Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Issue: Whether or not the charge under PD 1866 FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive
be quashed on ground of double jeopardy in view application of penal laws should also cover
of the previous charge under RA 1700?
procedures, and that these should be applied only to Criminal Procedure were complied with in the
the sole benefit of the accused. Petitioner asserts Kuratong Baleleng cases
that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to
provide relief to the accused in line with the a. Was express consent given by the respondent?
constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial.
b. Was notice for the motion, the hearing and the
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the 5 Associate Justices subsequent dismissal given to the heirs of the
inhibit themselves from deciding in the Motion for victims?
Reconsideration given they were only appointed in
the SC after his Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments. Section 8, Rule 117 is not applicable to the case
since the conditions for its applicability, namely: 1)
The rule should be applied prospectively. The court prosecution with the express consent of the accused
upheld the petitioners contention that while Sec.8 or both of them move for provisional dismissal, 2)
secures the rights of the accused, it does not and offended party notified, 3) court grants motion and
should not preclude the equally important right of dismisses cases provisionally, 4) public prosecutor
the State to public justice. If a procedural rule served with copy of orders of provisional dismissal,
impairs a vested right, or would work injustice, the which is the defendants burden to prove, which in
said rule may not be given a retroactive application. this case has not been done
2.WON the application of the time-bar under a. The defendant never filed and denied
Section 8 Rule 117 be given a retroactive unequivocally in his statements, through counsel at
application without reservations, only and solely on the Court of Appeals, that he filed for dismissal nor
the basis of its being favorable to the accused. did he agree to a provisional dismissal thereof.
The Court is not mandated to apply rules b. No notice of motion for provisional dismissal,
retroactively simply because it is favorable to the hearing and subsequent dismissal was given to the
accused. The time-bar under the new rule is heirs of the victims.
intended to benefit both the State and the accused.
When the rule was approved by the court, it 2)WON time-bar in Sec 8 Rule 117 should be
intended that the rule be applied prospectively and applied prospectively or retroactively.
not retroactively, for to do so would be tantamount
to the denial of the States right to due process. A Time-bar should not be applied retroactively.
retroactive application would result in absurd, Though procedural rules may be applied
unjust and oppressive consequences to the State retroactively, it should not be if to do so would work
and to the victims of crimes and their heirs. injustice or would involve intricate problems of due
process. Statutes should be construed in light of the
PEOPLE, et al. v. Lacson, April 1, 2003 purposes to be achieved and the evils to be
remedied. This is because to do so would be
FACTS: Before the court is the petitioners motion of prejudicial to the State since, given that the Judge
reconsideration of the resolution dated May 23, dismissed the case on March 29,1999, and the New
2002, for the determination of several factual issues rule took effect on Dec 1,2000, it would only in effect
relative to the application of Sec. 8 Rule 117 of give them 1 year and three months to work instead
RRCP on the dismissal of the cases Q-99- 81679 of 2 years. At that time, they had no knowledge of
and Q-99-81689 against the respondent. the said rule and therefore they should not be
penalized for that. Indeed for justice to prevail, the
The respondent was charged with the shooting and scales must balance; justice is not to be dispensed
killing of eleven male persons. The court confirmed for the accused alone. The two-year period fixed in
the express consent of the respondent in the the new rule is for the benefit of both the State and
provisional dismissal of the aforementioned cases the accused. It should not be emasculated and
when he filed for judicial determination. The court reduced by an inordinate retroactive application of
also ruled the need to determine whether the other the time-bar therein provided merely to benefit the
facts for its application are attendant. accused. To do so would cause an injustice of
hardship to the state and adversely affect the
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the requisites for the administration of justice.
applicability of Sec. 8, Rule 117 of 2000 Rules on
PEOPLE vs. Lacson, October 7, 2003 The rule should be applied prospectively. The court
upheld the petitioners contention that while Sec.8
FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive secures the rights of the accused, it does not and
application of penal laws should also cover should not preclude the equally important right of the
procedures, and that these should be applied only to State to public justice. If a procedural rule impairs a
the sole benefit of the accused. Petitioner asserts vested right, or would work injustice, the said rule
that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to may not be given a retroactive application.
provide relief to the accused in line with the
constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial. 2)WON the application of the time-bar under Section
8 Rule 117 be given a retroactive application without
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the 5 Associate Justices reservations, only and solely on the basis of its being
inhibit themselves from deciding in the Motion for favorable to the accused.
Reconsideration given they were only appointed in
the SC after his Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments. The Court is not mandated to apply rules
retroactively simply because it is favorable to the
The rule should be applied prospectively. The court accused. The time-bar under the new rule is
upheld the petitioners contention that while Sec.8 intended to benefit both the State and the accused.
secures the rights of the accused, it does not and When the rule was approved by the court, it intended
should not preclude the equally important right of the that the rule be applied prospectively and not
State to public justice. If a procedural rule impairs a retroactively, for to do so would be tantamount to the
vested right, or would work injustice, the said rule denial of the States right to due process. A
may not be given a retroactive application. retroactive application would result in absurd, unjust
and oppressive consequences to the State and to
2)WON the application of the time-bar under Section the victims of crimes and their heirs.
8 Rule 117 be given a retroactive application without
reservations, only and solely on the basis of its being Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.125359, 4
favorable to the accused. September 2001
Statement of the case:
The Court is not mandated to apply rules
retroactively simply because it is favorable to the Assailed in this petition is the consolidated decision
accused. The time-bar under the new rule is rendered on May 23, 1996, by the Court of Appeals
intended to benefit both the State and the accused. in CA-G.R. SP No. 35928 and CA-G.R. SP No.
When the rule was approved by the court, it intended 35719. CA-G.R. SP No. 35928 had affirmed the
that the rule be applied prospectively and not order dated September 6, 1994, of the Regional Trial
retroactively, for to do so would be tantamount to the Court, Manila, Branch 26, insofar as it denied
denial of the States right to due process. A petitioners respective Motions to Quash the
retroactive application would result in absurd, unjust Informations in twenty-five (25) criminal cases for
and oppressive consequences to the State and to violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960. Therein
the victims of crimes and their heirs. included were informations involving: (a)
consolidated Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-
PEOPLE vs. Lacson, October 7, 2003 101883 filed against Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Roberto
S. Benedicto, and Hector T. Rivera; (b) consolidated
FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101884 to 91-101892 filed
application of penal laws should also cover against Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto; and (c) Criminal
procedures, and that these should be applied only to Cases Nos. 92-101959 to 92-101969 also against
the sole benefit of the accused. Petitioner asserts Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto. Note, however, that the
that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to Court of Appeals already dismissed Criminal Case
provide relief to the accused in line with the No. 91-101884.
constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial.
Statement of the facts:
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the 5 Associate Justices
inhibit themselves from deciding in the Motion for On December 27, 1991, Mrs. Imelda Marcos and
Reconsideration given they were only appointed in Messrs. Benedicto and Rivera were indicted for
the SC after his Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments. violation of Section 10 of Circular No. 960 1
in relation to Section 34 of the Central Bank
Act (Republic Act No. 265, as amended) in
five Informations filed with the Regional Trial implication. When the records of the case
Court of Manila. Docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. were disclosed to them, in opting to enter
91-101879 to 91-101883, the charge sheets alleged their respective pleas to the charges, and
that the trio failed to submit reports of their foreign filed various motions and pleadings, they
exchange earnings from abroad and/or failed to are deemed to have made an express
register with the Foreign Exchange waiver of their right to have a preliminary
Department of the Central Bank within the investigation.
period mandated by Circular No. 960. Said
Circular prohibited natural and juridical 2. NO. In the instant case, it must be
persons from maintaining foreign exchange noted that despite the repeal of
accounts abroad without prior authorization from the Circular No. 960,Circular No. 1353
Central Bank. On August 11, 1994, petitioners retained the same reportorial
moved to quash all the Informations filed against requirement for residents receiving
them in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91- earnings or profits from non-trade
101883; 91-101884 to 91-101892, and 91-101959 to foreign exchange
91-101969. Their motion was grounded on transactions. Even the most cursory
lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, absence glance at the repealing circulars,
of a preliminary investigation and extinction of Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353 shows
criminal liability with the repeal of Circular No. that both contain a saving clause,
960.On September 6, 1994, the trial court denied expressly providing that the repeal of
petitioners' motion. A similar motion filed on May 23, Circular No. 960 shall have no effect
1994 by Mrs. Marcos seeking to dismiss the dollar- on pending actions for violation of the
salting cases against her due to the repeal of latter Circular. A saving clause operates
Circular No. 960 had earlier been denied by to except from the effect of the repealing
the trial court in its order dated June law what would otherwise be lost under
9,1994. Petitioners then filed a motion for the new law. In the present case, the
reconsideration, but the trial court likewise denied respective saving clauses of Circular
this motion on October 18, 1994.. Nos. 1318 and 1353 clearly manifest the
intent to reserve the right of the State to
ISSUE: prosecute and punish offenses for
1. Whether or not the Court of violations of the repealed Circular No.
Appeals erred in denying the 960, where the cases are either pending
Motion to Quash for absence of a or under investigation
valid preliminary investigation.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition
2. W hether or not the repeal is DISMISSED. The assailed consolidated Decision
of Central Bank Circular No. 960 of the Court of Appeals dated May 23, 1996, in CA-
and Republic Act No. 265 by G.R. SP No. 35928 and CA G.R. SP No. 35719,
Circular No. 1353 and Republic Act No. is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the
7653 respectively, extinguish the criminal charges against deceased petitioner, Roberto S.
liability of petitioners. Benedicto, particularly in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-
101879 to 91-101883, 91-101884 to 101892, and
HELD: 92-101959 to 92-101969, pending before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26, are
1. NO. P r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s ordered dropped and that any criminal as well as civil
not part of the due process liability ex delicto that might be attributable to him in
g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e Constitution. It is the aforesaid cases are declared extinguished by
an inquiry to determine whether there is reason of his death on May 15, 2000. No
sufficient ground to engender a well- pronouncement as to costs.
founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent
is probably guilty thereof. Instead, FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO
the right to a preliminary GARCIA and TIMOTEO ALMARIO, respondents
investigation is personal. It is No. 48006. July 8, 1942
afforded to the accused by statute,
and can be waived, either expressly or by Facts:
A head-on collision between a taxicab owned by ACTS OR OMISSIONS NOT PUNISHABLE BY
Barredo and a carretela occurred. The carretela was LAW. But inasmuch as Article 365 of the Revised
overturned and one of its passengers, a 16-year old Penal Code punishes not only reckless but even
boy, the son of Garcia and Almario, died as a result simple imprudence or negligence, the fault
of the injuries which he received. The driver of the or negligence under Article 1902 of the Civil Code
taxicab, an employee of Barredo, was prosecuted for has apparently been crowded out. It is this
the crime and was convicted. When the criminal overlapping that makes the confusion worse
case was instituted, Garcia and Almario reserved confounded. However, a closer study shows that
their right to institute a separate civil action for such a concurrence of scope in regard
damages. Subsequently, Garcia and Almario to negligent acts does not destroy the distinction
instituted a civil action for damages against Barredo, between the civil liability arising from a crime and the
the employer of the taxicab driver. responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpa extra-
contractual. The same negligent act causing
Issue: damages may produce civil liability arising from a
crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code;
Whether or not they can file a separate civil action or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-
against Fausto Barredo making him primarily and contractual under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil
directly responsible Code. Some of the differences between crimes
under the Penal Code are:
Held:
1. That crimes affect the public interest, while quasi-
(Foreword: The Barredo case was decided by the delitos are only of private concern.
Supreme Court prior to the present Civil
Code. However, the principle enunciated in said 2. That consequently, the Penal Code punishes or
case, that responsibility for fault or negligence as corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by
quasi-delict is distinct and separate means of indemnification, merely repairs the
from negligence penalized under the Revised Penal damage.
Code, is now specifically embodied in Art. 2177 of
the Civil Code.) 3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts,
because for the former are punished only if there is
The defendant maintains that a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter,
Fontanillas negligence being punishable by the cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which any kind of
Penal Code, his (defendants) liability as an fault or negligence intervenes. However, it should
employer is only subsidiary, according to said Penal be noted that not all violations of the penal law
Code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil produce civil responsibility, such as begging
action and his property has not been exhausted. To in contravention of ordinances, violation of the game
decide the main issue, we must cut thru the tangle laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is
that has, in the minds of many, confused and hurt.
jumbled together delitos and cuasi delitos, or crimes
under the Penal Code and fault or negligence under The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the
Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. According to separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa
the Supreme Tribunal of Spain: aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically
they show that there is a distinction between civil
Authorities support the proposition that a quasi- liability arising from criminal negligence (governed
delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal by the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault
institution under the Civil Code, with a substantivity or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the
all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may
and independent from a delict or crime. Upon this produce either a civil liability arising from a crime
principle, and on the wording and spirit of Article under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility
1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of
responsibility of employers may be safely anchored. the Civil Code. Still more concretely
the authorities above cited render it inescapable to
It will thus be seen that while the terms of Article conclude that the employer in this case
1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad enough to the defendant-petitioner is primarily and directly
cover the drivers negligence in the instant case, liable under Article 1903 of the Civil Code.
nevertheless Article 1903 limits cuasi-delitos TO
CRIME WITHOUT FRUSTRATED STAGE convicted of frustrated theft since he was not
able to freely dispose of the articles stolen.
ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y Decision dated 19 June 2003,the Court of
NATIVIDAD, petitioner, Appeals rejected this contention and affirmed
vs. petitioners conviction, thus the Petition for
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. Review was filed before the Supreme Court.
COURT OF APPEALS NACHURA, respondents.
G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007 ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed has a
frustrated stage.
FACTS:
On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner HELD: NO.
and Calderon were sighted outside the Super The petition was DENIED.
Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code
(SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo provides that a felony is consummated
Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then when all the elements necessary for its
manning his post at the open parking area of the execution and accomplishment are present.
supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was
wearing an identification card with the mark Article 308 states that, in the crime of theft,
"Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)," hauling a the following elements should be present:
push cart with cases of detergent of the well- (1) that there be taking of personal property;
known "Tide" brand. Petitioner unloaded these (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
cases in an open parking space, where Calderon that the taking be done with intent to gain;
was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the (4) that the taking be done without the
supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking
with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again be accomplished without the use of violence
unloaded these boxes to the same area in the against or intimidation of persons or force
open parking space. upon things.
Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and
haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it The Court held that theft is produced when
towards the parking space where Calderon was there is deprivation of personal property by
waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial
Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the that the offender is able or unable to freely
vehicle. All these acts were eyed by Lago, who dispose the property stolen since he has
proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the already committed all the acts of execution
open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner and the deprivation from the owner has
for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and already ensued from such acts. Therefore,
Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and
fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security can only be attempted or consummated.
guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen CORA ABELLA OJEDA, appellant.
merchandise recovered. The filched items seized G.R. Nos. 104238-58.
from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide June 3, 2004
Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and
three (3) additional cases of detergent, the Nature of the case:
goods with an aggregate value of P12,090.00. For review of the decision of the Court
In a Decision promulgated on 1 February 2000, which finds the accused, Cora Abella Ojeda
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
Branch 90, convicted both petitioner and crime of Estafa as defined and penalized
Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the
They were sentenced to an indeterminate prison Revised Penal Code, as amended by Rep.
term of two (2) years of prision correccional as Act 4885, in Criminal Case No. 88-66228
minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as and hereby sentences her to suffer a
maximum. penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the
Valenzuela appealed before the Court of accessories provided by law and with credit
Appeals, arguing that he should only be for preventive imprisonment undergone, if
any, in accordance with Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended, and to 1. She told Chua not to deposit the
pay complainant Ruby Chua the amount of postdated checks because they were
Two Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand not sufficiently funded.
Three Hundred Six (P228,306.00) Pesos 2. She made partial payment right away.
with interests thereon from the time of 3. She appealed, however her counsel
demand until fully paid. filed it late, to dismiss the case with the
affidavit including Chuas statement that
Facts: she has made payments for the amount
Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics Ojeda owed her and requesting that the
from complainant Ruby Chua. accused be acquitted of her criminal
F o r t h e t h r e e years approximately she liability.
transacted business with Chua used 4. The issuance of postdated checks were
postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she only to insure future payments and not
bought. really with intent to deceive.
On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased Intent is an indispensable element of mala
from Chua various fabrics and textile in se crimes of the RPC to convict an
worthP 2 2 8 , 3 0 6 f o r w h i c h s h e i s s u accused with criminal liability.
e d 2 2 p o s t d a t e d c h e c k s bearing
different dates and amounts. The 22 checks Conclusion:
were all dishonored. Actus non facit reum, insi men sit rea means
Demandsw e r e a l l e g e d l y m a d e t o m a the act is culpable unless the mind is guilty.
ke good the dishonoredchecks, to Applying it to statutory construction, unless
no avail. Ojeda had intent to deceive and commit the
Estafa and BP 22 charges were crime she should not be held criminally liable.
thereafter filed against Ojeda.
T h e t r i a l c o u r t convicted appellant
of the crime of estafa as definedand
penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
Article 315 ofthe Revised Penal Code
(RPC), and sentenced her 146 SCRA 323 Commercial Law Negotiable
tor e c l u s i o n p e r p e t u a . Instruments Law Constitutionality of BP 22
The trial court also convictedappe This case is a consolidation of 8 cases regarding
llant of violation of BP 22 for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law or Batas
i s s u i n g b o u n c i n g checks. However, Pambansa Blg. 22 (enacted April 3, 1979). In one of
the court a quo held her guilty of only the eight cases, Judge David Nitafan of RTC Manila
14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks declared the law unconstitutional. Among the
issued. arguments against the constitutionality of the law are
a.) it is violative of the constitutional provision on
Issue: non-imprisonment due to debt, and b.) it impairs
WON the court erred in not taking into freedom of contract.
account the lack of intent by the accused to
ISSUE: Whether or not BP 22 is constitutional.
commit the crime which may render her not
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: Yes, BP 22 is constitutional.
The Supreme Court first discussed the history of the
Ruling:
law. The SC explained how the law on estafa was
The ruling of the lower court was reversed not sufficient to cover all acts involving the issuance
and set aside. The appellant Cora Abella of worthless checks; that in estafa, it only punishes
Ojeda is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. the fraudulent issuance of worthless checks to cover
88-66228 for estafa and in Criminal Case prior or simultaneous obligations but not pre-existing
Nos. 88-66230, 88-66232, 88-66235 to 88- obligations.
66240, 88-66242, 88-66243, 88-66245 to
88-66248 for violation of BP 22. BP 22 is aimed at putting a stop to or curbing the
practice of issuing checks that are worthless, i.e.
Ratio: checks that end up being rejected or dishonored for
There is not intent because:
payment. The practice is proscribed by the state The Supreme Court however also explained that
because of the injury it causes to public interests. (regardless of their previous explanation on ex
delicto debts) the non-payment of a debt is not the
BP 22 is not violative of the constitutional prohibition
gravamen of the violations of BP 22. The gravamen
against imprisonment for debt. The debt
of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making
contemplated by the constitution are those arising
and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
from contracts (ex contractu). No one is going to
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is
prison for non-payment of contractual debts.
not the non-payment of an obligation which the law
However, non-payment of debts arising from crimes punishes. The law is not intended or designed to
(ex delicto) is punishable. This is precisely why the coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law
mala prohibita crime of issuing worthless checks as is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the
defined in BP 22 was enacted by Congress. It is a making of worthless checks and putting them in
valid exercise of police power. circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the
Due to the insufficiency of the Revised Penal Code, public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law.
BP 22 was enacted to punish the following acts: The law punishes the act not as an offense against
property, but an offense against public order.
any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and Magno v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 475 (1992)
issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or Date of Promulgation: 26 June 1992
Nature: Appeal by certiorari to review the decision
to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the
check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days of Court of Appeals
from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it Facts:
is dishonored by the drawee bank. Petitioner was in process of putting up a car
repair shop sometime in April 1983, but he
And did not have complete equipment that could
any person who makes or draws and issues any make his venture workable. He lacked funds
check on account or for value, knowing at the time to purchase necessary equipment.
of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or He approached Corazon Teng, VP of Mancor
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of said Industries, a distributor of equipment who
check in full upon presentment, which check is referred him to LS Finance
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for A lease/purchase agreement specifying a
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been warranty deposit (29,790) of 30% for Magno
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, to put up. Claimino lg he could not afford it,
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop Magno asked LS Finance to find a 3rd party
payment. lender to lend him the amount. LENDER =
TENG, specified a 3% interest on short term
Congress was able to determine at that time that the loan.
issuance of worthless checks was a huge problem. Magno issued postdated checks to LS
The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the Finance, who gave it to Teng. When check
legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the matured, Magno said he could not cover it
making and issuance of a worthless check is and he was not banking with Pacific Bank
deemed public nuisance to be abated by the anymore. In lieu, he issued 6 check - first 2
imposition of penal sanctions. checks honored, last 4 in question. When
Checks are widely used due to the convenience it business failed, Magno could no longer pay
brings in commercial transactions and confidence is rent to LS Finance, LS pulled out equipment.
the primary basis why merchants rely on it for their Magno promised to pay the rest of the
various commercial undertakings. If such confidence warranty deposit, but the remaining checks
is shaken, the usefulness of checks as currency were no longer honored due to closed
substitutes would be greatly diminished or may account. He was convicted of four counts of
become nil. Any practice therefore tending to destroy violating BP 22. CA affirmed this decision
that confidence should be deterred for the because issuing a bouncing check is a crime
proliferation of worthless checks can only create ISSUE:
havoc in trade circles and the banking community. (1) WON Magno is guilty of violating B.P. 22
Thus, the Congress, through their exercise of police upon review
power, declared that the making and issuance of a (2) WON post-dated checks were drawn or
worthless check is deemed a public nuisance which issued "to apply on account or for value",
can be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions. as required under Section 1 of B.P. Blg, 22.
unwarranted. Because of this, the petitioner uses the
Ruling: Decision REVERSED, accused- facial challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.
petitioner, ACQUITTED
Held: Issue:
(1) NO. There is no violation of BP22 by
issuance of check to cover warranty deposit Whether or not the petitioner possesses the locus
given by complainant to enable drawer to standi to attack the validity of the law using the facial
import equipment financed on lease- challenge.
purchase agreement. Since transaction did
not become purchase when Magno failed to Ruling:
pay rent and LS Finance pulled out On how the law uses the terms combination and
equipment. No need for Magno to continue series does not constitute vagueness. The
paying warranty deposit (warranty deposit is petitioners contention that it would not give a fair
for purchase of equipment). warning and sufficient notice of what the law seeks
(2) NO violation is committed when complainant to penalize cannot be plausibly argued. Void-for-
told drawer that he has insufficient funds in vagueness doctrine is manifestly misplaced under
the bank. The 4 checks were issued to the petitioners reliance since ordinary intelligence
collateralize rent/ an accommodation and can understand what conduct is prohibited by the
not for purchase equipment/receipt of an statute. It can only be invoked against that specie of
actual account or credit for value. legislation that is utterly vague on its face, wherein
Ratio: RTC and CAs decision merely relied on clarification by a saving clause or construction
the law, without looking into the real nature of cannot be invoked. Said doctrine may not invoked in
warranty deposit. Acquittal based on action not this case since the statute is clear and free from
constituting a wrong sought to be punished in ambiguity. Vagueness doctrine merely requires a
offense charged (not because of lack of intent). reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be
upheld, not absolute precision or mathematical
exactitude.
Protective theory affirms that the primary On the other hand, overbreadth doctrine decrees
function of punishment is the protective of society that governmental purpose may not be achieved by
against actual and potential wrongdoers means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
Ex. Actuations of Mrs. Carolina Teng amount to that thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
of potential wrongdoers whose operations should
Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a facial
also be clipped in order that the unwary public will
challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute
not fall prey to vicious transactions
and to one which is overbroad because of possible
chilling effect upon protected speech. Furthermore,
ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN in the area of criminal law, the law cannot take
G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001 chances as in the area of free speech. A facial
challenge to legislative acts is the most difficult
Facts: challenge to mount successfully since the challenger
must establish that no set of circumstances exists.
Petitioner Joseph Estrada prosecuted An Act
Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder, Doctrines mentioned are analytical tools developed
wishes to impress upon the Court that the assailed for facial challenge of a statute in free speech cases.
law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that With respect to such statue, the established rule is
thin but distinct line which divides the valid from the that one to who application of a statute is
constitutionally infirm. His contentions are mainly constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute
based on the effects of the said law that it suffers on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as
from the vice of vagueness; it dispenses with the applying to other persons or other situations in which
"reasonable doubt" standard in criminal its application might be unconstitutional. On its face
prosecutions; and it abolishes the element of mens invalidation of statues results in striking them down
rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised entirely on the ground that they might be applied to
Penal Code saying that it violates the fundamental parties not before the Court whose activities are
rights of the accused. constitutionally protected. It is evident that the
The focal point of the case is the alleged purported ambiguity of the Plunder Law is more
vagueness of the law in the terms it uses. imagined than real.
Particularly, this terms are: combination, series and The crime of plunder as a malum in se is deemed to
have been resolve in the Congress decision to
include it among the heinous crime punishable by towards the direction of the well. Then, he tended
reclusion perpetua to death. his wound in the lips and armpit and slept.
Supreme Court holds the plunder law constitutional
and petition is dismissed for lacking merit. ISSUE:
Whether or not Benjamin and Manuel should be
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- liable for murder.
appellee,
vs. HELD:
BENJAMIN ORTEGA, JR. and Manuel Garcia, NO. PARTLY GRANTED. Benjamin is guilty only of
accused-appellants homicide. Manuel deserves acquittal
G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 If Ortegas version of the assault was true, he
should have immediately reported the matter to the
police authorities. If Ortegas version of the assault
FACTS:
was true, he should have immediately reported the
On October 15, 1992 at 5:30 in the afternoon,
matter to the police authorities. It is incredible that
Andre Mar Masangkay, Ariel Caranto, Romeo Diosdado would stab Andre 10 times successively,
Ortega, Roberto San Andres and Diosdado completely ignoring Benjamin who was grappling
Quitlong were having a drinking spree in the with Masangkay and that Andre was choking him
compound near the house of Benjamin Ortega, Jr. while being stabbed.
On October 15, 1992 11:00 pm, the accused Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia who were intent on the part of the accused to take advantage
already drank joined them. At about 12:30 a.m of
of such superiority none shown
October 16, 1992 the victim Andre Mar Masangkay o Andre was a 6-footer, whereas Ortega, Jr. was
answered the call of nature and went to the back only 54
portion of the house. Benjamin Ortega, Jr. followed Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code
him and suddenly, they heard a shout from Andre states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any
Dont, help me! (Huwag, tulungan ninyo ako!)
person committing a felony (delito) although the
Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Benjamin wrongful act done be different from that which he
on top of Andre who was lying down being intended.
stabbed. Ariel got Benjamin Ortega, Sr., o The essential requisites
Benjamins father while Diosdado called Romeo to 1. The intended act is felonious assisting
pacify his brother. Romeo, Benjamin and Manuel Benjamin by carrying the body to the well
lifted Andre from the canal and dropped him in the 2. The resulting act is likewise a felony
well. They dropped stones to Andres body to weigh - concealing the body of the crime to prevent its
the body down. Romeo warned Diosdado not to discovery
tell anybody what he saw. He agreed so he was 3. The unintended albeit graver wrong was
allowed to go home. But, his conscience bothered primarily caused by the actors wrongful acts
him so he told his mother, reported it to the police (praeter intentionem) still alive and was drowned
and accompanied them to the crime scene. to death
Manuel Garcia alibi a person may be convicted of homicide although
o He was asked to go home by his wife to fetch he had no original intent to kill
his mother-in-law who performed a ritual called Garcia is a brother-in-law of Benjamin
tawas on his sick daughter and stayed home after o Exempt by Article 20 of RPC
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. story ART. 20. Accessories who are exempt from
o After Masangkay left, he left to urinate and he criminal liability. -- The penalties prescribed for
saw Andre peeking through the room of his sister accessories shall not be imposed upon those who
Raquel. Then, Andre approached him to ask where are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
his sister was. When he answered he didnt know, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted
Andre punched him so he bled and fell to the brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
ground. Andre drew a knife and stabbed him, hitting the same degrees with the single exception of
him on the left arm, thereby immobilizing accessories falling within the provisions of
him. Andre then gripped his neck with his left arm paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
and threatened to kill him. Unable to move, Ortega The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal
shouted for help. Quitlong came, seized the knife under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which
and stabbed Andre 10 times with it. Andre then ran is imposable in its medium period, absent any
aggravating or mitigating circumstance, as in the
case of Appellant Ortega. Because he is entitled to pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the transaction may violate Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019.
minimum term shall be one degree lower, that is, The first mode is when the public officer intervenes
prision mayor. or takes part in his official capacity in connection
with his financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract, or transaction. The second
G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009 mode is when he is prohibited from having such an
EDGAR Y. TEVES, Petitioner, vs. THE interest by the Constitution or by law.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HERMINIO In Teves v. Sandiganbayan, petitioner was
G. TEVES convicted under the second mode for having
pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit which is
Facts: prohibited under Sec. 89(2) of the Local
Petitioner was a candidate for the position of Government Code of 1991.
Representative of the 3rd legislative district of o The evidence for the prosecution has established
Negros Oriental during the May 14, 2007 elections. that petitioner Edgar Teves, then mayor of
Respondent Herminio G. Teves filed a petition to Valencia, Negros Oriental, owned the cockpit in
disqualify petitioner on the ground that in Teves v. question.
