Two different cases were filed against following the murder of two different individuals namely

marcelo barruela and segundo magnad

Prosecutions witness, barruelas widow

Marcelo had told her that when he was still single, he had killed the uncle of Clarita Cordova
mother of accused Reynaldo, Eduardo and Isidro Cordova, Jr., mother-in-law of accused Freddie
Buenconsejo and grandmother of accused Ernesto Estorque, Jr. 13, so they have enough motive

Issue:

Whether or not the said motive were enough

US v. Catolico

Facts:

The justice of peace of Cagayan had before him 16 separate civil cases initiated by Juan
Canillas for damages resulting from breach of contract. All cases were decided in
favour of Canillas and all defendants appealed the decision and deposited Php 16 and a
bond of Php 50 as required by law. It appears that the sureties of the bond were
insolvent and new bonds were not presented on the extension given. Canillas appealed.
The justice of peace dismissed the appeals and ordered the sm of money attached and
delivered to Canillas in satisfaction of the judgment. The judge was prosecuted for
malversation of funds.

Aoas vs. People

Facts:
In October 1992, Naty Madon-ep, a businesswoman engaged in the selling of seeds and rice in the public
market of Baguio City, noticed that 18 sacks of red and white beans were missing from her stall in the
said market -the 18 sacks amount to P24k. She later noticed that red and white beans were scattered all
over the adjoining stall owned by Rose Aoas. The beans can be found in front and inside and on the floor
of the stall owned by Aoas. Later, a certain Gregorio Garcia, a barangay tanod, told Naty that in the
evening before, he saw Aoas and some of her help unload from her stall several sacks of beans; that he
saw Aoas later loaded the said sacks of beans inside a jeepney; that he again saw Aoas sell sacks of beans
to one Imelda Bautista.

Naty then sued Aoas for theft. She testified in court that prior to the incident, Aoas removed the partition
between their stall; that Aoas said she will be converting her stall into a restaurant thats why she
removed the partition; that Aoas was engaged in the buy and sell of jewelry hence theres no reason that
beans should be found inside her stall.

In her defense, Aoas admitted that she did unload from her stall several sacks of beans but she claimed
that said beans belonged to Imelda Bautista. Bautista corroborated this as she testified that theyve been
using the stall of Aoas as a storage for her beans. These testimonies were not admitted by the court.
The trial court convicted Aoas. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to convict Aoas.

HELD: No. All the evidence presented by the prosecution are merely circumstantial. There was no direct
evidence to implicate Aoas as the perpetrator of the crime.

Recuerdo v. people

Facts:
Petitioner Recuerdo, a dentist, was charged with the crime of Estafa under Art. 315 of
Revised Penal Code for, with intent to gain and by means of deceit, false pretenses and
fraudulent manifestations, and pretending to have sufficient funds with the Unitrust
Makati Commercial Center Branch, PCI Bank Makati-De La Rosa Branch, and
Prudential Bank Legaspi Village Branch, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
prepare, draw, make and issue checks amounting to P132,000, P78,000, and P600,000,
to complaining witness Yolanda G. Floro, who is engaged in the business of buying and
selling of jewelry, as payment for jewelry she obtained from the said complainant,
knowing fully well at the time the checks were issued that her representations were
false for she had no sufficient funds in the said bank, so much that upon presentment of
the said checks with the said bank for encashment, the same were dishonored and
refused payment for having been drawn against an Account Closed, and in spite of
repeated demands to deposit with the said bank, the said accused failed and refused to
do so.
Recuerdo argued that her act of issuing the dishonored checks does not constitute the
offense of Estafa considering that the subject checks were not issued and delivered to
Floro simultaneous to the purchase of the pieces of jewelry, but only several days
thereafter, when she had already thoroughly examined the jewelry and is fully satisfied
of its fine quality; that out of the 17 subject checks, nine were honored by the drawee
banks; that she made partial payments of the amounts of the subject checks while the
case was pending in the CA, contrary to the findings of the courts that she acted with
deceit when she drew and delivered the checks.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Recuerdo committed the crime of estafa.

Held:
Yes, Recuerdo committed the crime of estafa.
Estafa through false pretense or fraudulent act under Paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, is committed as
follows:
By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check
to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has
been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
The essential elements of the felony are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued; (2) lack or
insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof. It is
criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the
Revised Penal Code, and not the non-payment of a debt. Deceit is the false
representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct by false or misleading
allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives
or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
Concealment which the law denotes as fraudulent implies a purpose or design to hide
facts which the other party ought to have. The postdating or issuing of a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds
deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is a false pretense
or a fraudulent act.
Petitioners defense of good faith is even belied by the evidence of the prosecution and
her own evidence. When the postdated checks issued by petitioner were dishonored by
the drawee banks and the private complainant made demands for her to pay the
amounts of the checks, she intransigently refused to pay; she insisted that she issued
and delivered the postdated checks to the private complainant after the subject pieces of
jewelry had been delivered to her. Petitioner never offered to pay the amounts of the
checks after she was informed by the private complainant that they had been
dishonored by the drawee banks. It was after the CA promulgated its decision affirming
the decision of the trial court, that petitioner made several payments to the private
complainant; however, there is no showing as to which checks they were made in
payment for. In fine, it was the spectre of a long prison term which jolted petitioner into
making remittances to the private complainant, after the CA affirmed the decision of
the trial court and increased the penalty meted on her, and not because she had acted in
good faith in her transactions with the private complainant. To reiterate, petitioner
rejected the demands of the private complainant to pay the amounts of the dishonored
checks.
While it is true that nine of the 17 postdated checks petitioner issued and delivered to
the private complainant were honored by the drawee banks, such a circumstance is not a
justification for her acquittal of the charges relative to the dishonored checks. The
reimbursement or restitution to the offended party of the sums swindled by the
petitioner does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. Estafa is a public
offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State on its own motion even
though complete reparation had been made for the loss or damage suffered by the
offended party. The consent of the private complainant to petitioners payment of her
civil liability pendente lite does not entitle the latter to an acquittal. Subsequent
payments does not obliterate the criminal liability already incurred. Criminal liability
for estafa is not affected by a compromise between petitioner and the private
complainant on the formers civil liability.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. No costs.
Pp vs. Ah chong

FACTS:
August 14, 1908 About 10 pm: Ah Chong, a cook was suddenly awakened by
some trying to force open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice,
"Who is there?" He heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it
was being pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. The
defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet and called
out. "If you enter the room, I will kill you." At that moment he was struck just above the
knee by the edge of the chair (thought to be an unlawful aggression) which had been
placed against the door. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his
pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was
his roommate, Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit of mischief
was playing a trick on him
Seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and ran back to his
room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.
There had been several robberies not long prior to the date of the incident, one of
which took place in a house where he was employed as cook so he kept a knife under
his pillow for his personal protection.
trial court held it as simple homicide

ISSUE: W/N defendant can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of a mistake
as to the facts, does an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the
facts were as he supposed them to be, but which would constitute the crime of homicide
or assassination if the actor had known the true state of the facts at the time when he
committed the act.

HELD: trial court should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime
NO.
GR: acts constituting the crime or offense must be committed with malice or with
criminal intent in order that the actor may be held criminally liable
EX: it appears that he is exempted from liability under one or other of the express
provisions of article 8 of the code
Article 1 RPC of the Penal Code is as follows:
Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and ommissions punished by law.
defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the
belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense;
that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt
from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been
guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to
the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger
which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under his
charge.