Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
GALACGAC
Facts: On November 22, 1951, as a consequence of a shooting and beating spree which
occurred in Sta. Cruz, Manila, Enrique Galacgac, a naturalized American Citizen and Paulino
Galacgac were accussed of attempted paricide with physical serious injuries in Criminal Case
NO. 19292 however after trial Paulino Galacgac was acquitted.
For the Criminal Case 19292, serious physical injuries; Criminal Case 19295, attempted
homicide and Criminal Case 19296, illegal possession of firearms he was sentenced to suffer
respectively, four months of arresto mayor, an indeterminate penalty of from six months of
arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correctional and an imprisonment of
one year and one day.
On appeal, Galacgac claimed that the firearm was a homecoming present for his wife and
that he arrived at 3:00pm in Manila however the Phil Constabulary closes at 4:00pm and
therefore he failed to secure a license for the firearm.
Issue: Crime by mere accident
RULING:
SC MODIFIED the judgment of the lower court, Enrique Galacgac was sentenced to suffer
ten days of arresto manor and pay one-half of the cost of Criminal Case 19292; undergo same
number of days of arresto menor and to pay the cost in Criminal Case 19295; and an
indeterminate imprisonment of from one year to two years and six months, and to pay the
cost for Criminal Case 19296. As for Pablo Soriano, he is sentenced to suffer fifteen days of
arresto menor and to pay the cost in Criminal Case 19297.
US V TAYONGTONG
11
FEB
Issue:
W/N the driver ran over the victim by negligence or pure accident
Held:
Accident. Conviction was reversed and the accused acquitted because the Court finds that the
witness made unreasonable, improbable and conflicting comments in his testimony. There was
no reason to show that he was doing otherwise, as corroborated by other disinterested witnesses,
and the fact that a vehicle so large couldnt have gone at the rate of speed described. Per Taysons
testimony, it was also unreasonable that the deceased, seeing plainly that the vehicle was moving
towards him, did not move to save himself.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is legal?
HELD:
Yes, appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
RATIONALE:
Article III, Sections 2 and 3, 1987 Constitution
The case at the bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was
primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without
the intervention and participation of state authorities. Under the circumstances, can accused /
appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The contraband in this case at bar having come into possession of the government without the
latter transgressing appellants rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no
cogent reason whty the same should not be admitted.
FACTS:
Montoya filed a suit against Bradford for damages due to the oppressive & discriminatory
acts committed by petitioner in excess of her authority as store manager. She claims that she
has been exposed to contempt & ridicule causing her undue embarrassment & indignity. She
further claims that the act was not motivated by any other reason aside from racial
discrimination in our own land w/c is a blow to our national pride & dignity. She seeks for
moral damages of P500k and exemplary damages of P100k.
She believes that this case is under RP courts jurisdiction because act was done outside the
territorial control of the US Military Bases, it does not fall under offenses where US has been
given right to exercise its jurisdiction and Bradford does not possess diplomatic immunity. She
further claims that RP courts can inquire into the factual circumstances & determine WON
Bradford is immune.
ISSUES/RATIO:
PEOPLE vs rabao
US vs Bertucio
People vs. Libria
People vs benito downloaded
Us vs. taylor downloaded
Inovero vs colonel
TAVERA vs. Valdez already written in 7th batch
People vs. romualdo
Facts: FACTS:
Whether the constitutional right of the petitioner to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him was violated for notspecifying the acts
of intervention that he supposedly performed.
HELD:
The Court did not agree with the petitioner's contention.When allegations in the
information are vague or indefinite, the remedy of the accused is not a motion to
quash, but a motion for a bill of particulars. The pertinent provision in the Rules
of Court is Section 9 of Rule 116, whichwe quote:"Section 9. Bill of particulars. -- The
accused may, before arraignment, movefor a bill of particulars to enable him properly
to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the
complaint or informationand the details desired."
People vs Oso
People vs. quitain
People vs. jose
Facts:
On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Eduardo
Aquino and Rogelio Caal conspired together, confederated with and mutually
helped one another, then and there, to wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena Maggie dela Riva, 25 years old and
single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four
principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon,
have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to
the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court made a proper ruling of the case considering the
element of conspiracy.
Held:
No, the trial courts ruling was not proper. The SC ruled that since the element of
conspiracy was present, where the act of one is the act of all, each of the
accused is also liable for the crime committed by each of the other persons who
conspired to commit the crime. The SC modified the judgment as follows:
appellants Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., and Eduardo Aquino are guilty of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and each and every one of them is
likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof,
each of them is likewise convicted with four death penalties and to indemnify the
victim of the sum of P10,000 in each of the four crimes. The case against Rogelio
Caal was dismissed only in so far as the criminal liability is concerned due to his
death in prison prior to promulgation of judgment.
Ivler vs. san pedro
FACTS:
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner herein, Jason Ivler was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig with two separate offenses:
1. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
2. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property
Petitioner pleaded guilty for the first charge, but moved to quash the second charge invoking double jeopardy
having been convicted for the previous offense.
MeTC however, refused quashal finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner's conviction in the first offense charged, bars his prosecution in the second offense
charged.
HELD:
Reckless imprudence is a Single Crime, its consequences on persons and property are material only to determine
the penalty.
The two charges against the petitioner, arising from the same facts were prosecuted under the same provision of
the RPC, as amended, namely Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi offenses.
The proposition (inferred from Art 3 of the RPC) that "reckless imprudence" is not a crime in itself but simple a
way of committing it.
Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi offense.
The Court thru Justice JB Reyes: Reason and precedent both coincide in that ones convicted or acquitted to a
specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. The gravity of
the consequence is only taken into account to determined the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of an
offense.
3.
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as
the civil liability based solely thereon;
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Aricle 1157 of the Civil
Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a
result of the same act or omission: Law, Contracts, Quasi-contracts, Delicts,Quasi-delicts;
Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefore may be pursued but only by way
of separate civil action and may be enforced either against the executor/administrator of the
estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation aside from delicts;
People vs Tamayo
FRANCISCO vs CA
FACTS:
CA affirmed RTC
ISSUE: W/N Francisco can sign Ongs name on the checks and it was not
forgery
HELD: NO.
The said jewelries were later found in the possession of a certain Danilo Alcantara in his
house in Antipolo, Rizal.
Subsequently, a Quezon City prosecutor filed an information against Alcantara for
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. The criminal case was filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City. Alcantara filed a motion to quash the said information on the
ground that the QC-RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Judge Jose De Guzman ruled
in favor of Alcantara.
The Solicitor General argued that what the judge did was wrong because the crime of
fencing is a continuing crime; that an ingredient of the crime, that is, the robbery,
happened in Quezon City, hence, Quezon City courts have jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not fencing is a continuing crime.
HELD: No. A continuing crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising
from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. In this case, there
are actually two separate crimes which are robbery and fencing. They are independent
of each other. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in
the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission
of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend
on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. Alcantara should be
prosecuted in Antipolo because thats where the crime of fencing was allegedly
committed.