MAGNO VS.

CA

FACTS:

In April 1983, Magno was in the process of putting up a car repair shop but he did not have complete
equipment that could make his venture workable. He also lacked funds with which to purchase the equipment to
make business operational. Magno, representing Ultra Sources International Corporation, approached Corazon
Tenga, VP of Mancor Industries for his needed car repair service equipment (Mancor was a distributor). Corazon
Teng referred Magno to LS Finance & Management Corporation (LS Finance). Teng advised LS Finance VP, Joey
Gomez that Mancor was wiling and able to supply the equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate
petitioner & provide credit facilities. The arrangement went through on condition that Magno has to put up a
warranty deposit (30% of the total value of the equipment to be purchased P29, 790.00). Magno requested Joey
Gomez to look for a 3rd party who could lend him the warranty deposit (Magno could not afford the deposit).
Unknown to Magno, it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit on condition that the same would be paid as a
short term load @ 3% interest.
Specific provision in the leasing agreement:
1.1. WARRANTY DEPOSIT Before or upon delivery of each item of Equipment, the Lessee shall deposit with the Lessor
such sum or sums specified in Schedule A to serve as security for the faithful performance of its obligations.
This deposit shall be refunded to the Lessee upon the satisfactory completion of the entire period of Lease, subject to the
conditions of clause 1.12 of this Article
As part of the arrangement, Magno & LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement, LS Finance would lease the
garage equipment and Magno would pay the rent with option to buy the same. Magno issued a postdated check;
gave it to Joey Gomez who, unknown to Magno, delivered the check to Corazon Teng. When the check matured,
Magno requested Gomez not to deposit the check as he (Magno) was no longer banking with Pacific Bank. Magno
issued another set of 6 postdated checks to replace the first check issued, 2 checks were cleared and 4 checks
were the subjects of four counts of violation of BP 22 . These 4 checks were held momentarily by Corazon Teng
on the request of Magno as they were not covered with sufficient funds. When Magno could not pay the
monthly rentals, LS Finance pulled out the garage equipment. Magno became aware that Corazon Teng was the
one who advanced the warranty deposit. Magno and his wife went to see Corazon Teng and promised to pay but
the payment never came. When the 4 checks were deposited they were returned for the reason account closed.
After joint trial before the RTC of QC Magno was convicted for 4 counts of violation of BP 22

ISSUE: W/N Magno should be punished for the issuance of the checks in question. NO!

HELD:

The Court is intrigued about the outcome of the checks subject of the cases which were intended by the
parties, the petitioner on the one hand and the private complainant on the other, to cover the "warranty deposit"
equivalent to the 30% requirement of the financing company. By nature of the warranty deposit, the cash out made
by Mrs. Teng was not used by the petitioner who was just paying rentals for the equipment. As the
transaction did not ripen into a purchase, but remained a lease with rentals being paid for the loaned
equipment, which were pulled out by the Lessor (Mancor) when the petitioner failed to continue paying possibly
due to economic constraints or business failure, Then it is lawful and just that the warranty deposit should not
be charged against the petitioner. Charging Magno for the refund of the a warranty deposit which was not
his own account is to make him pay an unjust debt since Magno did not receive the amount in question.

Magno did not even know that the check he issued were turned over to Mrs, Teng. The scheme of Mrs. Teng
was that as the supplier of the equipment in the name of Mancor, she would be able to sell or lease its goods and
at the same time, privately finance those who desperately need petty accommodations. The modus operandi has
victimized many businessmen by availing of the warranty deposit not realizing that they also fall prey to leasing
equipment under the guise of a lease-purchase agreement.

Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in criminal law, "affirms that the primary function of
punishment is the protection of society against actual and potential wrongdoers." It is not clear whether Magno
could be considered as having actually committed the wrong sought to be punished in the offense charged But on
the other hand, it can be safely said that the actuations of Mrs. Teng amount to that of potential wrongdoers whose
operations should also be clipped at some point in time in order that the unwary public will not be failing prey to
such a vicious transaction. The objective of retribution of a wronged society should be directed against the actual
and potential wrongdoers
 In the case at bar, there is no doubt that petitioner's 4 checks were used to collateralize an accommodation,
and not to cover the receipt of an actual "account or credit for value" as this was absent, and therefore
petitioner should not be punished for mere issuance of the checks in question. Following the aforecited
theory, in petitioner's stead the "potential wrongdoer", whose operation could be a menace to society, should not be
glorified by convicting the petitioner. The court a quo merely relied on the law, without looking into the real nature of
the warranty deposit is evident from the following pronouncement:
And the trial court concluded that there is no question that the accused violated BP Blg. 22, which is a special
statutory law, violations of which are mala prohibita. The court relied on the rule that in cases of mala prohibita,
the only inquiry is whether or not the law had been violated, proof of criminal intent not being necessary for the
conviction of the accused, the acts being prohibited for reasons of public policy and the defenses of good faith
and absence of criminal intent being unavailing in prosecutions for said offenses
Using the "mala prohibitia" doctrine, the noble objective of the law is tainted with materialism and
opportunism in the highest, degree. The core of the matter rests upon the reason for the drawing of the
postdated checks by the petitioner. When viewed against the following definitions of the catch-terms "warranty" and
"deposit", for which the postdated checks were issued or drawn, all the more, the alleged crime could not have
been committed by petitioner:
a) Warranty A promise that a proposition of fact is true. A promise that certain facts are truly as they are represented to
be and that they will remain so: . . .
Moreover, from the beginning, petitioner never hid the fact that he did not have the funds with which to put up
the warranty deposit

Decision is reversed, accused-petitioner acquitted

PEOPLE V. ULEP

FACTS:

In May 1970, in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, Asuncion Ulep died as a result of physical injuries inflicted
upon her by her husband, Macario Ulep. The Chief of Police of San Nicolas received a report of the said death of
Asuncion Ulep who allegedly died of a heart attack. The Chief of Police and the Rural Health Officer went to the
house of the deceased and found the body on a bamboo bed surrounded by relatives and friends of the husband
of the deceased. The Chief of Police suggested that an autopsy be done but the husband refused. However, the
daughter of the victim requested that an autopsy be made before the burial.

The autopsy read as follows:

PATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS SKIN:

A rectangular area of about 1" x 3" bluish black in color was noted on the upper half, anterior aspect of the
arm, left.

SKELETAL SYSTEM:
Complete fracture of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs, left. The 4th and 5th ribs fractured along the
midolavicular line, left. The 6th and 7th ribs fractured along the anterior auxillary line, left. Presence of
extravascated blood and injuries of the surrounding tissues of the broken ribs areas, left.
Complete fracture of the 3rd and 4th ribs at the juncture of the rib and external cartillages with concomitant
injury to its sounding tissues and extravascated blood, right side.

THORACIC CAVITY:
Presence of about 200 cc. of a serous fluid found within the cavity. Pleura lacerated at the points of
fractures.

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM:
Heart with small amount of clotted blood. Coronary vessels congested. The big blood vessels contained
small amount of clotted blood.

ABDOMINAL CAVITY:
Presence of about 500 cc. of serous fluid within the cavity. DIGESTIVE SYSTEM:
Apparently normal
 CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM:
The meningeal vessels were congested.

CAUSE OF DEATH:
CARDIAC ARREST PRIMARY SHOCK.

Two weeks after the burial, 2 constabulary segeants investigated Macario Ulep. In his statement, he
admitted that he caused the death of his wife by elbowing her because his wife was then drunk and was
uttering indecent words. Another investigation was made and Macarios statement was reduced to writing to
writing and then subscribed to before Fiscal Abaya. He reiterated that cause of death of his wife, Asuncion Pablo,
was his elbowing her on her breast. Ulep narrated that this elbowing and attack took place at their home at 5pm.
She vomited and then went to bed. The accused then left for the fields and returned at around 9pm and found his
wife dead on her bed. Ulep retracted his statement in court by narrating that more than a year before that and
while his wife went to have their palay milled, their bullcart loaded with sacks of rice turned upside down and pinned
his wife on her breast. With the pain in her chest, she was treated by a quack doctor/arbularyo.

The CFI of Ilocos Norte held that the cause of death of Asuncion Pablo was due to the elbow blows on her
breast and that the cause of death was not due to a long standing process or condition in her body system.

While the accused admitted that he delivered several elbow blows on the chest of his wife immediately
before her death and the prosecution attributed these blows as the proximate cause of the cardiac arrest and
primary shock which resulted in the wifes death, the defense assails this theory in the following manner:
There were no contusions on the chest of the victim
o Indicates that the elbow blows were not sufficient force to fracture the ribs a fracture results in the
extravasation of the blood in the fractured area and it is the extravasated blood that causes the
swelling or contusion
Even if the fractures were present, the same could have not caused cardiac arrest and primary shock
because only extravasated blood was present around the immediate area of the fracture this means that
the fractures were not depressed so as to injure the heart and impede its functions
The fractures merely caused the extravasation of blood within the fractured areas
o Although the pleura or thoracic cavity was lacerated at the points of fracture, the same could not
have caused cardiac arrest or primary shock because the lacerations were limited to the pleura

On the contrary, the evidence of the prosecution shows that the deceased died of cardiac arrest because of
the weakening of the heart due to a long standing process or condition in her body system. Both sides took issue to
the presence of 200cc of serous fluid in the pleura. The defendant claims that it is not normal whereas the
prosecution says that the pleura normally contains 100 to 200 cc of serous fluid and that it is normal.

The presence of 500 cc. of serous fluid in the abdominal cavity which, according to Dr. Blanco, the
physician, witness for the accused-appellant, may be due to the chronic condition of the kidney like nephritis and
edema or the hardening of the liver or a long progressively weakening of the heart. Dr. Bonoan did not concur in
this view when he said that the fluid was rather increased as a result of the diffusion of the medicine used in the
embalming.

The necropsy report also showed the presence of clotted blood in the heart and blood vessels as well as
the congestion of the meningeal vessels. The accused-appellant bares that this is a sign of the hardening of the
heart. Dr. Bonoan of the prosecution disclosed that there were no signs of circulatory weakening and that blood
clots were not found adherent to the heart and such being the condition there could be no abnormality and thus he
further declares that such clots are normally found in the heart of a dead person or in any part of the circulatory
system.
Dr. Blanco admits that he has not "attended a case of fractured ribs" and that he explains cardiac failure
as a "failing of the heart" and his further concept is that it is "the stopping of the heart." He says that such
stoppage could be due to trauma, such as a fracture of the ribs.

ISSUE: W/N the cause of death of Asuncion was a result of cardiac arrest and primary shock due to fractured ribs

HELD:
 The cause of death of the victim was cardiac arrest and primary shock caused by the pressure applied on
the upper front chest bone. This happens when one steps, kneels or presses the body of a victim against a wall. In
the book Medical Jurisprudence by Wharton & Stilles, it was said that death may also be due to the shock
associated with the injury.
Even if the victim is suffering from an internal ailment, liver or heart disease, or tuberculosis, if the blow
delivered by the accused is the sufficient cause of death; or accelerated his death; or is the proximate cause
of feath; then there is criminal liability. Even though a blow with the fist or a kick does not cause any external
wound, it may easily produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death, and even though the
victim may have been previously affected by some internal malady, yet if the blow with the fist or foot accelerated
death, he who caused such acceleration is responsible for the death as the result of an injury willfully and unlawfully
inflicted.
Judgment affirmed.

PEOPLE V. FLORA

FACTS:

Days before the incident, appellant Hermogenes Flora had a violent altercation with Oscar Villanueva.
Oscars uncle, Ireneo Gallarte, pacified the 2. On the evening of January 9, 1993, a dance party was held in
Laguna to celebrate the birthday of Jeng-jeng Malubago. Hermogenes Flora, allegedly a suitor of Malubago,
attended the party with his Edwin Flora. The party wen on past midnight but at about 1:30AM, on signal by Edwin
Flora, Hermogenes Flora fired his .38 caliber revolver twice. The first shot grazed the right shoulder of Flor Espinas,
then hit Emerita Roma below her shoulder. The second shot hit Ireneo Gallarte who slumped onto the floor. Rosalie
Roma who witnessed the scene was shocked and could only utter Si Bodoy, si Bodoy, referring to Hermogenes
Flora. Edwin Flora approached her and poking a knife at her neck, threatened to kill her before they left the scene,
The victims were transported to the Rurlal Health Unit in Kalayaan, Laguna where Emerita and Irineo died. In the
morning of January 10, 1993, Edwin Flora was arrested and when Hermogenes learned about Edwins arrest,
Hermogenes left his hometown. The autopsy report showed:

