Criminal Law New.docx

People vs. Elijorde GR No. 126531 Ponente: Justice Josue Bellosillo In the evening of May 21, 1995, Eric Hierro and Benjamin Visbal went to a sari-sari store to buy mongos. Accused Gilbert Elijorde, Reynaldo Punzalan and Edwin Menes approached Hierro. He wanted Menes not to touch him as his clothes might get dirty. Menes then punched Hierro on the face, followed by Elijorde and then Punzalan who kicked Hierro at the back. Hierro and Visbal ran for their lives and sought shelter in a house. After few minutes, Hierro went out occumpanied by Visbal and the latter’s wife. As they walked home, they notice the group of Elijorde waiting for them Punzalan kicked Hierro at the back. He ran but was pursed by Elijorde and the latter stabbed him at the back. When Hierro fell down, Elijorde placed himself on top of Hierro and stabbed him with a knife on the chest, causing Hierro’s death. Elijorde was found guilty of murder and Punzalan was found guilty of murder by conspiring with Elijorde. Issue: Whether or not Punzalan’s conviction was proper. Decision: No. The only participation of Punzalan was kicking of Hierro. After kicking him, Punzalan remained where he was and did not cooperate with Elijorde. There was no evidence to show that he knew that Elijorde had a knife and that he intended to use to stab the victim. In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and only the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the the participants is liable only for his own acts. Doctrine: In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective. People vs. Fabro Gr No. 95089 Ponente: Justice Artemio Panganiban On April 1987, a strike was held by the workers of the Casa Blanca in Olongapo City. Dionisio Joaquin, the victim, was one of the organizers of the strike. He sought assistance from his friends. Among them is Anthony Beck. At around 5:30 in the morning of April 12, 1987, Anthony is awakened by a gun report and upon opening his eyes, saw Joaquin dead with a wound in the forehead. He saw a man run away so he made chase but the last man. An old man inquired to him about the chase so he told the man of the shooting incident. The old man told him that the man he was running after was Badong, the appellant Nicomedes Fabro. Fabro was later apprehended. He confessed that he was offered by Francisco Dimalanta an amount of P10,000 to kill a man. He also mentioned that while Dimalanta and other accused Alcala did not actually shoot Joaquin, they were presented and was awaiting the outcome of the shooting. Dimalanta also narrated that he was paid P10,000 by a certain Bill Hoge to kill the victim. All the three accused were convicted of murder. Issue: Whether or not the conviction was proper. Decision: Yes. The acts of the accused show that they were united in their execution. From appellant’s confession, it is clear that Dimalanta offered him money to kill Joaquin; that together with Alcala, they observed the movement of the victim and at the time of the shooting, they were acting as lookouts. Doctrine: Offering to kill the victim, observing his movements and acting as lookout while awaiting for the outcome of the killing tantamount to conspiracy. People vs. Bello GR No. 124871 Ponente: Justice Reynato Puno On the morning of July 25, 1995, accused Marife and Eladio, Jr checked in at Room No. 2 of Queensland lodge in Pasay City. They requested the lodge personnel for access to an outside telephone line. After their access was granted, Marife, pretending to be Joan Redillo, called up Sunshine Money Changer and requested that someone come to her room and have her 40 pieces of yen converted into pesos. Sunshine Money Changer then sent Rolando Anelasen to bring P114,000 to Queensland to charge the 40 pieces of yen. A lodge employee escorted him to the room and waited for him at the garage. Meanwhile, Marife checked out of the lodge and haled a time while Eladio Jr, left by foot. When the room boys went to check room no.2, they found the lifeless body of Andasan wrapped in a blanket. Marife and Eladio, Jr, were apprehended and was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide and was found guilty. Issue: Whether or not the appellants conspired to kill Andasan. Decision: Yes, Conspiracy exist where… the execution of the crime. Doctrine: Conspiracy exists where plan to commit the crime. People vs. Bagano GR No. 139531 Poenente: Justice Josue Bellosillo On May 23,1995 at about 3AM, while Jeremias Montecillo and his wife Menlinda Montecino were sleeping, they were awakened by someone outside their house repeatedly calling Jeremias’ name. When Jeremias went outside, he was embraced by Pablito Cañete and later was stabbed by co-appellant Reynaldo Bagano which resulted to Jeremias’ death. The appellant where then charged and convicted of murder qualified by conspiracy. Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy. Decision: Yes, Conspiracy is attendant in the commission of the crime. For conspiracy to exist, it is sufficient that at the time of the commission the offense and accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. Proof of actual planning of a crime is not a condition president. From the mode and manner in which the crime is committed, it is evident that the appellants intended to kill Jeremias Montecino

Doctrine: For conspiracy to exist, it is sufficient that the time of the commission of the offense, all the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. People vs. Bangcado GR No. 132330 Ponente: Justice Josue Bellosillo On June 27, 1993, Pacson Cogasi, Julio Clemente, Leonardo Adawan and Richard Lino were at Skyview Restaurant in Baguio City drinking and listening to folk song. On their way home, they were followed by SPO1 Jose Bangcado and PO3 Cesar Banisa. They’ve were frisked and made to line up against a Ford Fierra. Without a warning, SPO1 Bangcado fired at them. Lino and Adawan died while Cogasi and Clemente survived. During the trial, Clemente and Cogasi identified Bangcado as the one who fired at their deceased companions and according to them; they saw Banisa drew a gun. Both Bangcado and Banisa were convicted of 2 counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder. Issue: Whether or not the conviction was proper. Decision: No, Banisa should be acquitted. As to the Identity of the gunman, the witnesses were only positive only as participated in the shooting. Doctrine: Failure to assert or in the absence of proof that the accused fired his gun negates the presumption that conspiracy existed. Fernan vs. People GR No. 145927 Ponente: Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. On June 21, 1978, COA regional office 7 conducted an audit on three Cebu Engineering Districts. In their report, it was found out that there were fake letters of allotment advises that were sold to bogus contractor. Upon investigation it was found out that Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayon (Project Examiner) and Eduardo Cruz (clerk III) found a way to siphon government money by making fake LAAs. Mangubat and Preagdo typed fake LAA’s during Saturdays while Sayon and Cruz negotiated these fake LAA’s to contractors at 26% of the gross amount disbursement made on these LAA’s were charged to the in liquidated obligations of the previous year. To conceal these overcharges, monthly adjustments were made to make up for the negative amount on the account. As a result, the trial balance will not show the irregularity. Petitioner Torrevilas and Fernan are the ones who signed the false tally sheets and delivery receipts an ad voucher that purportedly shows that supplies, materials and equipment’s are actually delivered to contractors who received the fake LAA’s when in fact; there were one of such deliveries. Torrevilas and Fernan were convicted by the Sandiganbayan for conspiring to commit estaffa through falsification of public document and was sentenced accordingly. Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy to commit the crime charged. Decision: Yes. Without the tally sheets, the voucher cannot be completed. Without the voucher, the checks could not have been released to the bougus contractors and the defraustration of the government could not have happened. Doctrine: Signing or a fake tally sheet and other disbursement documents in order to make possible the release of checks and finds resulting to the defraustration of the government is an act of conspiracy. People vs Gambao GR No. 172707 Ponente: Justice Jose Portugal Perez Lucia Tan was a fish dealer based in Manila. On the afternoon of August 11, 1998, accused Theng Dilangalen went to Chan’s house to inquire about a certain passport mistakenly placed inside a box of fish to deliver to her. The next morning, Dilangalen returned but was told that the delivery had yet to come. Dilanglen once more returned together with an unidentified person. This time, upon reaching Chan’s house, Dilangalen’s companions. They then dragged Chan and forced to board a van. Chan was taken to a house where appellant Dukilman, Ronas and Evad stood guard on her. An entrapment after the payment of ransom resulted into the apprehension of Dukilman and three others. Later, the authorities conducted a rescue operation in the house where Chan was kept and other appellants were apprehended. All those apprehended were found guilty of Kidnap for ransom and were sentenced accordingly. Dukilman, Ronas and Evad appealed the guilty verdict. They averred that as far as they are concerned, conspiracy is not established. Dukilman intends that he was not one of those apprehended during the rescue operation and Ebad argues that they did not take part in the negation for the ransom money. Issue: Whether or not there exists a conspiracy in the kidnapping of Chan. Decision: Yes, Dukilman was one of those four that were apprehended after claiming the ransom while Ronas and Evad took turns in guarding the victim. Doctrine: Claiming a ransom money and taking turns in guarding the kidnap victim is an act of conspiracy. People vs. Pondivida GR No. 188969 Ponente: Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno At about 3:30 AM of July 8, 2005, the group of appellant John Alvin Pondivida, George Reyes and Glen Alvarico, all armed went to the house of Glen Gener Bondoc to look for the latter’s brothers. They asked Gener to go down the house and talk to them but he refused. Appellant and Reyes then climbed up a window of the house and chased Gener Reyes and Alvarico shot Gener and field afterwards. Months after the incident, appellant was apprehended and was found guilty of murder. Issue: Whether or not appellant conspired with the other co-accused to kill Gener. Decision: Yes, as attested by the accused-appellant, upon refusal of Gener to go down from the house, he and Alvarico entered the house through an upstairs window. After fleeing the scene, he then meets with Alvarico who gave him money before the latter went to Olongapo City.

Doctrine: Meeting with a co-accused after fleeing from the crime scene and receiving money from the former is an act of conspiracy. People vs. Morilla GR No. 189833 Ponente: Justice Jose Portugal Perez A convoy consisting of a starex van driven by Mayor Ronnie Mirta and a government ambulance driven by appellant Javier Morilla left Infanta, Quezon en route to Manila. The starex van was able to pass through the checkpoint but the ambulance driven by petitioner was stopped for routine inspection. When Morilla opened the window, the police officers noticed several sacks inside with knife while crystalline graniles scattered on the floor. When the police officers asked Morilla to open the sacks, they tried to persuade the officers to let him pass by telling them that he was with Mayor Mitra. The police officer refused. The contents of the sacs are found to be shabu. The police officers gave chase to Mayor Mira and found more sacks of shabu inside his van. The trial court convicted both Maitra and Morilla for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. The CA affirmed the trial’s decision and found that conspiracy between the two accused was well-established. Issue: Whether or not a conspiracy existed between the accused. Decision: Yes. In this case, both vehicles were loaded with sacks of dangerous drugs. If Morilla was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra he would have told the police officers that he was with Mayor Mitra. Doctrine: Driving a vehicle transporting illegal drugs tantamount to conspiracy. Atienza vs People GR No. 188649 Ponente: Justice Estela Perlas – Bernabe Petitioners Castro and Atienza are employees of the Court of Appeals. Juanito Atibula is the custodian of the original CA decision. During Atienza’s birthday party, they introduced a certain Dario to Atibula. They asked Atibula to help Dario search for the CA Decision in a particular case. He accompanied Dario to his office and was able to locate the case at Volume 260. Few days after, Dario requested Atibula to insert a decision in one of the CA volumes but Atibula refused. This was followed by an offer from Atienza as amount of P50,000 in exchange of Volume 260 Atibula reported the matter to the head of the CA reporter’s division who instructed him to hide volume 260. After several weeks, it was discovered that volume 266 was missing. After several days, De Castro, Clerk IV returned the Volume 266 to Atibula. He told him that Castro asked him to return the volume to Atibula. Upon checking, it was found out that alterations were made and that a fake decision was inserted thereto. After investigation, it was found out that Volume 266 was stolen and some contents are falsified through the conspiracy of Atienza, Dario and Castro. Atienza and Castro were subsequently convicted of Robbery and Falsification of Public Documents. Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy between the two accused. Decision: No. There was no showing as to how the particular acts of petitioners figured into the common design of taking out the subject volume. First, Atienza tried to bribe Atibula for Volume 260 but the alterations are made to volume 266. Second, it would be stretch to conclude that Castro’s invitation of Atibula to Atienza’s birthday party, without proof of participations is connected to Atienza’s acts. Doctrine: The acts of the accused which are not proven to be connected to the acts of his co-accused does not translate to conspiracy. Maamo vs. People GR No. 201917 Ponente: Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa Petitioner Zenaida Maamo is the former municipal mayor of Lilo-an, Southern Leyte while petitioner Juliet Silor is the former municipal treasurer. Both were charged with malversation of public funds. For petitioner Maamo, she allegedly signed the time cards that contain names of non-existent municipal employees while Silor released the funds belonging to these non-existent employees. During trial, it was established that in between two petitioners other government employees will still check the correctness and accuracy of all documents before funds are finally released. Issue: Whether or not conspiracy exists between petitioners. Decision: No. In Sabiniano vs. Court of Appeals, it was ruled that a mere signature appearing on a voucher or check is not enough to sustain a finding of conspiracy among public officials. In the case at bar, a typical according process of the municipality involves a successive process of review and checking that required the participation of different public officers, each with different roles. Hence, In order to prove conspiracy, the prosecution has to present evidences other than the fat that petitioners are on the opposite side of the chain in the disbursement process. Doctrine: Mere signing of the time records for purposes of disbursement is not sufficient to sustain a finding of conspiracy when there are other official involved in the clearing process.