Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
• The prosecution established that Rosita Bacaling was a •Accused-appellant pled not guilty to the crime
housemaid of appellant and his wife; that on or about 7:00 charged. He claimed that on the night of the alleged
in the evening of July 6, 1990 at the spouses' room in rape he was selling fish at the public market. Allegedly, he
Panabo, Davao, Rosita was cooking porridge for the was at the market at 4:00 in the morning, and worked
spouses' two children, one aged four years old and the straight until 8:00 in the evening. He never left the fish stall
other nine months old. Accused-appellant arrived from until after 8:00 in the evening because of his many
work and found the two children asleep. He approached customers.
Rosita and gave her a small white envelope said to
contain medicine for her skin disease. Rosita was afflicted •The trial court found accused-appellant guilty and
with rashes on her thighs and stomach which she allegedly sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It also ordered him
contracted from one of the children. to indemnify Rosita P50,000.00 as moral damages and pay
P5,000.00 as attorney's fees,
• Rosita opened the envelope and counted fifteen (15)
tablets inside. As instructed by appellant, Rosita took all Issue:(1) Whether the must first be a complaint filed before
the tablets. A few minutes later, she felt weak and fell there is an offer to compromise for there to be an implied
down. Suddenly, she realized that appellant was admission of guilt.
dragging her to the spouses' bed. She tried to get up but Ruling:(1) No. An offer to compromise does not require that
appellant pushed her down the bed and pointed a a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be
hunting knife at her neck. He ordered Rosita not to move received in evidence against the offeror. What is required
or he would kill her. is that after committing the crime, the accused or his
• Then he removed her clothes and went on top of representative makes an offer to compromise and such
her. He kissed her face, breasts, stomach and private offer is proved.
parts and then entered her. Rosita cried out in pain but The positive identification of accused-appellant as the
appellant continued entering her. After satisfying his lust, rapist prevails over his defense of alibi. It was not physically
appellant pulled out and punched Rosita in the impossible for appellant to have been at the scene of the
stomach. She lost consciousness. crime. The public market was merely a ten-minute walk
A few minutes later, Rosita woke up and saw blood in her from their rented room and during work breaks, appellant
private parts. She wiped the blood and changed her would sometimes go home to bring food to his children.
clothes. Seeing her awake, appellant threatened to kill
her should she report the incident to her
parents. Appellant then left the house. 7th PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RONNIE QUITLONG
• Rosita did not say a word about the incident. She Facts:
continued serving the Yparraguirres for one month before
leaving them to return to her mother's house in Barrio Jonathan Capito (a 19 yr. old Medical Technology student
YYY. Her mother found Rosita in a state of shock. She in Baguio) and others while on their way home bought fish
could not eat nor talk, neither could she perform ordinary balls. When Calpito counted the change for his 100-peso
daily functions such as dressing herself. In short, Rosita bill, he saw that he had only been handed back thirty five
became helpless. She was brought to the Municipal pesos. Confronted by Calpito, the fish ball vendor did not
Health Officer by her mother for examination. admit that he had short-changed the former. Commotions
between group of Capito and group of Fish ball vendors
• On August 22, 1990, the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. happened. Capito was stabbed and later died. Police
Imelda T. Bendijo, interviewed the girl and found her officers caught the accused on the act of stabbing
unresponsive and unable to talk. She conducted a Capito. Emelio Senoto, Salvador Quitlong, and Ronnie
physical examination and also found that:
Quitlong was charge for murder. But in the original charge from all indications, the incident would appear to have
it was not alleged that there was conspiracy. occurred at the spur of moment. Appellants Salvador
Quitlong and Emilio Senoto, Jr., shall therefore be held to
Issue: be mere accomplices conformably with Article 18 of the
Whether or not conspiracy can be considered even if it Revised Penal Code.
was not alleged in the original complaint. WHEREFORE, appellant Ronnie Quitlong is found guilty of
Held: the crime of murder.
FACTS:
24th PEOPLE V. ZAFRA
Danilo Buhat was charged with Homicide in an information
which alleged that petitioner Danilo Buhat, armed with a G.R. NO. 110079 (October 19, 1994)
knife, unlawfully attacked and killed one Ramon George FACTS: On November 21, 1991 at 10:30 in the evening,
Yu while the said two unknown assailants held his arms, appellant Francisco Zafra, with appellants Feliciano
"using superior strength, inflicting x x x mortal wounds which Braganza Cresencio Velasco and three (3) other
were x x x the direct x x x cause of his death." unidentified male companions on board, was driving a
Even before petitioner could be arraigned, the passenger jeep (owned by Efren Cardinal) along Turbina,
prosecution moved for the deferment of the arraignment Calamba going in the direction of Batangas.
on the ground that the private complainant in the case, Upon reaching the bridge in Turbina, Calamba, appellant
one Betty Yu, moved for the reconsideration of the Zafra was stopped by SPO1 Reynaldo Siman and PO3
resolution of the City Prosecutor which ordered the filing of Mario Villa of the Calamba Police as the passenger jeep
the aforementioned information for homicide. had no lights and was being driven in an erratic manner .
When asked by the police about his destination, Zafra Calme’s petition for certiorari and prohibition was denied
replied that he was going to Batangas. Then, as the police due course and dismissed by the CA.
approached to search the vehicle which was unlighted,
the three (3) unidentified companions of Zafra ran away. ISSUE: Whether Oroquieta court has jurisdiction over the
The passenger jeep and the appellants were then taken offense charged against petitioner.
into custody. RULING: Yes.
Appellants were investigated on the same evening by Petitioner asserts that, although the alleged crime took
SPO3 Rolando Alcalde during which they revealed having place while the vessel was in transit, the general rule laid
killed the driver of the jeepney and threw his body in down in par. (a) of Sec. 15 (now Section 14), Rule 110 of
Barangay Real, Calamba. As a result, on November 24, the Revised Rules of Court is the applicable provision in
1991, SPO4 Feliciano Masongsong, SPO2 Elly Villa, SPO1 determining the proper venue and jurisdiction and not
Rodolfo Hizon and other civilian agents accompanied the Sec. 15(c) (now Section 14) thereof since the exact
appellants to Barangay Real where they found the body location where the alleged crime occurred was known.
of Candido Diongco, the jeepney driver, on a grassy
portion near the end of the South Expressway. Petitioner thus claims that the proper venue is Siquijor
because, according to the Marine Protest filed by the
Zafra, Braganza, Velasco together with three (3) vessel’s captain, Elmer Magallanes, the ship was 8.0 miles
unidentified men were charged with the crime of off Minalonan Point, Siquijor Island, when he (Capt.
carnapping. Magallanes) received the report that "a passenger
Only Zafra, Braganza, and Velasco were arraigned and jumped overboard."
tried, the other accused having remained at large. The Petitioner’s contention is unmeritorious. The exact location
trial court found the accused guilty. where the alleged offense was committed was not duly
ISSUE: Whether the RTC of Fourth Judicial District stationed established. The Marine protest simply adverted that the
in Calamba, Laguna has jurisdiction over the case even vessel was within the waters of Siquijor Island when the
the killing took place in Alabang, Muntinlupa. captain was informed of the incident, which does not
necessarily prove that the alleged murder took place in
RULING: Yes. the same area. In any case, where the crime was actually
committed is immaterial since it is undisputed that it
Accused-appellants contend that the Regional Trial Court occurred while the vessel was in transit. "In transit" simply
of the Fourth Judicial District stationed in Calamba, means "on the way or passage; while passing from one
Laguna has no jurisdiction over the case as the killing took person or place to another. In the course of
place in Alabang, Muntinlupa. The contention clearly runs transportation." Hence, undoubtedly, the applicable
counter to Paragraph (b). Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules provision is par. (c) of Sec. 15 (now Section 14), Rule 100
of Court which reads: which provides that" (w)here an offense is committed on
(b) Where an offense is committed on a railroad train, in board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the criminal
an aircraft, or in any other public or private vehicle while action may be instituted and tried in the proper court of
in the course of its trip, the criminal action may be instituted the first port of entry of any municipality or territory through
and tried in the court of any municipality or province which the vessel passed during such voyage subject to the
through which such train, aircraft or other vehicle passed generally accepted principles of international law."
during such trip. Petitioner further contends that even if Sec. 15(c), Rule 110
As accused-appellants were apprehended in Calamba governs, Oroquieta City would still be excluded as a
while they were in the carnapped jeepney, the proper venue because the reckoning point for
information was validly filed in Calamba. determining the venue under the aforementioned
paragraph is the first port of entry or the
municipalities/territories through which the ship passed
after the discovery of the crime, relying on Act No. 400.
25th CALME V. CA
We disagree. Obviously, Act No. 400 was amended by
G.R. NO. 78447 August 17, 1989 Sec. 15(c), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court in that
FACTS: Petitioner Wenefredo Calme and four other under the former law, jurisdiction was conferred to the CFI
persons were accused of killing Edgardo Bernal by of any province into which the ship or water craft upon
allegedly throwing him overboard the M/V "Cebu City," an which the crime or offense was committed shall come
interisland passenger ship owned and operated by William after the commission thereof, while the present rule
Lines, Inc., while the vessel was sailing from Ozamis City to provides that jurisdiction is vested "in the proper court of
Cebu City on the night of 12 May 1991. Petitioner the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory
impugned the Oroquieta RTC’s jurisdiction over the through which the vessel passed during such voyage . . ."
offense charged through a motion to quash which, This is the applicable provision and since it does not
however, was denied by RTC, Oroquieta City. Petitioner
contain any qualification, we do not qualify the same. We
fully concur with the finding of the Court of Appeals, thus: