Compiled Case digest

8/11/2019 Compiled Case digest

1/12

Umil vs. Ramos

FACTS: This consolidated case of 8 petitions for habeas corpus assails the validity of the

arrests and searches made by the military on the petitioners. The arrests relied on the

condential information that the authorities received. !cept for one case "here incitin#

to sedition "as char#ed$ the rest are char#ed "ith subversion for bein# a member of the%e" &eople's Army.

()*+%,: The arrests "ere le#al. (e#ardin# the subversion cases$ the arrests "ere le#al

since subversion is a form of a continuin# crime - to#ether "ith rebellion$ conspiracy or

proposal to commit rebellionsubversion$ and crimes committed in furtherance thereof or in

connection there"ith. /n the incitin# to sedition case$ the arrest "as le#al since an

information "as led prior to his arrest. *astly$ the arrests "ere not shin# e!peditions but a

result of an in0depth surveillance of %&A safe houses pinpointed by none other than

members of the %&A.

The ri#ht to preliminary investi#ation should be e!ercised by the o1ender as soon as

possible. /ther"ise$ it "ould be considered as impliedly "aived and the lin# of informationcan proceed. This sort of irre#ularity is not su2cient to set aside a valid 3ud#ment upon a

su2cient complaint and after a trial free from error.

4+SS%T: 5Sarmiento$ 6.7 The condential information "as nothin# but hearsay. The

searches and arrests made "ere bereft of probable cause and that the petitioners "ere not

cau#ht in a#rante delicto or in any overt act. )tmost$ the authorities "as luc9y in their

shin# e!peditions.

2. The Bill of Rights can only be invoked only against the state. People vs. Marti

--arti and his "ife "ent to the booth of the ;anila &ac9in# and !port For"arders;

carryin# "ith them four 5o"ever$ before the

delivery of the bo! to the ?ureau of Customs$ the o"ner@s husband inspected the pac9a#e

and found mari3uana "hich "as later turned over to the %?+. A case "as led a#ainst arti.

arti invo9ed his ri#ht a#ainst ille#al searches and seiure. >eld: The constitutional

proscription a#ainst unla"ful searches and seiures therefore applies as a restraint directed

only a#ainst the #overnment and its a#encies tas9ed "ith the enforcement of the la". Thus$

it could only be invo9ed a#ainst the State to "hom the restraint a#ainst arbitrary and

unreasonable e!ercise of po"er is imposed.

Corollarily$ alle#ed violations a#ainst unreasonable search and seiure may only be invo9eda#ainst the State by an individual un3ustly traduced by the e!ercise of soverei#n authority.

To a#ree "ith appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the ?ill of (i#hts

should also be construed as an act of the State "ould result in serious le#al complications

and an absurd interpretation of the constitution


2/12

People vs Ruben Burgosacts!

The lo"er court laid do"n its decision to the defendant0appellant "ith the crime of ille#al

possession of rearm in furtherance of subversion. That in the afternoon of ay B$ BD8E

and thereabout at Ti#uman$ 4i#os$ 4avao del Sur$ &hilippines$ the accused possessed

"ithout the necessary license$ permit or authority issued by the proper #overnmenta#encies$ one 5B7 homemade revolver$ caliber .8 "ith Serial %o. 8.DEEB. The rearm "as

issued to and used by the accused at his area in 4avao del Sur on operations by one Alias

Commander &ol for the %e" &eople@s Army 5%&A7$ a subversive or#aniation or#anied for

the purpose of overthro"in# the ,overnment of the (epublic of the &hilippines throu#h

la"less and violent means.

"ssues!

a7Ghether or not the arrest of the appellant0accused "ithout any valid "arrant is le#al and

for the search of rearm in his house "ithout valid "arrant is la"fulH

b7Ghether he violated &residential 4ecree %o. D in relation to ,eneral /rders %os. I JH

#eld!

(ule BB$ Section of the (ules of Court

The trial court 3ustied the arrest of the accused0appelant "ithout any "arrant as fallin#

under one of the instances "hen arrests may be validly made "ithout a "arrant. (ule BB$

Section of the (ules of Court$ provides the e!ceptions as follo"s:

a7 Ghen the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committin#$ or is about tocommit an o1ense in his presenceK

b7 Ghen an o1ense has in fact been committed$ and he has reasonable #round to believe

that the person to be arrested has committed itK

c7 Ghen the person to be arrested is a prisoner "ho has escaped from a penal

establishment or place "here he is servin# nal 3ud#ment or temporarily conned "hile his

case is pendin# or has escaped "hile bein# transferred from one connement to another.

The Court stated that even if there "as no "arrant for the arrest of ?ur#os$ the fact that

;the authorities received an ur#ent report of accused@s involvement in subversive activitiesfrom a reliable source 5report of Cesar asamlo97 the circumstances of his arrest$ even

"ithout 3udicial "arrant$ is la"fully "ithin the ambit of Section 0A of (ule BB of the (ules

of Court and applicable 3urisprudence on the matter.;

+n provin# o"nership of the rearm

The constitutional ri#ht a#ainst self0incrimination under Sec. EL of Art. +M of the ?ill of (i#hts


3/12

"inch provides that$ no person shall be compelled to be a "itness a#ainst himself. Any

person under investi#ation for the commission of an o1ense shall have the ri#ht to remain

silent and to counsel$ and to be informed of such ri#ht. The accused0appellant "as not

accorded his constitutional ri#ht to be assisted by counsel durin# the custodial interro#ation.

The lo"er court correctly pointed out that the securin# of counsel$ Atty. Anyo#$ to help the

accused "hen he subscribed under oath to his statement at the Fiscal@s /2ce "as too late.+t could have no palliative e1ect. +t cannot cure the absence of counsel at the time of the

custodial investi#ation "hen the e!tra3udicial statement "as bein# ta9en. The 3ud#ment of

conviction rendered by the trial court is (M(S4 and ST AS+4. The accused0appellant is

hereby ACN)+TT4$ on #rounds of reasonable doubt$ of the crime "ith "hich he has been

char#ed.

$nrile vs. %ala&ar

>abeas Corpus - (i#ht to ?ail - (ebellion - SC Cannot Chan#e *a"

+n February BDDL$ Sen nrile "as arrested. >e "as char#ed to#ether "ith r. I rs. &anlilio$

and >onasan for the crime of rebellion "ith murder and multiple frustrated murder "hich

alle#edly occurred durin# their failed coup attempt. nrile "as then brou#ht to Camp

Oarin#al. nrile later led for the habeas corpus alle#in# that the crime bein# char#ed

a#ainst him is none!istent. That he "as char#ed "ith a criminal o1ense in an information for

"hich no complaint "as initially led or preliminary investi#ation "as conducted$ hence "as

denied due processK denied his ri#ht to bailK and arrested and detained on the stren#th of a

"arrant issued "ithout the 3ud#e "ho issued it rst havin# personally determined the

e!istence of probable cause.

"%%U$! Ghether or not the court should a2rm the >ernande rulin#.

#$'(! nrile led for habeas corpus because he "as denied bail althou#h ordinarily achar#e of rebellion "ould entitle one for bail. The crime of rebellion char#ed a#ainst him

ho"ever is comple!ed "ith murder and multiple frustrated murders - the intention of the

prosecution "as to ma9e rebellion in its most serious form so as to ma9e the penalty thereof

in the ma!imum. The SC ruled that there is no such crime as (ebellion "ith murder and

multiple frustrated murder. Ghat nrile et al can be char#ed of "ould be Simple (ebellion

because other crimes such as murder or all those that may be necessary to the commission

of rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitiled for bail. The SC ho"ever noted that a

petition for habeas corpus "as not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail. The proper step

that should have been ta9en "as for nrile to le a petition to be admitted for bail. >e

should have e!hausted all other e1orts before petitionin# for habeas corpus. The >ernande

rulin# is still valid. All other crimes committed in carryin# out rebellion are deemedabsorbed. The SC noted$ ho"ever$ that there may be a need to modify the rebellion la".

Considerin# that the essence of rebellion has been lost and that it is bein# used by a lo t of

opportunists to attempt to #rab po"er.

$)R"'$ vs. *M") +,.R. )o. /0


4/12

Facts: To#ether "ith the lin# of an information char#in# nrile as havin# committed

rebellion comple!ed "ith murder$ #overnment prosecutors led another information

char#in# him for violation of &4 %o. B8ED. The second information reads:

That on or about the Bst day of 4ecember BD8D$ at 4asmariPas Milla#e$ a9ati$ etro anila

and "ithin the 3urisdiction of this >onorable Court$ the above0named accused$ havin#

reasonable #round to believe or suspect that !0Col. ,re#orio ,rin#o >onasan has

committed a crime$ did then and there unla"fully$ feloniously$ "illfully and 9no"in#ly

obstruct$ impede$ frustrate or delay the apprehension of said !. *t. Col. ,re#orio ,rin#o

>onasan by harborin# or concealin# him in his house.

&etitioner led a motion for reconsideration and to Nuash4ismiss the information 5second

information7 on the #round that the pendin# char#e of rebellion comple!ed "ith murder and

frustrated murder a#ainst nrile as alle#ed co0conspirator of Col. >onosan$ on the basis of

their alle#ed meetin# on 4ecember B$ BD8D preclude the prosecution of the Senator for

harbourin# or concealin# the Colonel on the same occasion under &4 B8ED. >o"ever$ this

motion "as denied.

+ssue: Ghether or not the petitioner could be separately char#ed for violation of &4 %o. B8ED

not"ithstandin# the rebellion case earlier led a#ainst him.

>eld: %o$ nrile could not be separately char#ed for violation of &4 B8ED.

The re3ection of both options shapes and determines the primary rulin# of the Court$ "hich

that >ernande remains bindin# doctrine operatin# to prohibit the comple!in# of rebellion

"ith any other o1ense committed on the occasion thereof$ either as a means to its

commission or as an unintended e1ect of an activity that commutes rebellion.

This doctrine is applicable in the case at bar. +f a person cannot be char#ed "ith the

comple! crime of rebellion for the #reater penalty to be applied$ neither can he be char#ed

separately for t"o 5E7 di1erent o1enses "here one is a constitutive or component element

or committed in furtherance of rebellion.

The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. +t is described as a vast movement of men and

a comple! net of intri#ues and plots. 6urisprudence tells us that acts committed in

furtherance of the rebellion thou#h crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in the one

sin#le crime of rebellion. +n this case$ the act of harborin# or concealin# Col. >onasan is

clearly a mere component or in#redient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the

rebellion. +t cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate char#e.

P$1P'$ vs. '1$(1R"1 +,.R. )o. 3322/0

(?**+/% 5A(T. B


5/12

"ho shot *ucilo had three other companions "ith him$ one of "hom shot the fallen

policeman four times as he lay on the #round.

*ucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss from multiple #unshot "ounds on the

face$ the chest$ and other parts of the body.

Accused0appellant "as found by the trial court #uilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime

of murder.

+ssue: Ghether accused0appellant is #uilty of murder or of rebellion.

>eld: The crime committed by the appellant is murder and not rebellion. The #ravamen of

the crime of rebellion is an armed public uprisin# a#ainst the #overnment. ?y its very

nature$ rebellion is essentially a crime of masses or multitudes involvin# cro"d action$ "hich

cannot be conned a priori "ithin predetermined bounds. /ne aspect note"orthy in the

commission of rebellion is that other acts committed in its pursuance are$ by la"$ absorbed

in the crime itself because they acQuire a political character.

+n decidin# if the crime committed is rebellion$ not murder$ it becomes imperative for our

courts to ascertain "hether or not the act "as done in furtherance of a political end. Thepolitical motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated. +n such cases$ the burden of

demonstratin# political motive falls on the defense$ motive$ bein# a state of mind "hich the

accused$ better than any individual$ 9no"s.

Clearly$ political motive should be established before a person char#ed "ith a common

crime R alle#in# rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty R could benet

from the la"'s relatively beni#n attitude to"ards political crimes.

