7. Celino vs CAGR 170562, June 29, 2007

Facts:Two separate informations were filed before RTC charging Celino with violation COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun ban) and RA 8294 (illegal possession of firearm) when he carry outside his residence an armalite rifle colt M16 with two long magazines during the election period.Celino pleaded not guilty to the charge of gun ban violation. He contended that he cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms because he was charged of another crime violating the COMELEC gun ban under the same set of facts.Celino’s Motion to Quash was denied by RTC and CA, hence present petition.

Issue:Whether or not illegal possession of firearm can be prosecuted with other crime?

Held:When the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under RA 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearms should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’etat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under RA 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.

9. Bongalon vs PeopleGR 169533, March 20, 2013

Facts:Bongalon was charged with violation of RA7610 when he hit Jayson dela Cruz, 12 years old, in his back and slapping the latter in his cheek. He also uttered derogatory remarks to Jayson’s family to wit: (You animals, you are all strangers here. Bring your father here). Bongalon’s anger rooted when his daughters- Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn told him that Jayson and his brother threw stones over them and burned the hair of Cherrylyn.

RTC found him guilty of child abuse under RA 7610 with later affirmed by CA.

Issue:whether or not all physical abuse to minors constitute violation of RA 7610?

Held:Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610. Only the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under RPC.In the present case, the records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and disgnity” of Jayson as human being or that he thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment of anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for personal safety of his own minor daughters.Bongalon was found guilty of Slight Physical Injuries under p1, Art 266 of RPC.

10. People vs LarinGR no. 128777, October 7, 1998

Facts:Larin is a trainor/swimming instructor of 14 year old Carla Calumpang he allegedly took advantage of his authority influence and moral ascendency over the latter. Through moral compulsion commit lascivious conduct to Carla by shaving her pubic hair, performing the lewd act of cunnilingus on her, licking her breasts, forcing her to hold and squeeze his penis and forcibly kissing her on the cheeks and lips.Trial court found Larin guilty of violation of Sec 5(b), Art 3 of RA 7610. Larin avers that he was incorrectly charged with that violation because it only pertains to prostitution of minors, meaning in consideration of money.

Issue:Whether or not an act of lasciviousness without consideration profit amounts to child prostitution?

Held:A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. Under RA 7610, children are “persons below 18 years of age or those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age or mental disability or condition.”It must be noted that the law covers not only a situation in which a child is abused with profit, but also one in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct.

11. People vs Marceliano Arranchado, et alGR L- 13943, September 19, 1960

Facts:Accused-appellants (Sergio Arranchado, Tuico and Arriesgado) and Marceliano Arranchado were charged with the crime murder due to qualifying circumstance of premeditation and treachery with the death of Revilioso Ygot. Ygot was beaten by three appellants and was stabbed by Marceliano Arranchado which resulted to his death. The ante mortem statement reveals that the cause of death was severe blood loss due to stabbed wound, where the other contusions were not fatal.Marceliano Arranchado pleaded guilty to the charge. The lower court found other 3 accused-appellants guilty of murder. Hence present petition.

Issue:Whether or not the accused-appellant were guilty of murder?

Held:Accused-appellants may not be held guilty as co-principals in the crime of murder, since they did not take part in the killing itself, nor did they induce the principal culprit (Marceliano Arranchado) to commit the same, nor did they cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act

without which it would not have been accomplished (art 17, RPC). Therefore, the crime committed by appellants is only that of slight physical injuries aggravated by abuse of superior strength.

12. Caballo vs People GR 198732, June 10, 2013

Facts:Caballo, a 22 year old man, allegedly induce AAA to lose her virginity due to promises of marriage and his assurance that he would not get her pregnant due to the use of the “withdrawal method”. AAA become pregnant and advised her to have an abortion. She heeded to Caballo’s advice.Caballo was found guilty of violating Sec 5(b), article 3 of RA 7610. Caballo avers that he and AAA are sweethearts which thus, made the sexual intercourse consensual.

Issue:Whether or not “sweetheart theory” is

applicable in the present case?

Held:The most crucial element is AAA’s minority. It is undisputed that AAA was only 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime and is hence, considered a child under the law. In respect, AAA was not capable of fully understanding or knowing the import of her actions and in consequence, remained vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of adults, as in this case.Based on this premise jurisprudence settles that consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of sec 5, art 3 of RA 7610; as such, the argument that AAA and Caballo were sweethearts remains irrelevant.

