims. Dwelling should also be
considered because even the accused did not entered the dwelling of the victim to commit
the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house. Hence, Sibbu is
guilty for the crime of murder and attempted murder.
 ROBERT PLAN, JR. Y BELONCIO, AND MARK OLIVER ENOLVA Y DICTADO, V PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 247589, August 24, 2020
Estela Perlas-Bernabe

FACTS:
The prosecution alleged that on March 31, 2017, members of the Philippine National Police, Police
Station 7, Cubao, Quezon City, were dispatched to conduct Oplan Galugad at 33 1st Palanas St., Bo.
Camp Panopio Compound, Brgy. Kaunlaran, Quezon City, after receiving information about persons
playing cara y cruz where wagers supposedly included illegal drugs. Upon arrival thereat, they saw
five (5) male persons playing cara y cruz and immediately arrested said persons for violation of
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1602 (Illegal Gambling). Stanley de Guzman (PO1 de Guzman) frisked
petitioners and recovered from each of them a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance,
as well as two (2) cellphones purportedly containing messages about drug transactions. Thereafter,
the seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of arrest in the presence
of Barangay Kagawad Nenita Dordas , and media representatives Earlo Bringas of Net 25 (Bringas),
Jopel Pelenio of DWIZ, and Bam Alegre of GMA 7 . Subsequently, the seized sachets from
petitioners bearing the markings "SDG/RP 3/31/17" and "SDG/ME 3/31/17" were brought to the crime
laboratory, where, after examination, the contents tested positive for 6.10 grams and 0.71 gram,
respectively, of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.

In defense, petitioners denied the charges against them, claiming that on March 31, 2017, Enolva
was on his way home to Bulacan when the gear of his motorcycle became loose. Unable to find an
auto repair shop, he went to the house of his kumpare, Plan, to have his motorcycle fixed. While they
were repairing the motorcycle outside Plan's house, several persons wearing civilian clothes suddenly
appeared, poked their guns at them, ordered them to raise their hands, and frisked them. While
nothing was found on their persons, they were arrested and brought to the police station along with
three (3) other persons they did not know.

In a Joint Decision, the RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 13,
Article II of RA 9165, sentencing Plan to a term of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, and a fine of
P400,000.00, and Enolva to a term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, and a fine of P300,000.00. It
gave credence to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses over petitioners' defense of
denial, and found the prosecution to have ensured the security and integrity of the police operations
and of the seized items.

The CA affirmed the RTC ruling with the modification: (a) finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, instead, of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165; and (b) applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISL) in imposing the penalty of imprisonment on Enolva.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Illegal possession
of drugs

RULING:

Yes, the petitioners were found in possession of illegal drugs incidental to their arrest for playing cara
y cruz with three (3) other persons, or "in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons,"
warranting the imposition of the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11, pursuant to Section
13, Article II of RA 9165. Notably, the imposition of the maximum penalties was expressly stated to be
regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs. Under Section 11, the maximum
penalty that may be imposed upon any person who shall possess any dangerous drug without
authority is life imprisonment to death, and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00.
Accordingly, the Court sentences petitioners to each suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of P500,000.00.46 Moreover, petitioners are not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the ISL.

Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. - Any
person found possessing any dangerous drug during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in
the proximate company of at least two (2) persons, shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in
Section 11 of this Act, regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs.
 RICKY DINAMLING v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

FACTS:
On the night of March 14, 2007,petitioner Ricky Dinamling and a friend came from a drinking session
and went to the boarding house of AAA. Dinamling and the woman AAA were in an ongoing five-year
relationship and they had two common children (then aged four and two years old). Dinamling and his
friend arrived as AAA was putting the two children to bed. Suddenly, Dinamling started to evict AAA
and the children, ordering AAA to pack her things in a trash bag and a carton box. His reason for the
eviction was that she was allegedly using the place as a "whore house". AAA initially did not want to
leave as she could not carry the children and their things, but she left when Dinamling threw a baby's
feeding bottle outside the house. She then went to the house of BBB and requested the latter to fetch
her children. When BBB and another friend went for the children, Dinamling already had left with the
older child and only the baby was left. The baby was brought by the friends back to AAA. Dinamling
would hit AAA's head, pull her hair and kick her. When AAA went to the police, she was merely told
that it was a family problem that could be talked over. Dinamling was, at that time, a policeman
himself.

Six days later, around 9:00 p.m., another incident occurred. AAA was at the house of CCC when
Dinamling arrived. He shouted and counted down for AAA to come out. When she came out,
Dinamling punched her at the left ear, which subsequently bled. When AAA asked him why he kept
on following her when she already had left him, Dinamling shouted her family name and told her she
was "good-for-nothing." AAA left for the barangay captain's house, but Dinamling caught up with her
and kicked her until she fell to the ground. On the road, Dinamling pulled down AAA's pants and
panty and shouted at her while people looked on. Dinamling then threw the pants and panty back at
AAA and shouted her family name. Dinamling, then intoxicated, left on a motorcycle. AAA stayed at
her friend's home until she felt some back pain in the next morning. She found out she was bleeding
and about to miscarry so she was immediately brought to the hospital. There, she was told that she
was 19 weeks pregnant and had an incomplete abortion. She was hospitalized for four days.
Dinamling visited her but showed no remorse over his acts.

For the prosecution, AAA, her mother DDD and Dr. Mae Codamon Diaz testified. For the accused,
only petitioner testified for and in his own defense. His defense was denial and alibi, claiming that he
was on duty at the town's police station at the time that the offenses were committed.

The RTC rendered its decision finding Dinamling guilty of both charges. For Criminal Case No. 1701,
the court sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years of prision mayor.For Criminal Case No. 1702, the court ordered him to suffer imprisonment of
from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision in Criminal Case No. 1701 was affirmed and the one
in Criminal Case No. 1702 was affirmed with the modification on the penalty, that Dinamling was
sentenced to imprisonment of nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty for violating the RA 9262 or otherwise known as Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004.
RULING:
Therefore, given such finding, this Court will now accordingly modify the penalties imposed by the trial
court and appellate court. Hereby, AFFIRMED and MODIFIED only as to the penalties imposed, to
wit:

1) in Criminal Case No. 1701, petitioner Ricky Dinamling is ORDERED to serve an indeterminate
sentence of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum to eleven (11) years of prision mayor as maximum. He is, likewise, ORDERED to PAY a
fine of one hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) and to undergo psychological counseling;

2) in Criminal Case No. 1702, petitioner Ricky Dinamling is hereby ORDERED to serve an
indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of six ( 6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve
(12) years of prision mayor as maximum. He is also ORDERED to PAY a fine of one hundred
thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) and to undergo psychological counseling.

From the aforequoted Section 5(i), in relation to other sections of RA No. 9262, the elements of the
crime are derived as follows:

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;23

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender
has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common
child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or
without the family abode;
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and

(4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or
similar such acts or omissions.
 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v JESUS PAYCANA, JR.
G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008
Justice DANTE O. TINGA

FACTS:
That on 26 November 2002, at around 6:30 in the morning, appellant, who worked as a butcher,
came home from the slaughter house carrying his tools of trade, a knife, a bolo, and a sharpener.4
His wife was preparing their children for school and was waiting for him to come home from his work.
For reasons known to him alone, appellant stabbed his wife 14 times.5 Tito Balandra, whose house is
at back of appellant’s house, heard his daughter shouting for help. When he arrived, he saw his
daughter lying prostrate near the door and her feet were trembling. But seeing appellant, who was
armed, he stepped back. Angelina told Tito by the window that appellant had held her mother’s neck
and stabbed her.

Appellant claimed that he wrested the weapon from Lilybeth after she stabbed him first. According to
him, they had an altercation on the evening of 25 November 2002 because he saw a man coming out
from the side of their house and when he confronted his wife about the man, she did not answer. On
the following morning, he told her that they should live separately. As appellant got his things and was
on his way out of the door, Lilybeth stabbed him. But he succeeded in wresting the knife from
Lilybeth. And he stabbed her. He added that he was not aware of the number of times he stabbed his
wife because he was then dizzy and lots of blood was coming out of his wound.

Jesus Paycana Jr. was charged with the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City. He pleaded not guilty and admitted that the victim
Lilybeth Balandra-Paycana (Lilybeth) is his legitimate wife.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion.

RULING:
YES. The court convicted appellant of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion in the
killing of his seven (7)-month pregnant wife.

The crime of parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the
accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key
element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a
spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the
marriage certificate. The testimony of the accused of being married to the victim, in itself, may also be
taken as an admission against penal interest.23

As distinguished from infanticide,24 the elements of unintentional abortion25 are as follows: (1) that
there is a pregnant woman; (2) that violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an
abortion; (3) that the violence is intentionally exerted; and (4) that as a result of the violence the fetus
dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ROGER or ROGELIO PUEDAN
G.R. No. 139576, September 2, 2002
Justice Artemio Panganiban

FACTS:
In the morning of February 21, 1995, Florencio Ilar, accompanied by his six-year old grandson,
Reymark Anthony Ilar, went to the house of Luceno Tulo to buy a piglet. Florencio told Luceno that he
wanted to buy a piglet from him. Appellant Roger Puedan suddenly arrived and stabbed Florencio five
(5) times, first in the abdomen, with a sharp, pointed knife locally known as ‘plamingco’. Terrified of
what he witnessed, Luceno fled towards the house of his neighbor. Young Reymark ran back to his
parents’ house and told his mother, Erlinda Ilar, what transpired. Erlinda Ilar ran swiftly to Luceno’s
place but Florencio was already dead when she arrived. Florencio was bathed in his own blood and
lying by the side of the rice paddy. The body of Florencio Ilar remained where it had fallen until the
arrival of the police later that day.

Accused ROGER PUEDAN, testifying on his behalf, averred that Florencio Ilar was one of the
patrons in the ricefields [where] he works. As such patron, Florencio usually [brought] him wine and
‘pulutan’ which they partook at his house. On February 21, 1995, at around 8:00 o’clock in the
morning, he brought his carabao to a shade. Upon his return, he heard some noises emanating from
their bedroom. His curiosity aroused, he went inside the room and found the already undressed
Florencio having sexual intercourse with his wife. Shaken and dumbfounded by the revelation, he
shouted invectives upon the copulating pair and found a bolo to stab them. The first thrust was
parried by Florencio, who grappled for the bolo and wrestled with him. As they wrestled with each
other, they fell to the ground, and his hand was freed from the grip of Florencio. He then stabbed
Florencio and hit him on the stomach. He then proceeded upstairs in search of his wife, who had
already fled.

The RTC overruled the contention of appellant that the killing should be treated under Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code. It further said that treachery qualified the killing to murder.

ISSUE:
The court a quo gravely erred in finding accused-appellant, Roger or Rogelio Puedan, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged.

The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder despite the clear
failure of the prosecution to establish the particulars leading to the stabbing incident

RULING:
YES. The court finds the accused Rogelio Puedan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified
by treachery. In the absence of any other aggravating and/or a mitigating circumstance, accused is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of his victim
Florencio Ilar the sum of P50,000.00.
 GUILLERMO WACOY y BITOL and JAMES QUIBAC y RAFAEL v
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 213792, G.R. No. 21388, June 22, 2015
Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe

FACTS:
According to witness Edward Benito (Benito), at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of April 11, 2004,
he was eating at a sari-sari store located at Bungis Ambongdolan, Tublay, Benguet, when he heard a
commotion at a nearby establishment. Upon checking, he saw his cousin, Elner Aro (Aro), already
sprawled on the ground. While in that position, he saw Wacoy kick Aro's stomach twice, after which,
Wacoy picked up a rock to throw at Aro but was restrained from doing so. As Aro stood up, Quibac
punched him on the stomach, causing him to collapse and cry in pain. Thereafter, Aro was taken to
the hospital. At the hospital, Aro was diagnosed to be suffering from "blunt abdominal trauma with
injury to the jejunum" and was set for operation. However, Aro suffered cardiac arrest during the
operation, and while he was revived through cardiopulmonary resuscitation, he lapsed into a coma
after the operation.Due to financial constraints, Aro was taken out of the hospital against the doctor's
orders and eventually, died the next day. While Aro's death certificate indicated that the cause of his
death was "cardiopulmonary arrest antecedent to a perforated ileum and generalized peritonitis
secondary to mauling," an autopsy performed on his remains revealed that the cause of his death
was "rupture of the aorta secondary to blunt traumatic injuries."

