GR No 182941

Robert Sierra vs People of the Philippines

GR No 182941        July 3, 2009

Facts:

        Sierra was a 15-year old minor. He was accused of unlawfully and feloniously having sexual intercourse with AAA, his 13-year old sister. In his defense, Sierra claimed that he was selling cigarettes at the time of the alleged rape and that AAA only invented the story because she bore him a grudge for the beatings he gave her.

        The RTC convicted Sierra of qualified rape, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Sierra then elevated the decision to CA by attacking AAA’s credibility. He also invoked Section 6 (1) of RA No 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 to exempt him from the criminal liability considering he was only 15 years old at the time the crime was committed.

      CA nevertheless affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to the penalty. It held Sierra to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion temporal maximum. Hence, the petition to the SC.

Issue:

     WON Sierra may avail of RA 9344 with minority as an exempting circumstance.

Held:

      Yes, Sierra may avail of the said law.

     RA No 9344 merely amended Article 192 of PD No 603, as amended, in that the suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Evidently, the intention of the Congress was to maintain the other disqualification as provided in Article 192 of PD no 603, as amended, and Section 32 of AM No 02-1-18-SC.

     Hence, juveniles who have been convicted of a crime with the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death, or death, are disqualified from having their sentences suspended.

        According to SC, RA No 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took effect on May 20, 2008. Its intent is to promote and protect the rights of a child in conflict with the law or a child at risk by providing a system that would ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being through a variety of disposition measures such as care, guidance and supervision order, counselling, probation, foster care, education and vocational training program and other alternatives to institutional care. More importantly, the law modifies the minimum age limit of criminal responsibility for minor offenders.

         The current law drew its changes from the principle of restorative justice that it espouses; it considers the ages 9-15 years as formative years and gives minors of this age to right their wrong through diversion and intervention measures.

GR No 139930

Republic of the Philippines vs Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., et al

GR No 139930        April 17, 2006

Facts:

Respondent Lobregat, together with the other respondents, was charged with the violation of Section 3 of RA No 3019 in the Office of the Ombudsman in her capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of the UCPB and UNICOM allegedly because these transactions allowed the other respondents unwarranted benefits and were grossly disadvantageous to the government.

During the pendency of this case, however, Lobregat died due to multi-organ failure. Counsel moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the death of Lobregat extinguishes both her criminal as well as civil liability based solely on the act complained of.

OSG opposed the motion on the ground that said death does not extinguish her civil liability because the same is not solely based on the offense committed. It maintained, under Bayotas rule, that while respondent’s death extinguishes her criminal liability, the same cannot be made to apply with regard to her civil liability. As a director of UCPB and UNICOM, she had duties and liabilities under the law and in accordance with her employment contract.

The heirs of the respondent counter that the same could not be applied in the present case because herein respondent was a mere respondent in a complaint which the Office of the Ombudsman had dismissed. They explained that even assuming Bayotas rule applies, the death of respondent extinguished her civil liability, if any, since the same could only be based on delict.

Issue:

          WON the civil liability of accused be extinguished upon her death.

Held:

         Yes. Paragraph 1 of Article 89 of the RPC specifically provides that one of the grounds for the total extinguishment of criminal, as well as civil liability, if any, is the death of a party to the case.

In the present case, the death of respondent Lobregat, which occurred during the pendency of the case and before final judgment is rendered, extinguishes whatever criminal liability she might be held responsible for as the same is purely personal to her. Consequently, the civil liability arising from whatever criminal liability may be adjudged against her is perforce extinguished.

GR No 141066

Evangeline Ladonga vs People of the Philippines

GR No 141066        February 17, 2005

Facts:

The spouses Ladonga were charged to have conspired and mutually helped one another in violating the provisions of BP Blg 22 in issuing a UCPB check on their account, knowing fully well that the same does not have sufficient funds. The said check was delivered to Alfredo Oculam to guarantee the loan availed of by the spouses. Apparently, when Oculam encashed the check, the same was dishonored by the Bank as the account of the spouses has already been closed.

This is where Evangeline Ladonga contended that she was not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof, thus acquitting her from the judgment against her husband. She argued that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to BP Blg 22. The CA affirmed RTC decision, hence the appeal.

Issue:

     WON Evangeline Ladonga is guilty of conspiracy with her husband in committing a violation against BP Blg 22.

Held:

          

          Principle of conspiracy is applicable to BP Blg 22 because the RPC provides that its provisions shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter provides the contrary. Apparently, BP Blg 22 does not prohibit the applicability of the suppletory character of the provisions of RPC.

          Article 10 of RPC provides that, offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

          The first clause should be understood to mean only that the special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished. The second clause states that the code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the elater should specifically provide the contrary.

          However, the conviction of Evangeline must be set aside as conspiracy was not established. Article 8 of the RPC provides that a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.

GR No 93028

People of the Philippines vs Martin Simon

GR No 93028                   July 29, 1994

Facts:

Simon was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article 2 of RA No 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He was arrested during a buy-bust operation led by the police unit at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. Apparently, he was caught red-handed of selling two marijuana teabags in exchange for money amounting to P40, without knowing that the same was marked money.

As the police unit narrated the buy-bust operation that ensued which led to the arrest of Simon, the latter devised a narrative to show that he was manhandled by the police. However, this was of no moment by the court absent an evidence to prove the abuse. Simon was found guilty of the offense charged.

However, RA No 6425, as amended, was further amended by RA No 7659, which supervenience necessarily affects the original disposition of this case

Issue:

          WON Simon would be punished under the Special Penal Law or RPC.

Held:

Originally, special laws, just as was the conventional practice in the US but differently from the penalties provided for in our RPC and its Spanish origins, provided for one specific penalty or a range of penalties with definitive durations. This is the special law contemplated in and referred to at the time laws like the Indeterminate Sentence Law were passed during the American regime.