Sandiganbayan,3 he was convicted of violating o Even if the ownership of petitioner Edgar Teves
Section 3(h), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the over the cockpit were transferred to his wife, still he
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for would have a direct interest thereon because, as
possessing pecuniary or financial interest in a correctly held by respondent Sandiganbayan, they
cockpit, which is prohibited under Section 89(2) of remained married to each other from 1983 up to
the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. 1992, and as such their property relation can be
Respondent alleged that petitioner is disqualified presumed to be that of conjugal partnership of
from running for public office because he was gains in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude which o Hence, his interest in the Valencia Cockpit is direct
carries the accessory penalty of perpetual and is, therefore, prohibited under Section 89(2) of
disqualification from public office. the LGC of 1991.
The COMELEC First Division disqualified However, conviction under the second mode
petitioner from running for the position of member does not automatically mean that the same
of House of Representatives and ordered the involved moral turpitude. A determination of all
cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy. surrounding circumstances of the violation of the
Upon MR, COMELEC en banc denied the statute must be considered. Besides, moral
motion saying that since petitioner lost in the last 14 turpitude does not include such acts as are not
May 2007 congressional elections, it thereby of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies
rendered the instant MR moot and academic. in their being positively prohibited, as in the
instant case.
Issue: Whether petitioners violation of Section The Court clarified that not every criminal act,
3(h), R.A. No. 3019 involves moral turpitude. however, involves moral turpitude. It is for this
reason that "as to what crime involves moral
Held: turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine." In
Moral turpitude has been defined as everything resolving the foregoing question, the Court is
which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good guided by one of the general rules that crimes mala
morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala
the private and social duties which a man owes his prohibita do not.
fellowmen, or to society in general. Moral turpitude implies something immoral in
The essential elements of the violation of said itself, regardless of the fact that it is punishable by
provision are as follows: 1) The accused is a public law or not. It must not be merely mala prohibita, but
officer; 2) he has a direct or indirect financial or the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute
transaction; 3) he either: a) intervenes or takes part fixes the moral turpitude.
in his official capacity in connection with such Consequently, considering all circumstances,
interest, or b) is prohibited from having such the Court held that petitioners conviction does
interest by the Constitution or by law. not involve moral turpitude.
Thus, there are two modes by which a public The morality of gambling is not a justiciable
officer who has a direct or indirect financial or issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. While it is
generally considered inimical to the interests of the
people, there is nothing in the Constitution Issue: Whether or not the petitioner who was not
categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or, the drawer or issuer of the three checks that
for that matter, even mentioning it at all. It is left to bounced but her co-accused husband under the
Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. latters account could be held liable for violations of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator.
In the exercise of its own discretion, the
legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or Held: The conviction must be set aside. Article 8 of
allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some the RPC provides that a conspiracy exists when
forms of gambling and allow others for whatever two or more persons come to an agreement
reasons it may consider sufficient. Thus, it has concerning the commission of a felony and decide
prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries, to commit it. To be held guilty as a co-principal by
cockfighting and horse-racing. In making such reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown
choices, Congress has consulted its own wisdom, to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
which this Court has no authority to review, much furtherance of the complicity. The overt act or acts
less reverse. of the accused may consist of active participation in
the actual commission of the crime itself or may
EVANGELINE LADONGA VS. PEOPLE OF THE consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators
PHILIPPINES by moving them to execute or implement the
G.R. No. 141066. February 17, 2005 criminal plan. In the present case, the prosecution
failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt
act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
Facts: In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Apparently, the only semblance of overt act that
Ladonga became Alfredo Oculams regular may be attributed to petitioner is that she was
customers in his pawnshop business. Sometime in present when the first check was issued. However,
May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a this inference cannot be stretched to mean
P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United concurrence with the criminal design. Conspiracy
Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, must be established, not by conjectures, but by
post dated to July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy
sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during transcends mere companionship and mere
the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself
obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge,
guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744, post acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not
dated to July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico; between enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy,
May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses absent any active participation in the commission of
obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, the crime with a view to the furtherance of the
guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post common design and purpose
dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the
three checks bounced upon presentment for the
reason CLOSED ACCOUNT; when the Ladonga
spouses failed to redeem the check, despite
repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint
against them. While admitting that the checks
issued by Adronico bounced because there was no
sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the
Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were
issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an
agreement that Oculam should not encash the
checks when they mature; and, that petitioner is not
a signatory of the checks and had no participation
in the issuance thereof. The RTC rendered a joint
decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22.
Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of
petitioner.