$spuelas vs. People 4,R '-256 37 (ecember 3/38Facts:?et"een 6une D and 6une E


6/12

&resident Truman and Churchill. Tell them that here in the &hilippines our #overnment isinfested "ith many>itlers and ussolinis. Teach our children to burn pictures of (o!as if and "hen they comeacross one. +committed suicide because + am ashamed of our #overnment under (o!as. + cannot holdhi#h my bro"s to the

"orld "ith this dirty #overnment. + committed suicide because + have no po"er to put under6ue de Cuchilloall the (o!as people no" in po"er. So$ + sacriced my o"n self.; spuelas "as char#ed forviolatin# ArticleB


7/12

no particular omissions or commissions are set forth. +nstead the article drips "ith male0violence and hateto"ards the constituted authorities. +t tries to arouse animosity to"ards all public servantsheaded by &resident(o!as "hose pictures spuelas "ould burn and "ould teach the youn#er #eneration todestroy. Analyed for

meanin# and "ei#hed in its conseQuences the article cannot fail to impress thin9in# personsthat it see9s toso" the seeds of sedition and strife. The infuriatin# lan#ua#e is not a sincere e1ort to

persuade$ "hat "ith the"riter@s simulated suicide and false claim to martyrdom and "hat "ith its failure to

particularie. Ghen theuse of irritatin# lan#ua#e centers not on persuadin# the readers but on creatin#disturbance$ the rationable offree speech can not apply and the spea9er or "riter is removed from the protection of theconstitutional#uaranty. Althou#h it be ar#ued that the article does not discredit the entire #overnmentalstructure but only&resident (o!as and his menK still$ article Bitlers and ussolinis "ere naturally directed. /n this score alone the conviction couldbe upheld. Totop it all$ spuelas proclaimed to his readers that he committed suicide because he had ;no

po"er to put under3ue de cuchillo all the (o!as people no" in po"er.; Ono"in#$ that the e!pression 6ue deCuchillo means tothe ordinary layman as the *a" of the Onife$ a ;summary and arbitrary e!ecution by the9nife;$ the ideaintended by spuelas to be conveyed "as no other than bloody$ violent and unpeacefulmethods to free the#overnment from the administration of (o!as and his men. The meanin#$ intent and e1ectof the articleinvolves maybe a Question of fact$ ma9in# the ndin#s of the court of appeals conclusiveupon the SupremeCourt.

People v. Beltran

("R$9T *%%*U'T

)ature! This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First +nstance of Ca#ayan "hich

indicted appellants for murder and double attempted murder "ith direct assault.

9ase ,ist! *ppellants in this case are convicted by the 9" of 9agayan for murder

and double attempted murder :ith direct assault for ;ring a Mayor and his

colleagues :ho are at that time in the performance of their duties.

acts!


8/12

+n the evenin# of 6anuary BB$ BDJE$ bet"een D:LL and BL:LL$ in ?allesteros$ Ca#ayan$

rnesto Alvarado "as brin#in# Cali!to )rbi home in a 3eep. &assin# by the &uon Compound$

4elno ?eltran alias inon#$ shouted at them$ ;/9i ni inayo; 5Mulva of your mother7. They

proceeded on their "ay and i#nored 4elno. After Alvarado had brou#ht )rbi to his house

he "ent to the house of ayor ?ienvenido Nuirol#ico and reported the matter. The ne"ly

elected ayor told the Chief of &olice that somethin# should be done about it.

They decided to #o to the &uon Compound "ith the intention to tal9 to 4elno ?eltran and

his companions to surrender considerin# that he 9ne" them personally as all of them "ere

once "or9in# for Con#ressman 4avid &uon Ghen they came near the compound$ they sa"

appellants 4elno ?eltran$ (o#elio ?u#arin and 4omin#o >ernande and suddenly there "as

a simultaneous dischar#e of #unre$ The mayor@s son$ Micente$ "ho "as "ith them$ cried: ; +

am already hit$ 4addy.; As he fell$ Micente pushed his father and both fell do"n. ayor

Nuirol#ico and &atrolman (olando Tolentino also su1ered in3uries. Ghen the rin# had

stopped$ they decided to brin# Micente to the hospital. As the 3eep left the compound three

57 men came out of the &uon Compound and red at the eein# vehicle. They "ere

Cresencio Siaon$ Ceferino ?eltran and %olin# &uon. *i9e"ise$ 4omin#o >ernande and

inon# ?eltran and ?oy ?u#arin tried to #ive chase. After a "hile$ all the si! men returned

inside the compound.

An hour after admission to the hospital Micente Nuirol#ico died.

#eld!

Considerin# that ayor Nuirol#ico is a person in authority and &at. (olando Tolentino is a

policeman "ho at the time "as in his uniform$ and both "ere performin# their o2cial duties

to maintain peace and order in the community$ the ndin# of the trial court that appellants

are #uilty of attempted murder "ith direct assault on the persons of ayor Nuirol#ico and

&at. Tolentino is correct.

(elative to the last assi#ned error$ follo"in# /ur latest rulin# in &eople vs. %icolas Canamo$

et al.$ ,.(. %o. ELo"ever$ this miti#atin# circumstance

is o1set by the a##ravatin# circumstance of evident premeditation.

People v. (ollantes

)ature! This is an appeal from a decision of the (e#ional Trial Court of 4uma#uete City$convictin# the nine 5D7 accused$ &edro 4ollantes$ >amlet 4ollantes$ *auro 4ollantes$ onico

4ollantes$ Sidrito *o9esio$ erlando 4ollantes$ >u#o ,ren#ia$ 4anny steban and *eonilo

Millaester$ all eQually #uilty of the comple! crime of ;Assault upon a &erson in Authority

(esultin# in urder;.


9/12

9ase ,ist! *ppellants killed the Brgy. 9aptain :ho admonished them :hen they

:ere acting menacingly during the to:n ;esta. The Brgy. 9aptain :as in the

performance of his duty at that time.

acts!

4eceased arcos ,abutero at the time of his death "as the ?aran#ay Captain of ?aran#aya#lihe$ Tayasan$ %e#ros /rientalK that due to the approachin# esta of baran#ay a#lihe$

a dance "as held in said baran#ay in the evenin# of April EB$ BD8K that "hile the ?aran#ay

Captain "as deliverin# a speech to start the dance$ the accused &edro 4ollantes "ent to the

middle of the dancin# oor$ ma9in# a dance movement 9no"n in the visayan as

;na#9orantsa;$ brandishin# his 9nife and challen#in# everyone as to "ho "as brave amon#

the people presentK the ?aran#ay Captain approached &edro 4ollantes and admonished him

to 9eep Quiet and not to disturb the dance. >o"ever$ the accused$ instead of heedin# to the

advice of the ?aran#ay Captain$ stabbed the latter on the left armK that accused >u#o

,ren#ia held the left hand of accused &edro 4ollantes and 4ionilo ,arol "as able to #et

from the hand of &edro 4ollantes the huntin# 9nife. +mmediately thereafter$ accused >amlet

4ollantes$ "ho rushed to"ards the ?aran#ay Captain$ stabbed the ?aran#ay Captain at thebac9 and the other co0accused also too9 turns in stabbin# the ?aran#ay CaptainK the

?aran#ay Captain at that time "as not armed. !cept for the accused >u#o ,ren#ia$ 4anny

steban and *eonilo Millaester "ho "ere merely holdin# stones$ the other co0accused

participated in the stabbin# incident. Ghen the ?aran#ay Captain fell to the #round and

died$ the accused in this case too9 turns in 9ic9in# the dead body of the ?aran#ay Captain

and "ere dancin# around said dead bodyK that the ?aran#ay Captain su1ered eleven 5BB7

"ounds in the di1erent parts of his body$ t"o of "hich happened to be at the bac9 of his

dead body. Accordin# to the attendin# physician$ 4r. (o#elio Oho "ho e!amined the body of

the deceased$ the victim died of ;Severe hemorrha#e and cardiac tamponade due to stab

"ounds.;

4ionilo ,arol "ho "as si! 57 meters a"ay$ sa" clearly "hat happened. >e testied that

"hen the ?aran#ay Captain started to deliver his speech$ the accused &edro 4ollantes

brandishin# a 9nife shouted ;Gho is brave hereH; The victim then approached to admonish

him t the latter stabbed the victim on the arm. ,arol immediately approached the accused

&edro 4ollantes and tried to "rest the 9nife a"ay from the hand of the accused. The

accused >u#o ,ren#ia also tried to #rab the 9nife but it "as ,arol "ho succeeded. The

accused ,ren#ia then told him ;4o not try to intervene because you mi#ht be included in

the plan.; Then ,ren#ia made some si#ns by noddin# his head and the accused >amlet

4ollantes and Alfredo 4ollantes rushed to and attac9ed the victim follo"ed by the other co0

accused in this case "ho also rushed at and stabbed the victim. >e specied that accused

Alfredo 4ollantes$ *auro 4ollantes$ onico 4ollantes and Sidrito *o9esio "ere carryin#9nives "hile the accused erlando 4ollantes "as carryin# a boloK and that they stabbed the

victim one after another. >e said that the accused 4anny steban$ >u#o ,ren#ia and*eonilo

Millaester "ere all carryin# stones "hich they thre" at the store of the victim@s "ife.

This testimony "as fully corroborated by another prosecution eye"itness ?onifacio Cero

"ho "as about three 57 meters a"ay and "hose narration tallied on all material ints "ith

that of 4ionilo ,arol as to "hat transpired that ni#ht. >e stated further that "hen he sa"


10/12

the ?aran#ay Captain bein# stabbed he tried to approach the #roup but he "as held by

4anny steban "ho said ;do not try to interfere$ you are not a party to this. Ge have

already #otten "hat "e have been aimin# for.; Thereafter$ he ran a"ay but Alfredo

4ollantes$ &edro 4ollantes and 4anny steban stoned him because they intended to 9ill him

also. >e also testied that "hen he returned to the crime scene$ he sa" >u#o ,ren#ia$

4anny steban and companions simultaneously 9ic9in# the dead body and shoutin# ;"ho isbrave amon# here. ;

arciana ,abutero$ the "ife of the victim funy corroborated the testimonies of ,arol and

Cero. She also added that >u#o ,ren#ia "anted to be a ?aran#ay Captain and she

happened to 9no" that as a fact$ because he told the cro"d not to lon# as ?aran#ay

Captain. She also testied that the accused *eonilo Millaester splashed one #lass of tuba on

the face of the deceased and that the victim had had a misunderstandin# "ith the 4ollantes

on a theft case involvin# >amlet 4ollantes.

#eld!

+t "ill be noted that the above "itnesses "ere cate#orical and strai#htfor"ard "hen theystated that they sa" appellants stab the victim. They even specied the type of "eapon

used by each of said appellants.

There is no possibility that they could have been mista9en in their +dentication for apart

from bein# near the crime scene "hich "as "ell illuminated "ith t"o &etroma! lamps$ these

"itnesses are familiar "ith the appellants since they are all residents of the same locality.

Furthermore$ there is no sho"in# that the "itnesses had any motive to testify falsely a#ainst

the appellants.

+n fact$ under similar circumstances$ the Court has held that "here the scene of the

stabbin# "as clearly li#hted and no motive "as sho"n "hy prosecution "itnesses "ould

incriminate the appellants$ identication "ould be #iven full faith and credit.

The lo"er court also found that treachery "as present in the commission of the crime$ and

that the accused Alfredo 4ollantes$ *auro 4ollantes$ onico 4ollantes$ Sidrito *o9esio and

erlando 4ollantes are as eQually #uilty as principals by direct participation. These accused

too9 turns in stabbin# the victim. +n fact the victim "as cau#ht by surprise and did not have

time to defend himself.

Finally$ the records sho" that the ?aran#ay Captain "as in the act of tryin# to pacify &edro

4ollantes "ho "as ma9in# trouble in the dance hall "hen he "as stabbed to death. >e "as

therefore 9illed "hile in the performance of his duties. +n the case of &eople v. >ecto 5B

SC(A BB7$ this Court ruled that ;As the baran#ay captain$ it "as his duty to enforce thela"s and ordinances "ithin the baran#ay. +f in the enforcement thereof$ he incurs$ the

enmity of his people "ho thereafter treacherously sle" him the crime committed is murder

"ith assault upon a person in authority.;

There is no Question that the trial court@s conclusions on credibility of "itnesses are entitled

to #reat "ei#ht on appeal. 5&eople v. /liverio$ BEL SC(A EE7. After a careful revie" of the


11/12

records$ no plausible reason could be found to disturb the ndin#s of fact and of la" of the

lo"er court in this case.

&(+SS C/%S+4(4$ the assailed decision is hereby AFF+(4.

*lberto v. (ela 9ru&

($'"$R< 1 PR"%1)$R% R1M =*"'

)ature! This is a petition for certiorari.

9ase ,ist! li#io /rbita$ a &rovincial #uard$ is prosecuted for the crime of +nfedelity in the

Custody of &risoner$ dened and punished under Article EE< of the (evised &enal Code$

acts!

That on or about the BEth day of September. BD8$ in the barrio of Taculod$ municipality ofCanaman$ province of Camarines Sur$ &hilippines$ and "ithin the 3urisdiction of this

>onorable Court$ the said accused$ bein# then a member of the &rovincial ,uard of

Camarines Sur and specially char#ed "ith the duty of 9eepin# under custody and vi#ilance

detention prisoner &ablo 4enaQue$ did then and there "ith #reat carelessness and

un3ustiable ne#li#ence leave the latter un#uarded "hile in said barrio$ thereby #ivin# him

the opportunity to run a"ay and escape$ as in fact said detention prisoner &ablo 4enaQue

did run a"ay and escape from the custody of the said accused.

+n the course of the trial thereof$ or more particularly durin# the cross0e!amination of

prosecution "itness 6ose smeralda$ assistant provincial "arden of Camarines Sur$ the

defense brou#ht forth and confronted the "itness "ith a note$ purportedly "ritten by ,ov.

Armando Cledera$ as9in# 6ose smeralda to send ve men to "or9 in the construction of a

fence at his house at Taculod$ Canaman$ Camarines Sur$ then leased by the province and

used as an o2cial #uest house. 6ose smeralda$ declared$ ho"ever$ that he could not

remember "ho handed the note for himK that he "as not sure as to #enuineness of the

si#nature appearin# therein and that he "as not present "hen the note "as made and

si#ned by ,ov. Cledera. ?elievin# that the escape of &ablo 4enaQue "as made possible by

the note of ,ov. Cledera to 6ose smeralda and that Cledera and smeralda are eQually

#uilty of the o1ense for "hich the accused li#io /rbita had been char#ed$ the defense

counsel led a motion in court see9in# the amendment of the information so as to include

,ov. Cledera and 6ose smeralda as defendants therein.

"ssue!

G% the ,overnor as 3ailer of the &rovince and his assistant have any criminatory

participation in the circumstances of &ablo 4enaQue@s escape from 3udicial custody.

#eld!


12/12

Tanega vs. Masakayan

Accused "as convicted "ith slander but she didn't serve her sentence.

The elements are that the o1ender is a convict by nal 3ud#mentK he is servin# the

sentence of deprivation of liberty and he evades the service of sentence by escapin#durin# the term of his sentence.

The prescription commence from date "hen culprit should evade the service of his

sentence.

People vs. *bilong

The accused "as sentenced "ith destierro 5BLL from anila7

/ne "ho$ sentenced to destierro by virtue of nal 3ud#ment$ and prohibited from enterin#the City of anila$ enters said city "ithin the period of his sentence is #uilty of evasion of

sentence under article BJ$ (&C.

P$1P'$ v. ("1%1

FACTS:

Teolo 4ioso and 6acinto Abarca "ere char#ed "ith for the crime of murder "hich "as

committed inside the %e" ?ilibid &rison in untin#lupa$ (ial "here both accused "ere

servin# sentence$ Abarca havin# been previously convicted by nal 3ud#ment of the crime

of homicide$ and 4ioso$ of robbery.

+SS):

Ghether the accused are Quasi0recidivist. S.

(AT+/:

The accused are Quasi0recidivist$ havin# committed the crime char#ed "hile servin#

sentence for a prior o1ense. As such$ the ma!imum penalty prescribed by la" for the ne"

felony UmurderV is death$ re#ardless of the presence or absence of miti#atin# 5voluntary plea

of #uilt and voluntary surrender7 or a##ravatin# circumstance 5aleviosia7 or the completeabsence thereof.

?ut for lac9 of the reQuisite votes$ the Court is constrained to commute the death sentence

imposed on each of the accused to reclusion perpetua.

Documents

Compiled Case digest