Subsequently, a different pattern emerged whereby a special law would direct that an offense thereunder shall be punished under RPC and in the same manner as provided therein. As provided in Article 10 of the RPC, provisions of the RPC shall be “supplementary” to special laws; where the special law expressly grants to the court discretion in applying the penalty prescribed for the offense, there is no room for the application of the provisions of the Code.

Apparently, Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case at bar. This is so because the drug offenses are not included in, nor has Simon committed any act which would put him within the exceptions to said law and penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua or death, provided that the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one year of imprisonment. The most important however, is how the ISLAW shall be ascertained.

It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense under RPC, states that ‘if offense is punishable by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

GR No. 209464

Dungo vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 209464          July 1, 2015

Facts:

           The Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information against Dungo and Sibal before the RTC. The Information accused Dungo and Sibal, in conspiracy with several others, to have willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assaulted and used personal violence upon Villanueva, a neophyte, as a condition for his admission to the fraternity in which the accused were members. The physical harm resulted to the death of Villanueva, as well as damage and prejudice to the heirs of the victim.

           Based on the circumstantial evidence gathered by the RTC, Dungo and Sibal were adjudged guilty of the violation of RA No. 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995. This law has been enacted to regulate hazing and other forms of initiation rites in fraternities, sororities, and other organizations.

           It is in this case that the difference between crimes mala in se and mala prohibita are further discussed by the Supreme Court.

Issue:

            WON violation of Anti-Hazing Act of 1995 a crime mala in se or mala prohibita.

Held:

            The crime of hazing under RA No 8049 is malum prohibitum. The main rationale of this law is to discourage persons or group of persons either comprising a sorority, fraternity, or any association from making this requirement of initiation that has already resulted in specific acts of murder or homicide, serious physical injuries, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, among others.

            As the Supreme Court has discussed in this case, criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se, and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that a positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. In acts mala in se, the intent governs while in acts mala prohibita, the intent of the offender is immaterial but the only inquiry is whether there is a law violated.

            It added that a common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the RPC while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. However, there are mala in se crimes under special law such as plunder, and there are mala prohibita crimes under RPC such as technical malversation. The better approach would be to determine the inherent immorality of or vileness of the penalized act.

GR No 195956

ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon

GR No 195956           March 11, 2015

Facts:

            ABS-CBN filed a complaint for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Code against GMA-7. The dispute occurred during the news coverage of the homecoming of the Filipino overseas worker who has been kidnapped on 2004.

            During this time, ABS-CBN and GMA-& made their respective broadcast and coverage of the live event. ABS-CBN conducted live audio-video coverage and broadcasted the arrival of Angelo dela Cruz. It allowed Reuters Television Service to air the footages it had taken earlier under a special embargo agreement between ABS-CBN and Reuters.

            However, since GMA-7 was also a subscriber of the Reuters, it also broadcasted the live coverage of Reuters for the event without any knowledge of the existing embargo agreement between the two broadcasting companies. Apparently, ABS-CBN has gained knowledge of the use of its footage by GMA-7 without its authority or permission.

            GMA-7 contended that ABS-CBN’s criminal charges against it could not prosper as there was no intention on their part to use the news coverage of ABS-CBN on its own network. It claimed that copyright infringement is malum in se, that there needs to be an intention to violate the Intellectual Property Code in order to be held criminally liable.

Issue:

            WON violation of Intellectual Property Code is mala in se or mala prohibita.

Held:

            Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum. The Intellectual Property Code is a special law. The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are malum prohibitum. Ultimately, if an act is declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial.

            To clarify, crimes mala in se presuppose that the person who did the felonious act had criminal intent to do so, while crimes mala prohibita do not require knowledge or criminal intent.

            As Intellectual Property Code is a special law, the absence of criminal intent on the part of GMA-7 is immaterial.

GR No. 212719

Inmates of New Bilibid Prison vs Secretary De Lima

GR No. 212719          June 25, 2019

Facts:

       A Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed against DOJ Secretary De Lima by Atty. Evangelista as the acting attorney-in-fact of the convicted prisoners in the New Bilibid Prison. The petitioners filed this case as the real parties-in-interest and as a class suit in behalf of all who are similarly situated.

      The Petition arose from the enactment of RA No 10592, wherein Section 4, Rule 1 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations provided for the prospective application of the law. This law amended some provisions of Revised Penal Code pertaining to the period of preventive imprisonment, partial extinction of criminal liability, allowance for good conduct, special time allowance for loyalty, and the authority to grant these time allowances.

       Insofar as Section 4, Rule 1 of IRR is concerned, prospective application for the grant of time allowance of study, teaching and mentoring as well as special time allowance for loyalty have been provided.

    Petitioners contended that the same is unconstitutional for having prospective application, since it contradicts the law that it implements. They cited Article 22 of the RPC which provided that a penal law that is favorable or advantageous to the accused shall be given retroactive effect if he is not a habitual criminal.

Issue:

         WON Section 4, Rule 1, IRR of RA No 10592 is valid.

Held:

      No, it is invalid as it provides for the prospective application of the grant of good conduct time allowance, time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and special time allowance for loyalty.

       To come up with this decision, the Supreme Court included in its discussion of the case the exact meaning of a penal law. Accordingly, a penal provision defines a crime or provides punishment for one. Penal laws and laws which, while penal in nature, have provisions defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation. In other words, a statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the state which, under the Constitution, the Executive has the power to pardon.

       While RA No 10592 does not define a crime or offense or provide a penalty as it addresses the rehabilitation component of the correctional system, its provisions have the purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached to the crime. The further reduction on the length of penalty of imprisonment is beneficial to the detention and convicted prisoners alike, hence, calls for the application of Article 22 of the RPC.