In their defense, herein petitioners, Wacoy and Quibac, denied the charge against them. They
averred that while playing pool, they saw Aro drunk and lying down. Suddenly, Aro became unruly
and kicked the leg of the pool table, causing Wacoy to shout and pick up a stone to throw at Aro but
Quibac pacified him. They also claimed that Aro almost hit Wacoy with a 2x3 piece of wood if not for
Quibac' s intervention. Wacoy ran but Aro chased him and then tripped and fell to the ground.
Quiniquin Carias (Kinikin), Aro's companion, followed Wacoy to the waiting shed nearby, cornered
and kicked the latter, and the two engaged in a fist fight. Quibac came over to pacify the two and told
Wacoy to go home.

The RTC found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Death Caused in a
Tumultuous Affray under Article 251 of the RPC. The RTC sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor , as maximum, and ordered them to pay
Aro's heirs the amounts of ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex
delicto, and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.1

The CA modified Wacoy and Quibac's conviction to that of Homicide under A1iicle 249 of the RPC
with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, and accordingly
adjusted their prison term to an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one ( 1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Further, the
CA also imposed a legal interest of six percent ( 6%) per annum on the damages awarded by the
RTC pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.1

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Homicide.

RULING:
Yes. The Court agrees with the CA's ruling modifying Wacoy and Quibac' s conviction from Death
Caused in a Tumultuous Affray to that of Homicide, as will be explained hereunder.
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. - When, while several persons, not composing groups
organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and
assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is
killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who
inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by
prision mayor.

Art. 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another,
without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be
deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal. The elements of Homicide are the
following: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (c)
the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (d) the killing was not attended by any of
the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by that of Parricide or Infanticide.
 RAMONCITA O. SENADOR v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CYNTHIA JAIME
G.R. No. 201620, March 6, 2013
Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

FACTS:

Rita Jaime (Rita) and her daughter-in-law, Cynthia Jaime (Cynthia), were engaged in a jewelry
business. Sometime in the first week of September 2000, Senador went to see Rita at her house in
Guadalupe Heights, Cebu City, expressing her interest to see the pieces of jewelry that the latter was
selling. On September 10, 2000, Rita’s daughter-in-law and business partner, Cynthia, delivered to
Senador several pieces of jewelry worth seven hundred five thousand six hundred eighty five pesos
(PhP 705,685). In the covering Trust Receipt Agreement signed by Cynthia and Senador, the latter
undertook to sell the jewelry thus delivered on commission basis and, thereafter, to remit the
proceeds of the sale, or return the unsold items to Cynthia within fifteen (15) days from the delivery.
However, as events turned out, Senador failed to turn over the proceeds of the sale or return the
unsold jewelry within the given period. Thus, in a letter dated October 4, 2001, Rita demanded from
Senador the return of the unsold jewelry or the remittance of the proceeds from the sale of jewelry
entrusted to her. The demand fell on deaf ears prompting Rita to file the instant criminal complaint
against Senador. During the preliminary investigation, Senador tendered to Rita Keppel Bank Check
No. 0003603 dated March 31, 2001 for the amount of PhP 705,685, as settlement of her obligations.
Nonetheless, the check was later dishonored as it was drawn against a closed account.

Senador refused to testify and so failed to refute any of the foregoing evidence of the prosecution,
and instead, she relied on the defense that the facts alleged in the Information and the facts proven
and established during the trial differ. In particular, Senador asserted that the person named as the
offended party in the Information is not the same person who made the demand and filed the
complaint. According to Senador, the private complainant in the Information went by the name
"Cynthia Jaime," whereas, during trial, the private complainant turned out to be "Rita Jaime." Further,
Cynthia Jaime was never presented as witness.

The appellate court rendered a Decision upholding the finding of the RTC that the prosecution
satisfactorily established the guilt of Senador beyond reasonable doubt. The CA opined that the
prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the following undisputed facts, to wit: (1)
Senador received the pieces of jewelry in trust under the obligation or duty to return them; (2)
Senador misappropriated or converted the pieces of jewelry to her benefit but to the prejudice of
business partners, Rita and Cynthia; and (3) Senador failed to return the pieces of jewelry despite
demand made by Rita.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner pleaded guilty for the crime of estafa