EMERITA ROMA
Gunshot of entrance at the posterior chest wall near the angle of the axillary region measuring 1 cm. in diameter
with clean cut inverted edges involving deep muscles, and subcutaneous tissues and travel through both lobes of
the lungs, including the great blood vessels. . The bullet caliver 38 was extracted from the lungs.
Cause of her death: "Hypovolemic" shock secondary to massive blood loss secondary to gunshot wound of the
posterior chest wall.
IRENEO GALLARTE
Gunshot wound of entrance at the left arm, measuring 1 cm. in diameter with clean cut inverted edges involving the
deep muscles, subcutaneous tissues traveling through the anterior chest wall hitting both lobes of the lungs and
each great blood vessels obtaining the bullet fragments.
Cause of deat: "Hypovelemic" shock secondary to massive blood loss secondary to gunshot wound of the left arm.

Flor Espinas submitted herself to a medical examination and the results showed that she sustained a gunshot
wound at the right supra scapular area mid scapular line and another gunshot wound point of exit at the right
deltoid area.

Edwin Flora, in his defense narrated that on January 10, 1993 around 1:30 am, he was at Paete, Laguna in
the house of Johnny Balticanto, sleeping with his wife. The police came and looked for Hermogenes. When he said
that his brother does not live there, the police took him instead to the Municipal building of Paete and transferred
and detained him to the Municipal building of Kalayaan. He recalled that on January 9, he and his brother passed
by the house of Julito Malubago and at about 6pm, he went home but his brother stayed behind since there would
be a dance party that night.

Hermogenes Flora, in his defense narrated that he did not kill Ireneo and Emerita and shot Flor Espina on
January 10, 1993. He said that on said date, he was asleep in the house of his sister in Longos, Kalayaan. From
the time he slept at about 8pm to 6am, he had not gone out of her sisters house. He also testified that in the
morning of January 10, Imelda Mareda came to their house and told him that his brother was picked up by the
policemen the night before. He then decided with his aunt and sister that he should go to Bicol to inform their
parents of what happened to him.
 The RTC of Santa Cruz, Laguna convicted the accused-appellants of the crime of double murder and
attempted murder.

ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in convicting the 2 accused-appellants despite the failure of the prosecution to
morally ascertain their identities and guilt for the crimes charged.

HELD:
For the defense of alibi to prosper, 2 elements must be established: he was not at the locus delicti at the
time the offense was committed, and it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its
commission. In the present case, appellants alibi is self-serving. An alibi becomes less plausible as a defense
when it is invoked and crafted mainly by the accused himself and his immediate relative. It should be corroborated
by disinterested but credible witnesses. Appellants contend that they were not categorically and clearly identified by
the witnesses of the prosecution and claimed that the testimonies of the witnesses were inconsistent but the Court
finds no inconsistencies that would impair the testimonies of Rosalie Roma and Flor Espinas. Appellants argue that
the attention of FLor Espinas was focused on the dance floor and so it was improbable for her to have seen that
crimes. The trial court concluded that Flor was in a position to say who were in the party and to observe what was
going on. Appellants did not present any proof of improper motive on the part of the witnesses pointing to the Flora
brother as the perpetrators of the crime. There is no history of animosity between them. In the absence of ulterior
motive, mere relationship of witnesses to the victim does not discredit their testimony.

Regarding the criminal responsibility of the appellants, when Hermogenes Flora first fired his gun
at Ireneo but missed, it hit Emerita Roma and Flor Espinas instead and became liable for Emeritas death
and Flors injuries. Hermogenes cannot escape culpability on the basis of aberration ictus principle.
Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act be different from
that which he intended. The Court also finds that the death of Emerita and Ireneo were attended by treachery
because when Hermogenes shot Emerita and Ireneo, both were helpless to defend themselves. Edwin Flora on the
other hand, it was found that even if the accused did not fire a shout, his conduct indicated cooperation with his co-
accused, as when his armed presence gave encouragement and a sense of security to his co-conspirator. The
lower court correctly appreciated Edwins participation as co-conspirator:

Edwin Flora demonstrated not mere passive presence at the scene of the crime. He stayed beside his brother
Hermogenes, right behind the victims while the dance party drifted late into the night till the early hours of the morning
the following day. All the while, he and his brother gazed ominously at Ireneo Gallarte, like hawks waiting for their prey.
And then Edwin's flick of that lighted cigarette to the ground signaled Hermogenes to commence shooting at the
hapless victims. If ever Edwin appeared acquiescent during the carnage, it was because no similar weapon was
available for him. And he fled from the crime scene together with his brother but not after violently neutralizing any
obstacle on their way. While getting away, Edwin grabbed Rosalie Roma and poked a knife at her neck when the latter
hysterically shouted "si Bodoy, Si Bodoy," in allusion to Hermogenes Flora, whom she saw as the gunwielder..

However, Edwin Flora cannot be held responsible for the death of Emerita Roma and the injury of Flor Espinas.
The Evidence only shows conspiracy to kill Ireneo Gallarte. Hermogenes and Edwin Flor found guilty for the murder
of Ireneo Gallarte and Hermogenes Flora found guilty for the murder of Emerita Roma and the attempted murder of
Flor Espinas.

PEOPLE V. LAMAHANG

FACTS:

On March 2, 1935, policeman Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling the streets of Iloilo City caught Aurelio
Lamahang in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods on CR Fuentes
street. Lamahang only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the wall when the
police showed up who instantly arrested him.

The provincial fiscal of Iloilo, CFI judge of Iloilo and the Solicitor-General all unanimously declared that the
facts above stated constituted attempted robbery.

ISSUE: W/N Aurelio Lamahang is guilty of attempted robbery.

HELD:
The attempt to commit an indeterminate offense is not a juridical fact from the standpoint of the Penal
Code. There is no doubt that in the case at bar it was the intention of the accused to enter Tan Yu's store by means
of violence, passing through the opening which he had started to make on the wall, in order to commit an offense
which, due to the timely arrival of policeman Tomambing, did not develop beyond the first steps of its
execution. But it is not sufficient that an act objectively performed constitute a mere beginning of execution; it is
necessary to establish its unavoidable connection, like the logical and natural relation of the cause and its effect,
with the deed which, upon its consummation, will develop into one of the offenses defined and punished by the
Code; it is necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its complete termination following its
natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. Thus, in case of robbery, in order that the simple act of
entering by means of force or violence another person's dwelling may be considered an attempt to commit this
offense, it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of
some personal property belonging to another.

In the instant case, there is nothing in the record from which such purpose of the accused may reasonably
be inferred. From the fact established and stated in the decision, it may only be inferred as a logical conclusion that
his evident intention was to enter by means of force said store against the will of its owner. That his final objective,
once he succeeded in entering the store, was to rob or to commit any other offense, cannot be definitely concluded.
In offenses not consummated, the nature of the action intended (accion fin) cannot exactly be ascertained, but the
same must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed (accion medio). Hence, the necessity that these acts be
such that by their very nature, they must show without any doubt, that they are aimed at the consummation of a
crime. Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in favor as well as against the culprit, and which
show an innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and can not furnish grounds by themselves for
attempted nor frustrated crimes. In order to declare that such overt acts constitute an attempted offense it is
necessary that their objective be known and established, or that said acts be of such nature that they themselves
should obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended, said objective and finality to serve as ground
for the designation of the offense.

The court holds that the facts do not constitute attempted robbery but attempted trespass to dwelling.
Under article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, this offense is committed when a private person shall enter the
dwelling of another against the latter's will. The accused may be convicted and sentenced for an attempt to commit
this offense in accordance with the evidence and the following allegation contained in the information: "... the
accused armed with an iron bar forced the wall of said store by breaking a board and unfastening another for the
purpose of entering said store ... and that the accused did not succeed in entering the store due to the presence of
the policeman on beat Jose Tomambing, who upon hearing the noise produced by the breaking of the wall,
promptly approached the accused. Against the accused must be taken into consideration the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and former convictions, inasmuch as the record shows that several final judgments for
robbery and theft have been rendered against him and in his favor, the mitigating circumstance of lack of
instruction. The breaking of the wall should not be taken into consideration as an aggravating circumstance
inasmuch as this is the very fact which in this case constitutes the offense of attempted trespass to dwelling.