13. People vs CruzGR No. 101844, November 18, 1991

Facts:Benedicto Cruz forcefully entered the comfort room of the victim Ana Esconde Y Omogowog and had carnal knowledge against the will of the latter. After the incident Benedicto took the necklace, wrist watch and ask for money from the victim. RTC found Benedicto guilty of the crime Robbery with rape.

Issue:Whether or not robbery can be complexed with rape?

Held:The special complex crime of Robbery with Rape employs the clause when the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape. In other words to be liable under the Art 293 and Art 294 no. 2 and 5 the offender musy have the intent to take the personal property belonging to another with intent to gain and such intent must precede the rape.In the case at bar, the Rape was Benedicto’s primary objective and his taking away Ana’s personal properties against her will was only afterthought. Therefore, there is no special complex crime of Robbery with Rape under Art. 48 of RPC. Neither Art 48 of the RPC on Complex Crime applicable because Benedicto’s act of raping Ana and thereafter taking her money and jewelries do not constitute a single act (but separate acts).Benedicto committed two separate crimes of Robbery and Rape under Art 293 and Art 335 of RPC.

AGULLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN361 SCRA 556

FACTS: Petitioner Elvira Agullo was the Disbursing Officer of the then Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH). During an audit, a cash shortage of P26,404.26 was discovered on her accountability. When asked to produce immediately the missing funds, she explained that the shortage was due to a fortuitous event, as the same corresponds to the amount representing the salaries of MPWH officials and employees, which she had in her custody at the time she suffered a stroke on the street. She contends that said amount could have been taken by anybody after she collapsed and lost consciousness.

Based on the presumption of conversion under Art. 217(4) of the RPC, petitioner wasthereafter charged with the crime of malversation of public funds. In the course of the trial, petitioner, in effect, admitted the fact of shortage, but at all stages of the criminal indictment, she persistently professed her innocence and categorically denied having converted the public funds in question for her own personal benefit.

ISSUE: Whether Elvira Agullo is guilty of the crime of Malversation

HELD: No. The presumption of conversion incarnated in Art. 217(4) of the RPC is rebuttable, not conclusive by

disputable by satisfactory evidence to the effect that the accused did not utilize the public funds or property for his personal use, gain or benefit. If the accused is able to present adequate evidence that can nullify any likelihood that he had put the funds or property to personal use, then that presumption is completely destroyed and is, in fact, deemed to have never existed at all.

Moreover, a finding of prima facie evidence of accountability does not shatter the presumptive innocence the accused enjoys.

Therefore, in view of the impotency of the prosecution’s evidence, being anchored solely on said presumption, petitioner’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent necessarily thrives. Hence, petitioner is acquitted.

ANG VS. CA618 SCRA 582

FACTS: Petitioner RustanAng and private respondent Irish Sagud were “on-and-off” sweethearts when Sagud broke up with Ang after learning that he had taken a live-in partner, whom he had gotten pregnant.

Ang tried to conviceSagud to elope with her, but she refused to do so. Thereafter, Ang allegedly sent through MMS a pornographic picture to Sagud, whereby the face of Sagud was attached to a completely naked body of another woman making it appear that it was her who is depicted in the said picture. Sagud was likewise threatened that it would be easy to create similarly scandalous pictures of her and to spread the same through the internet. Such apparently caused Sagud substantial emotional anguish, psychological distress and humiliation.

Ang was, therefore, charged with a violation of RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. However, Ang claimed that the charge was improper since their relationship was “on-and-off” and cannot therefore be regarded as sexual or dating relationship. He also avers that one act of sending an offensive picture should not be considered a form of harassment.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner is guilty of a violation of RA 9262

HELD: Yes. Section 3(a) of RA 9262 provides that violence against women includes an act or acts of a person against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship that include any form of harassment that causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to a woman.

First, a fight-and-kissthing between two lovers is a common occurrence. Their taking place does not mean that the romantic relation between the two should be

deemed broken up during periods of misunderstanding. Second, RA 9262 punishes “any act or series of acts” that constitutes violence against women. This means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be enough.

Hence, Ang is guilty of a violation of RA 9262.

DABALOS VS. QUIAMBAO688 SCRA 64

FACTS: Private respondent sought the payment of the money she had lent to petitioner Karlo Angelo Dabalos, her former boyfriend, but the latter could not pay. She then inquired from petitioner is he was responsible for spreading rumors about her which he admitted. Thereupon, private respondent slapped petitioner, causing the latter to pull her hair, and punch her back, shoulder and left eye.

Petitioner was thereafter charged with a violation of RA 9262. However, petitioner averred that at the time of the alleged incident, he was no longer in a dating relationship with private respondent; hence, RA 9262 was inapplicable.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner may be held guilty of a violation of RA 9262

HELD: Yes. RA 9262 is broad in scope but specifies two limiting qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime of violence against women through physical harm, namely:

It is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the offender’s wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and

It results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering.

It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed.

Hence, petitioner is guilty of violating RA 9262.

DOLINA VS. VALLECERA638 SCRA 707

FACTS: Petitioner CherrylDolina filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order against respondent Glenn Vallecerea for alleged woman and child abuse under RA 9262. Respondent opposed said petition, claiming that the same was essentially one for financial support rather than for protection against woman and child abuses; that he was not the child’s

father; that it was a harassment suit intended to force him to acknowledge the child as his and give it financial support; and that he has never lived nor has been living with petitioner, rendering unnecessary the issuance of a protection order against him.

Since the filiation of petitioner’s son was not established, the petition was dismissed by the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection and denied her application for temporary support.

HELD: Yes. Petitioner evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of RA 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or violence. Although the issuance of a protection order against the respondent in the case can include the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal support. To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in a proper action, first establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged.

Hence, the order of the RTC dismissing petitioner’s action is affirmed.

PEOPLE VS. ABARCA153 SCRA 735

FACTS: Upon reaching home, accused Francisco Abarca found his wife, Jenny, and KhingsleyKoh in the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away.

The accused went to look for a firearm, which took him about an hour, before he found and fired three times at Koh, who was then playing mahjong in the latter’s hangout. Koh was hit, as well as Arnold and Lina Amparado who were also playing in an adjacent room. Koh instantaneously died while the Amparados sustained gunshot wounds which otherwise would have caused their deaths if not for the timely and able medical assistance rendered to them.

Abarca was then convicted by the trial court for the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder. He, however, claimed that the said court erred in not entering a judgment of conviction under Article 247 of the RPC

ISSUE: Whether the charges of which the accused was convicted of were correct

HELD: No. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and the victim in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time of discovery of the sexual intercourse and the time the victim was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused. For Article 247 to be applicable, it is not required that the killing be done instantly after discovery. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity.

As for the accused’s liability for the physical injuries sustained by the Amparado’s, since there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused, he cannot be held liable for frustrated murder. Nonetheless, there was negligence on his part. Accordingly, he can be held liable for Less Serious Physical Injuries through Simple Imprudence or Negligence.

PEOPLE VS. WHISENHUNT368 SCRA 586

FACTS: Accused-appellant Stephen Mark Whisenhunt was formally charged with the crime of murder of Elsa Santos-Castillo. In the course of the pre-trial, the following circumstances were proven: that on September 23, 1993, the victim was brought to the accused’s condominium unit; that on the next day, his housemaid was looking for her kitchen knife when the accused gave it to her, saying that it was in his bedroom; that on the 25th, the accused, together with Demetrio Ravelo, collected the dismembered body parts of victim from the former’s bathroom; that the said body parts were disposed of in a roadside in San Pedro, Laguna; that the victim’s belongings were disposed of along the road going to Bagac, Bataan; and that after discovery of the body parts, it was found out that the victim’s cause of death was multiple stab wounds.

The trial court thereafter found the accused guilty of the crime of murder with qualifying circumstances of abuse of superior strength and outraging and scoffing at the victim’s corpse.

ISSUE: Whether the charge the accused was convicted of was proper

HELD: The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not properly appreciated. The fact that the victim was a woman does not, by itself, establish that the accused committed the crime with abuse of superior strength. Since nobody actually witnessed the killing, there was insufficient proof of the relative strength of the aggressor and the victim.

On the other hand, the qualifying circumstance of outraging and scoffing was correctly appreciated. The mere decapitation of the victim’s head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying the killing to murder. In this case, the accused not only beheaded the victim, but further cut up her body like pieces of meat.

Hence, the lower court’s judgment was affirmed with modifications.