RULING:
The Court finds RAMONCITA SENADOR guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA
under Par. 1 (b), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
four (4) years and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal as maximum and to indemnify the private complainants, RITA JA[I]ME and CYNTHIA
JAIME, the following: 1) Actual Damages in the amount of ₱695,685.00 with interest at the legal rate
from the filing of the Information until fully paid; 2) Exemplary Damages in the amount of
₱100,000.00; and 3) the amount of ₱50,000 as Attorney’s fees.
Estafa, as defined in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, refers to the act of defrauding
another person or entity by intentionally deceiving them through false pretenses, fraudulent acts, or
other similar schemes. The deception must result in the victim suffering financial loss or damage.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v FERDINAND T. BALUNTONG
G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010
Justice CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

FACTS:

At around 10:30 p.m. of July 31, 1998, while then 12-year old Jovelyn Santos (Jovelyn) was sleeping
in the house of her grandmother Celerina Solangon (Celerina) at Barangay Dangay, Roxas, Oriental
Mindoro, she was awakened by heat emanating from the walls of the house. She thus roused her
cousin Dorecyll and together they went out of the house. Jovelyn saw appellant putting dry hay
(dayami) around the house near the terrace where the fire started, but appellant ran away when he
saw her and Dorecyll. Appellant’s neighbor, Felicitas Sarzona (Felicitas), also saw appellant near
Celerina’s house after it caught fire, following which, appellant fled on seeing Jovelyn and Dorecyll
stepping out of the house, as other neighbors repaired to the scene to help contain the flames.
Felicitas also saw Celerina, who was at a neighbor’s house before the fire started, enter the burning
house and resurface with her grandsons Alvin and Joshua. Celerina and Alvin sustained third degree
burns which led to their death. Joshua sustained second degree burns.

Upon the other hand, appellant, denying the charge, invoked alibi, claiming that he, on his mother
Rosalinda’s request, went to Caloocan City on July 15, 1998 (16 days before the incident) and stayed
there until February 1999. Rosalinda corroborated appellant’s alibi.

The appellate court affirmed appellant’s conviction by the Regional Trial Court of Roxas, Oriental
Mindoro, Branch 43, of Double Murder with Frustrated Murder

The RTC finds accused Ferdinand Baluntong GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime
of Double Murder with Frustrated Murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act 7659 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH to be executed in accordance with the existing
law

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant pleaded guilty for the complex crime of Double Murder with Frustrated
Murder

RULING:

No. The Appellant, Ferdinand T. Baluntong, is not found guilty for the complex crime of Double
Murder with Frustrated Murder. For the reason, it was not shown that the main motive was to kill the
occupants of the house, thus crime would only be arson.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Court of Appeals Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a NEW
one is rendered as follows:

Appellant, Ferdinand T. Baluntong found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Arson under
Sec. 3(2) of P.D. No. 1613 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no
eligibility for parole.

Appellant is ORDERED to pay the amount of ₱50,000.00 to the heirs of Celerina Solangon, and the
same amount to the heirs of Alvin Savariz, representing civil indemnity.
Appellant is likewise ORDERED to pay the amount of ₱16,500.00 to the heirs of Alvin as actual
damages for burial expenses, and ₱8,500.00 as temperate damages for hospitalization expenses.

Appellant is further ORDERED to pay ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages to the heirs of Celerina.

Finally, appellant is ORDERED to pay ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages to Joshua Savariz.

 HERMAN MEDINA v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015
Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

FACTS:
Henry Lim is a resident of Calao West, Santiago City, Isabela. He is the registered owner of a
Sangyong Korando Jeep with Plate No. WPC-207, which was involved in an accident that caused
damage to its roof and door. On April 27, 2002, he engaged the services of Medina, who is a
mechanic and maintains a repair shop in Buenavista, Santiago City, Isabela. At the time the jeep was
delivered to Medina’s shop, it was still in running condition and serviceable because the under
chassis was not affected and the motor engine, wheels, steering wheels and other parts were still
functioning.

A reasonable time elapsed, but no repairs were made on the jeep. So, in the morning of September
4, 2002, Purita Lim, Lim’s sister, instructed Danilo Beltran to retrieve the jeep from Medina’s shop on
the agreement that he would instead repair the vehicle in his own auto shop. Beltran, however, was
not able to get the jeep since its alternator, starter, battery, and two tires with rims worth ₱5,000.00,
₱5,000.00, ₱2,500.00, and ₱10,000.00, respectively, could not be found. Upon inquiry, Medina told
him that he took and installed them on Lim’s another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up, which was also being
repaired in the shop. Beltran went back in the afternoon of the same day and was able to get the
jeep, but without the missing parts. He had it towed and brought it to his own repair shop. Before
placing the jeep therein, he reported the incident to Purita. Later, the jeep was fully repaired and put
back in good running condition.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Santiago City, Isabela, convicting petitioner Herman
Medina (Medina) of the crime of simple theft, defined and penalized under Article 308, in relation to
Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of theft

RULING:
Yes. The court is hereby rendered, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and
considering the absence of mitigating [or] aggravating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of three (3)
years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. The accused is likewise ordered to
indemnify Henry Lim the total amount of ₱22,500.00. No imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Under Article 309 of the RPC, an accused found guilty of simple theft when the value of the stolen
property exceeds ₱22,000.00 shall be sentenced to:

Art. 309. Penalties. – Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:

1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is
more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen
exceed the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this
paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which
may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation
of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.
As defined and penalized, the elements of the crime are: (1) there was taking of personal property;
(2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was
without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking was accomplished without the use of violence
against, or intimidation of persons or force, upon things.
 VICTORIA S. JARILLO v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009
Mariano C. del Castillo

FACTS:
 ERWIN TULFO v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ATTY. CARLOS T.
G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008
Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

FACTS:
On the complaint of Atty. Carlos "Ding" So of the Bureau of Customs, four (4) separate informations
were filed on September 8, 1999 with the Regional Trial Court in (RTC) Pasay City. These were
assigned to Branch 112 and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 99-1597 to 99-1600, and charged
petitioners Erwin Tulfo, as author/writer, Susan Cambri, as managing editor, Rey Salao, as national
editor, Jocelyn Barlizo, as city editor, and Philip Pichay, as president of the Carlo Publishing House,
Inc., of the daily tabloid Remate, with the crime of libel in connection with the publication of the
articles in the column "Direct Hit" in the issues of May 11, 1999; May 12, 1999; May 19, 1999; and
June 25, 1999

On the complaint of Atty. Carlos "Ding" So of the Bureau of Customs, four (4) separate informations
were filed on September 8, 1999 with the Regional Trial Court in (RTC) Pasay City... crime of libel...
in connection with the publication of the articles in the column "Direct Hit"

In his defense, petitioner Tulfo testified that he did not write the subject articles with malice, that he
neither knew Atty. So nor met him before the publication of the articles. He testified that his criticism
of a certain Atty. So of the South Harbor was not directed against... the complainant, but against a
person by the name of Atty. "Ding" So at the South Harbor. Tulfo claimed that it was the practice of
certain people to use other people's names to advance their corrupt practices. He also claimed that
his articles had neither discredited nor... dishonored the complainant because as per his source in the
Bureau of Customs, Atty. So had been promoted. He further testified that he did not do any research
on Atty. So before the subject articles, because as a columnist, he had to rely on his source, and that
he had several... sources in the Bureau of Customs, particularly in the South Harbor.[12]

RTC found petitioners guilty of the crime of Libel.

In essence, he argues that the subject articles fall under "qualifiedly privileged communication" under
Borjal and that the presumption... of malice in Art. 354 of the RPC does not apply.

In passing, it must be noted that the defense of Tulfo's articles being qualifiedly privileged
communication is raised for the first time in the present petition, and this particular issue was never
brought before either the RTC or the CA.

In his series of articles, he targeted one Atty. "Ding" So of the Bureau of Customs as being involved in
criminal activities, and was using his public position for personal gain. He went even further than that,
and called Atty. So an embarrassment to his religion, saying

"ikaw na yata ang pinakagago at magnanakaw sa miyembro nito."[26] He accused Atty. So of

stealing from the government with his alleged corrupt activities.[27] And when Atty. So filed a libel suit
against him, Tulfo wrote another... article, challenging Atty. So, saying, "Nagalit itong tarantadong si
Atty. So dahil binabantayan ko siya at in-expose ang kagaguhan niya sa [Bureau of Customs]."

ISSUE:
Now a matter of establishing whether the articles of Tulfo are protected as qualified privileged
communication or are defamatory and written with malice for which he would be liable.

RULING: