Jhared Christian Cubile ATTY.

Reyes

BSC 2-4 DEADLINE: October 18,2024

G.R. No. 142773 January 28, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

MARLON DELIM, LEON DELIM, MANUEL DELIM alias "BONG" (At Large), ROBERT DELIM (At Large),
and RONALD DELIM alias "BONG", accused-appellants.

Facts:

 On January 23, 1999, at around 6:30 in the evening, Modesto, Rita and
Randy were about to eat their dinner when Marlon, Robert and Ronald
suddenly barged into the house and closed the door, they Abducted
Modesto.
Leon and Manuel, who were also armed with short handguns, stayed put by
the door to the house of Modesto and ordered Rita and Randy to stay where
they were. As soon as Leon and Manuel had left, Randy rushed to the house
of his uncle, Darwin Niño, at Sitio Labayog, informed the latter of the
incident the night before and sought his help for the retrieval of Modesto.
On January 26, 1999, Randy reported the incident to the police authorities.
At around 3:00 in the afternoon of January 27, 1999, Randy, in the company
of his relatives, Nida Pucal, Pepito Pucal, Bernard Osias and Daniel Delim,
returned to the housing project in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan and this time
they found Modesto under thick bushes in a grassy area. The cadaver was
bloated and in the state of decomposition.
 Cause of death of Modesto was gunshot in the head, the police investigators
were able to confirm that Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Leon and Manuel had no
licenses for their firearms.
 Records of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in Baguio
City show that Marlon had pending cases for robbery in the Regional Trial
Court of Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 16193-R, and for robbery in band in
Criminal Cases Nos. 9801 and 9802 pending with the Regional Trial Court in
Urdaneta, Pangasinan.

Issue/s:

 Whether Marlon, Ronald, and Leon are criminally liable for the death of
Modesto or for the kidnapping.
 Whether abduction is a preparatory act for commision of murder or a
separate act of kidnapping with specific intent to deprive Modesto of his
freedom or liberty.
Ruling: If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the victim, the incidental
deprivation of the victim's liberty does not constitute the felony of kidnapping but is
merely a preparatory act to the killing, and hence, is merged into, or absorbed by,
the killing of the victim.

In this case, it is clear from the Information that the malefactors' specific intent in
barging into Modesto's house was to kill him, and that he was apprehended
specifically for that purpose, with the attendant modifying circumstances. The
malefactors' act of abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their primary goal of
killing him. Furthermore, there is no specific allegation in the information that the
malefactors' primary intent was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or liberty, and
that killing him was merely incidental to kidnapping. Thus, the crime charged in the
Information is Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, not Kidnapping
under Article 268.

Judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt is hereby rendered against

accused-appellants Marlon Delim, Ronald Delim and Leon Delim are hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Homicide defined in and penalized
by Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

AH CHONG, defendant-appellant.

Facts:  At approximately 10 p.m. on August 14, 1908, the defendant was awakened by
someone trying to break down the door of his bedroom.He stood up and shouted
twice, “Who is there?” He heard no reply and heard a noise at the door, believing
that someone was pushing it to enter the room. The room was very dark, and the
defendant, fearing that the intruder was a burglar, jumped up and shouted, “If you
come into my room I will kill you.” At that moment, he was struck on the knee by
the edge of a chair placed close to the door.
In the darkness and confusion, the defendant assumed that the blow had been
caused by the person who forced the door open, whom he believed to be the
burglar, taking an ordinary kitchen knife that he kept under his pillow, as the
defendant testified. Because of these repeated burglaries, he had hidden a knife
under his pillow for personal protection. The defendant struck out wildly at the
intruder, who was later discovered to be his roommate, Pascual.
Pascual rushed out onto the porch and fell down the stairs, seriously injured,
followed by the defendant, who immediately recognized him in the moonlight.
Seeing Pascual injured, he called the owner, who was sleeping next door, number
28, and ran upstairs to get a bandage to cover Pascual's wound. The defendant then
and there admitted that he had stabbed his roommate, but said that he did it under
the impression that Pascual was "a ladron".
 Defendant was placed under arrest forthwith, and Pascual was conveyed to the
military hospital, where he died from the effects of the wound on the following day.
 The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination, tried, and found guilty
by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and
sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty
prescribed by law.
 At the trial in the court below the defendant admitted that he killed his roommate,
Pascual Gualberto, but insisted that he struck the fatal blow without any intent to
do a wrongful act, in the exercise of his lawful right of self-defense.

Issue/s:  Whether the defendant Ah Chong can be held criminally liable given his
statement that he was acting self-defense against a mistakenly identified
Ladron(thief) that turned out to be his roommate.
 whether or not malice or criminal intent is an essential element or
ingredient of the crimes of homicide and assassination as defined and
penalized in the Penal Code.
Rulling:  A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar proving
that the defendant struck the fatal blow alleged in the information in the
firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room
was a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, that in view of all
the circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the
defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal
intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate
right of self-defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he
would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act;
and that he cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness
or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the
means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which
he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under
his charge.
The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court
should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime with which he
is charged and his bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instance de
oficio.

 By reason of the nature of the crime committed, in the opinion of the

undersigned (TORRES, J.) the accused should be sentenced to the penalty of
one year and one month of prision correctional, to suffer the accessory
penalties provided in article 61, and to pay an indemnify of P1,000 to the
heirs of the deceased, with the costs of both instances, thereby reversing
the judgment appealed from.
GR No. 75369 November 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

FERNANDO ILIGAN y JAMITO, EDMUNDO ASIS y ILIGAN and JUAN MACANDOG (at large),
Defendants,

Facts:  In this appeal, uncle and nephew, Fernando Iligan and Edmundo Asis, seek a
reversal of the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte,
Branch II 1 convicting them of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Esmeraldo
Quiñones, Jr. in the amounts of P30,000 for the latter’s death and P256,960
representing the victim’s unrealized income.
 On or about 3:00 a.m., August 4, 1980, at sitio Lico II, barangay Sto. Domingo,
municipality of Vinzons, province of Camarines Norte, Philippines, Fernando Iligan,
Edmundo Asis and Juan Macandog, conspiring and mutually helping one another,
with treachery and evident premeditation, one of the accused Fernando Iligan
armed with a bolo and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, gang up and in a sudden unexpected manner, hacked
Esmeraldo Quiñones, Jr., on his face, thus causing fatal injuries on the latter’s face
which resulted to the death of said Esmeraldo Quiñones.
 Juan Macandog was never apprehended and he remains at large. At their
arraignment on January 12, 1981 Fernando Iligan and Edmundo Asis pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged.
Issue/s:

 Whether the trial court erred in its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses.
 Whether Asis could be held criminally liable as a co-conspirator.

Rulling: Supreme Court agree with the lower court that the defense of alibi cannot turn the tide
in favor of Iligan because he was positively seen at the scene of the crime and identified by
the prosecution witnesses but disagree with the lower court with regards to its findings on
the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation due to Absence of any
qualifying circumstances,Iligan must be held liable only for homicide.

Contrary to the lower court’s finding, proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been
established to hold Edmundo Asis liable as Iligan’s co-conspirator, there must be intentional
participation in the act with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.

Appellant Fernando Iligan y Jamito is hereby convicted of the crime of homicide for
which he is imposed the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prison
mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal medium as maximum and he shall indemnify the heirs of Esmeraldo Quiñones, Jr.
in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000). Appellant Edmundo Asis is hereby acquitted
of the crime charged against him. Costs against appellant.
G.R. No. 162540 July 13, 2009

GEMMA T. JACINTO, Petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: on or about and sometime in the month of July 1997, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
together and mutually helping one another, being then all employees of MEGA FOAM
INTERNATIONAL INC., herein represented by JOSEPH DYHENGCO Y CO, and as such had free
access inside the aforesaid establishment, with grave abuse of trust and confidence reposed
upon them with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and deposited in their own
account, Banco De Oro Check No. 0132649 dated July 14, 1997 in the sum of ₱10,000.00,
representing payment made by customer Baby Aquino to the Mega Foam Int'l. Inc. to the
damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforesaid stated amount of ₱10,000.00.

The NBI investigates the issue using florescence marked money, Ricablanca divided the
money and upon returning to the jeep, gave ₱5,000.00 each to Valencia and petitioner, this
showed that petitioner and Valencia handled the marked money.

In view of the foregoing, the Regional Trial Court finds accused Gemma Tubale De Jacinto y
Latosa, Anita Busog De Valencia y Rivera and Jacqueline Capitle GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT and each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of FIVE (5) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS AND ELEVEN (11) DAYS, as minimum, to
SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND TWENTY (20) DAYS, as maximum.

Issue/s: Can a dishonored check be the object for theft?

Whether or not the petitioner have the intent to gain to qualify the act as theft.

Ruling:
The present Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner alone, assailing the Decision
and Resolution of the CA.

as of the time that petitioner took possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had
performed all the acts to consummate the crime of theft, had it not been impossible of
accomplishment in this case.

Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, petitioner's act of receiving the cash
replacement should not be considered as a continuation of the theft. At most, the fact that
petitioner was caught receiving the marked money was merely corroborating evidence to
strengthen proof of her intent to gain.

the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated December 16, 2003,
and its Resolution dated March 5, 2004, are MODIFIED. Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found
GUILTY of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME as defined and penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59
of the Revised Penal Code, respectively. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six
(6) months of arrresto mayor, and to pay the costs.
G.R. No. 121828 June 27, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.

EDMAR AGUILOS, ODILON LAGLIBA Y ABREGON and RENE GAYOT PILOLA, accused, RENE GAYOT
PILOLA, Appellant.

Facts: Joselito Capa and Julian Azul, Jr. were drinking beer. Edmar Aguilos and Odilon
Lagliba arrived at the store. In the course of their drinking, the conversation turned into a
heated argument. Edmar and Odilon left the store. Joselito and Julian were also about to
leave, when Edmar and Odilon returned, blocking their way, Edmar punched Julian in the
face and Odilon positioned himself on top of a pile of hollow blocks and watched as Edmar
and Julian swapped punches, Odilon pulled out his knife with his right hand and stepped
down from his perch. He placed his left arm around Joselito’s neck, and stabbed Joselito. the
appellant and Ronnie on the other side of the street rushed to the scene and also stabbed
the victim with their knives. The three men simultaneously stabbed Joselito. Odilon and the
appellant fled, Ronnie pick up a piece of hollow block and with it bashed Joselito’s head. Not
content, Ronnie got a piece of broken bottle and struck Joselito once more. Ronnie then fled
from the scene. Joselito died on the spot.

Dr. Bienvenido Muñoz conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of Joselito and

prepared Autopsy Report that shows the cause of death of multiple stab wounds.

Issue/s:  Whether the Appelant accomplice or with direct participation to the crime.
 Whether or not Rene Gayot Pilola is guilty of murder.

Ruling:
The records show that the appellant knew that he was charged for the stabbing of
the victim. However, instead of surrendering to the police authorities, he adroitly evaded
arrest. The appellant’s flight is evidence of guilt. Even assuming that the appellant did not
conspire with Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, the appellant is nevertheless criminally
liable as a principal by direct participation.

The decision, dated May 3, 1995, of Branch 164 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City in Criminal Case No. 73615, finding appellant Rene Gayot Pilola GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The appellant
is hereby directed to pay to the heirs of the victim Joselito Capa the amount of ₱50,000 as
civil indemnity; the amount of ₱50,000 as moral damages; and the amount of ₱25,000 as
exemplary damages.