People vs Buensuceso(Homicide and Murder)Facts:When Rodolfo Aguilar and Pariseo Tayag arrived in the Municipal Building, there were two persons there, namely, Enrique Mallo and Pat. Eduardo Mallari . Subsequently, a heated argument took place between Pat. Aguilar and Tayag arising from the latter's refusal to give his fan knife to the former.Thereafter Tayag hurriedly left the office. He was followed by Pat. Aguilar, Mallari and de la Cruz who walked fast, with Aguilar and Mallari holding guns. After having gone out of the building Aguilar fired his gun upward. When Tayag was near towards the wooden fence, Aguilar aimed his gun at Tayag and fired, hitting him above the right knee. Tayag continued to run towards his house. Mallari went to the waiting shed to intercept Tayag. Aguilar followed Mallari in the shed and they took opposite sides of the road, that is, Rizal Street, in front of the Catholic Church. Then there were several successive gun shots.After the commotion, Tayag was seen lying prostrate near the back of a jeep parked at the corner of Rizal and San Juan Streets, about 60 meters away from the municipal building.

Issue: Whether or not they will be guilty of Murder?Held: YesRatio: The crime is Murder, qualified by treachery. The victim was already retreating backwards until he reached the fence of the town plaza when AGUILAR fired his revolver at the former hitting him above the right knee. Notwithstanding that he was already hit and wounded, and possibly immobilized, he was still subjected to successive shots as shown by the wounds that he had received, even at his back. Certainly, the means employed by the accused-appellants tended directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from any defense which the victim might have made.The killing of the victim was aggravated by abuse of superior strength as shown by the number of assailants, which circumstance, however, is absorbed by treachery.

People vs Berana(Rape)Facts: On June 2, 1994 at around 2:00 o'clock in the morning, 14-year old Maria Elena Jarcia was sleeping with her four-year old niece in one of the two rooms in a house her family was renting at Bayawas Street, Naga City when she was awakened by her brother-in-law, herein accused-appellant, Raul Berana.Complainant recognized him because light was filtering in from a nearby window.Berana pointed a "buntot page" at her neck and warned her not to make any noise, otherwise she would be killed. The terrified girl was made to lie down while accused-appellant raised her duster and proceeded to remove her shorts and her underwear, after which he mashed her breast and lay on top of her.The helpless girl was again threatened not to make any noise otherwise he would kill her.Complainant tried to cover her breasts with her arms but accused-appellant pushed her arms aside.As he inserted his organ into her womanhood, Elena felt excruciating pain.He began kissing her and made several push and pull movements, after which, the victim felt something liquid in her organ.Accused-appellant sat down and warned her not to talk to anyone about the incident.

Issue: Whether or Not the Relationship between the Accused appellant and the complainant aggravates the crime ?Held: NoRatio: Considering that the relationship of accused-appellant to complainant qualifies the crime of rape punishable byreclusion perpetuato rape punishable by death, it is but proper that a more stringent proof of relationship between the offender and the offended party must be established by the prosecution.Corollarily, a clearer proof of relationship between the complainant and the spouse of accused-appellant must be presented.The relationship of accused-appellant and the complainant, is not adequately substantiated since it is merely based on testimony of the complainant, her mother's testimony and the accused-appellant's use of the words, "mama at papa" in his letters.Needless to say, the evidence presented are not sufficient to dispel doubts about the true relationship of accused-appellant and the complainant, to the benefit of which the accused is entitled.

Timoner vs People(Grave Coercion)

Facts:The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. 286 of theRevised Penal Code. The petitioner was the mayor of a town and by the recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer, he barricaded someestablishments and stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway and who werenot complying with certain health and sanitation requirement. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the owners ofthe stalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance aswell as nuisance per se. The owners of the stalls charged thepetitioner with the offense of grave coercion.

Issue: W/N the conviction of the court of appeals thatthe petitioner committed grave coercion iscorrect .?

Held: No

Ratio:The court is in agreementthat the complainants were public nuisance for affecting aconsiderable number of persons in their neighborhood. Petitioner, as mayor of the town,merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having then acted in good faith in theperformance of his duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability. Grave coercion is committed when "a personwho, without authority of law, shall by means of violence, prevent another fromdoing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will, either it be rightor wrong." The third element being absent inthe case at bar, petitionercannot be held guilty of grave coercion.

People vs Patola(Roberry with Rape)While at the store where the victim were saleslady accused Sangayon closed the door of, Patola, with a gun in his hand, approached Mila and told her not to shout if she did not want to die. Patola and Sangayon herded Mila, Elena, the Cohado couple and their son William to an adjoining room and told them to lie down on the floor face down. They were hogtied with nylon ropes. Their mouths were stuffed with pieces of cloth torn from the curtains.Patola, Sangayon and their two companions ransacked the store and took away P1,700 in cash, appliances, a wrist watch and other things with a total value of P4,500. Then, Sangayon untied the feet of Elena and brought her to a room and abused her. After Sangayon was through, his companion entered the room and in turn abused Elena. The second robber brought Elena to the sala, hogtied her again and covered her with a blanket. Mila was untied by Patola and brought to another room where he ravished her.

Issue: Whether or Not the accused should be punished under Rape with Homicide?Held: NoRatio: According to the Supreme Court;That controversy was set at rest inPeople vs. Cabural, L34105, February 4, 1983, 120 SCRA 528 andPeople vs. Porcare,L-37235, February 5, 1983, 120 SCRA 546, where it was held that robbery with qualified rape should be punished underarticle 294[2].(See People vs. Mendez, L-35491, May 27, 1983, 122 SCRA 415). It should be stressed that in the case the accused were not charged with qualified rape alone, a crime against chastity, but with robbery with rape, a crime against property.The trial court applied in this case article 335. It regarded article 294[2] as having been "amended" by article 335.That is why it imposed the death penalty.If article 294[2], before it was amended, is to be applied, the penalty is onlyreclusion perpetua.At any rate, for lack of the necessary ten votes, the death penalty cannot be imposed.

Empelis vs IAC(Qualified Theft)Facts: On the early morning of June 10, 1979, while Catarining stayed in his plantation to keep watch, he saw four (4) persons within the premises of his plantation gathering and tying some coconuts. He then went home, fetched his neighbors Anastacio Andales and Teodomero Garay and took along a flashlight. Upon reaching the coconut plantation with his companions, Catarining beamed his flashlight on the four persons who, turned out to be the herein appellants. Elpidio Empelis and Emilio Carbungco were seen carrying coconuts on a piece of wood on their shoulders while Salvad and Mamerto Carbungco were espied carrying coconuts with their bare hands.

Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is qualified theftHeld: YesRatio: Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code states that the crime of theft shall "be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively expressed in the next preceding article ... if the property stolen ... consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, ... ." Thus, the stealing of coconuts when they are still in the tree or deposited on the ground within the premises is qualified theft. When the coconuts are stolen in any other place, it is simple theft. Stated differently, if the coconuts were taken in front of a house along the highway outside the coconut plantation, it would be simple theft only.

Gma Network inc. vs Bustos(Libel)

Facts: Examinees who failed the August 1987 physicians licensureexaminationsfiled a mandamus in the RTC of Manila against the Board of Medicine of theProfessional RegulationCommission (herein respondents). The examinees alleged that the Board committed manifest errors in the checking ofanswers. Petitioners (GMA and Vidal) secured a copy of the petition, made a report, and aired it in theirHeadline News.

Issue: Whether or not the televised news report in question is libelous?

Held: NoRatio: Liability for libel attaches when the following elements are present: (a) an allegation or imputation of a discreditableactor condition concerning another (b) publication of the imputation (c) identity of the person defamed (d) existence of malice. Malice is a term use to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty, but merely to injure he reputation of the person defamed. In this case the report aired by petitioners was basically a narration of the contents of the petition for mandamus. (Side topic: petitioners report is also covered by qualified privilege communication, although not specified in Article 354 of Revised Penal Code).