People vs Lol-lo and Maraw

43 Phil 19

Facts: On or about 30 June 1920: Two boats left Matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch
possession. Boat 1 had one Dutch subject while Boat 2 had 11 men, women and children, likewise from
Holland. After several days, at 7pm, Boat 2 arrived in Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. Here,
the boat was surrounded by 6 vintas, manned by 24 armed Moros.The Moros first asked for food, but
once in the boat, took all the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated 2 of the women. The
Moros took the 2 women with them, placed holes in the ship to let it sink, and left the people there. After
11 days, the Moros arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession.The two Moro marauders were identified as
Lol-lo, as the one who raped one of the women, and Saraw.While in Maruro, the two women were able to
escape.One day, Lol-lo and Saraw went home to South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu. Here, they were arrested
and charged with piracy at the CFI. The Moros interposed a demurrer, saying that the charge was not
within the jurisdiction of the CFI, nor of any court in the Philippines. They were saying that the facts did
not constitute a public offense under Philippine laws.
The demurrer was overruled, and Lol-lo and Saraw were found guilty, and were both sentenced to life
imprisonment, together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, two other defendants in another case. In addition
to imprisonment, they were ordered to return the 39 sacks of copra they robbed, or to indemnify the
offended parties 924 rupees, and to pay one-half of the costs.

Issue: Did the CFI in the Philippines have jurisdiction over Lol-lo and Saraw?

Held : YES. First of all, the facts can’t be disputed. All the elements of the crime of piracy were there.
Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done animo
furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. The CFI has jurisdiction because pirates are
in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime against all mankind, therefore, it can be punished in any
competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found. The jurisdiction of piracy has no
territorial limits. The crime is against all mankind, so it is also punished by all. It doesn’t matter that the
crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. Those limits, though neutral
to war, are not neutral to crimes. Art. 153 of the Penal Code refers to the crime of piracy “committed
against Spaniards, or subjects of another nation not war with Spain shall be punished with a penalty
ranging from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua. If the crime is against nonbelligerent subjects of
another nation at war with Spain, it shell be punished with the penalty of presidio mayor.”

Since Spain already ceded the Philippines to the US, the rule is that “the political law of the former
sovereignty is necessarily changed. But corollary to this rule, laws subsisting at the time of transfer,
designed to secure good order and peace in the community, which are strictly of a municipal character,
continue until by direct action of the new government they are altered or repealed.
The instructions of President McKniley on May 19, 1989 to General Wesley Merrit, Commanding
General of the Army of Occupation in the Philippines, was clear that municipal laws that provide for the
punishment of crime, are considered continuing in force so far as they are compatible with the new order
of things until superseded.
Espuelas v People
G.R. No. L-2990
Facts:
On June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in the town of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas y
Mendoza had his picture taken, making it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of
rope suspended form the limb of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel.
After securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent copies of same to Free Press, the Evening News,
the Bisayas, Lamdang of general circulation and other local periodicals in the Province of Bohol but also
throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made
to appear that it was written by a fictitious suicide, Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter's
supposed wife translation of which letter or note, stating his dismay and administration of President
Roxas, pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte, and directing his wife his dear wife to write
to President Truman and Churchill of US and tell them that in the Philippines the government is infested
with many Hitlers and Mussolinis.

Issue:Whether the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art. 142 of the RPC against the Government
of the Philippines?

Held: Yes. The accused must therefore be found guilty as charged. And there being no question as to the
legality of the penalty imposed on him, the decision will be affirmed with costs.

Analyzed for meaning and weighed in its consequences, the article written bybthe accused, cannot fail to
impress thinking persons that it seeks to sow the seeds of sedition and strife. The infuriating language is
not a sincere effort to persuade, what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to martyrdom and
what with is failure to particularize. When the use irritating language centers not on persuading the
readers but on creating disturbances, the rationable of free speech cannot apply and the speaker or writer
is removed from the protection of the constitutional guaranty.

If it be argued that the article does not discredit the entire governmental structure but only President
Roxas and his men, the reply is that article 142 punishes not only all libels against the Government but
also "libels against any of the duly constituted authorities thereof." The "Roxas people" in the
Government obviously refer of least to the President, his Cabinet and the majority of legislators to whom
the adjectives dirty, Hitlers and Mussolinis were naturally directed. On this score alone the conviction
could be upheld.

Regarding the publication, it suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots and tends to stir up people
against the constituted authorities, or to provoke violence from opposition who may seek to silence the
writer. Which is the sum and substance of the offense under consideration.

