FACTS:

William Sato, the son-in-law of Manolita Carungcong (who was

already 79 years old and blind). induced the latter to sign and
thumbmark an SPA in favor of his daughter. Wendy. The old woman
believed that the SPA involved only her taxes, while in fact, it
authorized Wendy, to sell Manolitas properties.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the death of Williams wife and Manolitas daughter,
Zenaida, extinguished the relationship by affinity between William and
Manolita.
2. Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for
reason of his relationship to Manolita.
HELD:
1. No. Relationship by affinity 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
children or not.
2. No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code only applies to the 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
offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with
the option to hold the offender civilly liable.
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. It does not apply where any
of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another
crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its
right to hold the offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief and considers the violation of the
juridical right to property committed by the offender against certain
family members as a private matter and therefore subject only to civil
liability. The waiver does not apply when the violation of the right to
property is achieved through (and therefore inseparably intertwined
with) a breach of the public interest in the integrity and presumed
authenticity of public documents. For, in the latter instance, what is
involved is no longer simply the property right of a family relation but a
paramount public interest.

People vs Atop

The accused was said to have raped the granddaughter of his common law wife.

Issue: WON the relationship may be used as an aggravating circumstance

Held: The scope of relationship as defined by law encompasses (1) the spouse, (2)
an ascendant, (3) a descendant, (4) a legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or
(5) a relative by affinity in the same degree. Relationship by affinity refers to a relation
by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage.Relatives by affinity therefore are those
commonly referred to as in-laws, or stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like; in
contrast to relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the
second, third and fourth enumeration above. The law cannot be stretched to include
persons attached by common-law relations. Here, there is no blood relationship or legal
bond that links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the modifying circumstance of
relationship cannot be considered against him.
[17]

Neither is the following provision of Sec. 11, RA 7659 applicable:

Sec. 11. Article 335 of the [Revised Penal] Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the
victim.

People vs Camano
After drinking liquor the accused hacked one of his victims causing his death, he
then immediately went to the seashore to kill his other victim.

Issue: WON the intoxication will be considered as aggravating or mitigating.

Held: it was proven by the defense that the intoxication of the appellant was not
habitual, thereby it was considered as mitigating.

PP vs Lapaz
Three malefactors conspire with each other to kill a 70 year old woman. One of
whom is a son-in-law of the victim. One of the removed a plywood covering the wall
and two off them entered while the other one stayed in the sala. Two of the
malefactors beat the victim until she fell on the floor, the victim shouted for help, it
was when the malefactors got frightened and left the victim. A day after the victim
died.
Prior to the incident it was stated that the victim embarrassed one of the victim by
calling him thief in front of many people.
One of them became a state witness
The trial court convicted Lapaz with the crime of murder aggravated by (1) disregard
of the respect due to the offended party on account of her age and sex and (2) the crime having
been committed in the dwelling place of the offended party without the latter having given
provocation
Barleso (son-in-law) was convicted of murder aggravated by (a) disregard of sex and age of the
victim; (b) committed at the dwelling place of the victim; and (c) committed at nighttime and by
gaining access to the victim's dwelling through an opening not intended for egress

Issue: WON the trial court erred in not considering the alternative circumstance of
lack of instruction as mitigating circumstance?

Held: The mere lack of instruction or illiteracy of the appellant cannot be considered as a mitigating
circumstance. One does not have to be educated or intelligent to be able to know that it is unlawful
to take the life of another person even if it is to redress a wrong committed against him

People vs. Ladjaalam

G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, 2000
Appellee:
People
Appellant:
Walpan
Ponente: J. Panganiban

of
Ladjaalam

the
alias

Philippines
Warpan

FACTS:
Four Informations were filed against appellant Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), three of which he was found guilty, to wit: 1) maintaining a drug den
in violation of Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972); 2)
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as
amended by Republic Act. No. 8294; and 3) direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. The
following information was provided by the prosecution:
1) In the afternoon of September 24, 1997, more than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to the house
of appellant and his wife to serve the search warrant when they were met by a volley of gunfire
coming from the second floor of the said house. They saw that it was the appellant who fired the M14
rifle
towards
them.
2) After gaining entrance, two of the police officers proceeded to the second floor where they earlier
saw appellant firing the rifle. As he noticed their presence, the appellant jumped from the window to
the roof of a neighboring house. He was subsequently arrested at the back of his house after a brief
chase.
3) Several firearms and ammunitions were recovered from appellants house. Also found was a pencil
case with fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside, each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride.
4) A paraffin test was conducted and the casts taken both hands of the appellant yielded positive for
gunpowder
nitrates.
5) Records show that appellant had not filed any application for license to possess firearm and
ammunition, nor has he been given authority to carry firearms.
ISSUE:
Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
HELD:
No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any
firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other crime was committed. Furthermore, if

homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the crime committed was direct
assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating
circumstance.