The essence of seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir up general discontent to the
pitch of illegal courses; that is to say to induce people to resort to illegal methods other than those
provided by the Constitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds.
People vsGalano

Facts: Restituto Villanueva, a patrolman, saw a crowd chasing a man in Manila. When he caught up, the
crowd nabbed the man, Benjamin Galano, who was bleeding. Villanueva was informed that Galano
bought 4 balut eggs and paid a false prewar one peso bill which was given to Villanueva. Galano was
brought to the police for investigation. Said bill contained the word “Victory” and when the balut vendor
asked Galano, he ran away. He avers that he wrote Victory on the said bill and knew that the bill won’t be
honored by the vendor. Said bill was genuine and redeemable pursuant to RA No. 17 and 199. He was
charged with violating RPC 166 and convicted and sentenced of reclusion temporal with fine. Galano
claims that he bought the eggs with a genuine note which was different from the evidence presented to
Villanueva and the police. He made such statement as the police were shouting at him and was afraid that
he would be harmed. The police countered that at least 9 people were chasing Galano and asserted that
the bill found indicated “Victory” contrary to Galano’s claim.

Issue: Whether Galano is guilty for violating RPC 169 (1) or RPC 169 (2) – RPC 169 (1)

Held Galano’s escape was indicative of his guilt. His extrajudicial confession is untenable as the police
had no ill-motive to arrest him and mere shouting does not constitute as intimidation or violence. The
forgery committed RPC 169 may be done in the following:
o 2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, or
signs contained therein.
The SC did not come to a unanimous decision on the matter whether Galano should be punished under
RPC 166 or 169. The bill is no longer legal tender. It can be presented to the Central Bank and may only
exchange the bill with a treasury certificates of the Victory series. Unless it is replaced with one of the
current Victory notes, even the Central Bank may not apply a note like that made by Galano in payment
of his debts. Hence, the unauthorized addition of the word “Victory” was made for the purpose to make it
appear that it was true legal tender of the current Victory series to the end that it may not be refused. The
forgery is akin to, or worse than, affixing the seal to a genuine signature on a document which is invalid
w/o a seal. Said offense does not constitute estafa as it involves falsification of a gov’t obligation. While
the amount is only P1 and can be replaced by money of legal tender, the evil done and its consequences
cannot be ignored. The alteration/destruction of the billi is harmless except to the holder and would not
constitute a crime but for the utterance of the bill so altered. There was intention to deceive the State in its
duty to protect the public and the paper bills legally issued. In this case, RPC 169 (2) is inapplicable as
nothing was erased or altered of figures, letters, etc. Galano only added the word Victory to make it
appear genuine that it used to have before it outlived its usefulness. So Galano is liable for RPC 169 (1)
Garcia vs Sandiganbayan
507 SCRA 258

Facts: Timoteo A. Garcia, Gilbert G. Nabo, being then public officers or employees of the LTO, borrow
units Asian Automotive Center’s Service Vehicle knowing that said corporation regularly transacts with
the accused’s LTO Office for the registration of its motor vehicles, in the reporting of its engine and
chassis numbers as well as the submission of its vehicle dealer’s report and other similar transactions
which require the prior approval and/or intervention of the said accused Regional Director and employee.

Ma. Lourdes Miranda, the complainant, whose child was run over an killed in a vehicular accident; the
driver of the ill-fated motor vehicle was accused Nabo, subordinate of Garcia.Miranda successfully traced
the said vehicle and eventually discovered the existence of numerous delivery receipts in the files and
possession of the Company own by certain Aurora Chiong; and that said discovery led to the institution of
the subject criminal cases against herein accused.

Mrs Chiong recounted that accused Garcia has a farm, and he would need a vehicle to transport water
thereto. For this purpose, he would, on a weekly basis, borrow from the Company a motor vehicle, either
by asking from her directly through telephone calls or through Yungao, her Liaison Officer. Every time
accused Garcia would borrow a motor vehicle, the Company would issue a delivery receipt for such
purpose, which has to be signed by the person whom accused Garcia would send to pick up the motor
vehicle. Yungao testified that the names and signatures of the persons who actually received the
Company’s vehicles were reflected on the faces of the delivery receipts.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner be convicted of any other crime (i.e., Direct Bribery or Indirect Bribery)
charged in the information?

Held: The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes the
following acts: (1) by agreeing to perform, or by performing, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift
or present an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties; (2) by
accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official duty; or (3) by agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from
doing something which is his official duty to do, in consideration of any gift or promise.

In the case under consideration, there is utter lack of evidence adduced by the prosecution showing that
petitioner committed any of the three acts constituting direct bribery. The two prosecution witnesses did
not mention anything about petitioner asking for something in exchange for his performance of, or
abstaining to perform an act in connection with his official duty. In fact, Atty. Aurora Chiong, Vice-
President and General Manager of the Company, testified that the Company complied with all the
requirements of the LTO without asking for any intervention from petitioner or from anybody else from
said office. From the evidence on record, petitioner cannot likewise be convicted of Direct Bribery.

Indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his
office. The essential ingredient of indirect bribery as defined in Article 211of the Revised Penal Code is
that the public officer concerned must have accepted the gift or material consideration. The alleged
borrowing of a vehicle by petitioner from the Company can be considered as the gift in contemplation of
the law. To prove that petitioner borrowed a vehicle from the Company for 56 times, the prosecution
adduced in evidence 56 delivery receipts allegedly signed by petitioner’s representative whom the latter
would send to pick up the vehicle. We, however, find that the delivery receipts do not sufficiently prove
that petitioner received the vehicles considering that his signatures do not appear therein. In addition, the
prosecution failed to establish that it was petitioner’s representatives who picked up the vehicles. If the
identity of the person who allegedly picked up the vehicle on behalf of the petitioner is uncertain, there
can also be no certainty that it was petitioner who received the vehicles in the end.

Santos vs Sandiganbayan
347 SCRA 386

Facts: That on or about (October 19, 1981, November 20, 1981, and October 30, 1981, in the City of
Manila, accused Manuel Valentino, employed as Bookkeeper detailed at the Clearing Office, Central
Bank of the Philippines and accused Jesus Estacio y Estrella, employed as Janitor-Messenger of the
Central Bank of the Philippines, and as such are public employees, with abuse of confidence and taking
advantage of their official position, in order to implement a plan or scheme to defraud the Bank of the
Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch, which plan or scheme was previously formulated and agreed upon
by all the herein accused immediately prior to several dates mention, accused Manuel Valentino pursuant
to said plan or scheme, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and taking advantage of
his official position and with intent to gain and to defraud, falsify the Clearing Statement prepared by the
Central Clearing office of the Bank of the Philippine Islands and submitted to the Clearing Section of the
Central Bank of the Philippines as well as the Manifest prepared by the Central Bank Clearing Office in
connection thereto by crossing out the entry in the duplicate copies of the aforesaid Clearing Statement
and Manifest which entries refer to Check No. (27101 in Crim. Case No. 5949, 27111 in Crim. Case No.
5950, and 27108 in Crim. Case No. 5951) and Check No. (27105 in Crim. Case No. 5949, 27118 in Crim.
Case No. 5950 and 27121 in Crim. Case No. 5951) issued by accused Bustamante against his checking
account at the Bank of Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch, which has only an outstanding balance
of P1,000.00 and which checks were deposited in the current account of Magna Management Consultant
with the Citibank Greenhills Branch by accused Rolando San Pedro and as a result of the aforesaid
falsification which made it appear that no such checks were submitted by the Bank of Philippine Islands
to the Central Bank of the Philippines for clearing, the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch
has not issued any notice of dishonor or stop payment to the Citibank Greenhills Branch, and as a
consequence thereof accused Rolando San Pedro was able to withdraw from the Citibank the full amount
of the two checks amounting to (P1,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5949, P3,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No.
5950, and P5,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5951) and thereafter all the accused appropriated among
themselves the proceeds thereof to their own personal use and benefit and to the damage and prejudice of
the Central Bank of the Philippines or the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch in the
aforementioned amount of (P1,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5949, P3,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No.
5950, and P5,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5951).

Issue: Whether or not the accused are liable under Article 171 of Revised Penal Code

Held: The informations filed in these cases individually charge an offense defined and penalized under
Article 315, par. 2 (a) in relation to Article 171, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa
are as follows: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (2)
the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. [85] It is
indubitable that estafa was committed by abuse of confidence in these cases. The conspirators that
enlisted and utilized the assistance of Central Bank employees abused the confidence that the banking
system reposed upon such employees. As a result of such abuse of confidence, the BPI sustained damage
in the aggregate of Nine Million Pesos (P9,000,000.00). Verily, the perpetrators of the crimes breached
even the confidence that people reposed on the Central Bank and the whole banking system.
 By falsifying clearing documents, the offenders committed the complex crime of estafa thru
falsification of public documents. Under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, any public officer or
employee who, taking advantage of his official position, makes untruthful statements in a narration of
facts, commits the crime of falsification of public documents. This kind of falsification requires the
concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a
narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c)
the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.[86]
The prosecution has duly proven these requisites. Valentino occupies a public position as
bookkeeper at the Clearing Office of the Central Bank. He intercepted and pilfered BPI-Laoag checks
with the assistance of petitioner Estacio, a janitor-messenger at the Central Bank. In the comfort room,
Valentino and/or Villasanta, who has so far avoided the clutches of the law, tampered with the clearing
statements and clearing manifests which Estacio had taken from Valentinos desk. The tampered
documents, along with the pilfered demand envelopes, were then sent to the Central Bank Regional
Clearing Center in Laoag. These inside jobs were perpetrated as part of the decadent scheme that private
individuals had hatched to gain monetary gratification.
Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) under which the defendants were charged in these cases, states that any
person who shall defraud another by means of using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of other similar deceits shall be held liable for the crime of swindling (estafa). Under the peculiar
circumstances proven in these cases, the crime actually committed by the offenders is that defined in
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code on other deceits. The first paragraph of this article states that (t)he
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than
twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by any other
deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter. Although the information charged the
accused with violation of paragraph 2 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code defining the crime of
falsification by public officer of employee, the Sandiganbayan correctly found that the accused violated
paragraph 4 of the same Article which states as follows:

The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public
officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts.