CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | Atty.

Modesto Ticman included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or
02/07/2020 simultaneous acts." To be convicted as an accomplice, it is necessary that the
accused be aware of the criminal intent of the principal and then cooperate
Arts. 23, 29, 39, 48-49, 70 knowingly or intentionally by supplying material or moral aid for the
Anti-Fencing Law efficacious execution of the crime.

Accessories To consider a person an accomplice in the commission of the offense, the

following must concur: (1) community of design — knowing the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation, one concurs therein; (b)
PEOPLE VS. TOLENTINO cooperation in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts,
with the intention of supplying material and moral aid in the execution of the
FACTS: On February 28, 1996, appellant Jonathan Fabros and his cousins, crime in an efficacious way; and (c) a relation between the acts done by the
Sheila Guilayan and Merwin Ledesma, were at their house in Luyahan, principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. To be
Pasonanca, Zamboanga City when their neighbor Wilfredo Tolentino called deemed an accomplice, one needs to have had both knowledge of and
them.  participation in the criminal act. In other words, the principal and the
accomplice must have acted in conjunction and directed their efforts to the
When asked what it was all about, Wilfredo simply motioned to them to come same end. 
to his house located just across the road. Once they were inside the house,
Wilfredo immediately revealed his plan to kill Hernan Sagario, Sheila's Thus, it is essential that both were united in their criminal design. In the case
stepfather. Wilfredo explained that it was the only way to free Sheila's mother before us, appellant did not concur in or lend support to the nefarious intent of
(appellant's aunt) of the sufferings being caused by Hernan. Wilfredo then Tolentino. The mere fact that the former had prior knowledge of the latter’s
instructed Merwin to go back to the house and get the bolo of Hernan. Merwin criminal design did not automatically make him an accomplice. This
obliged, got the bolo, and gave it to Wilfredo. Thereafter, they were told by circumstance, by itself, did not show his concurrence in the principal’s
Wilfredo to go home and wait for Hernan.
criminal intent. That appellant helped Tolentino carry the victim from the
house to the creek did not necessarily demonstrate concurrence of wills or
Around 8:30 in the evening, Hernan arrived. He went directly to the kitchen
unity of purpose or action. 
and fixed the bag of rice he was carrying. Jonathan together with Sheila and
Merwin, just stayed quiet in the living room.
Quite the contrary, the former’s attempt to dissuade the latter from killing
Sagario was attested to by the prosecution witness. With the nominal role
Later, Wilfredo with a 2"x2" piece of wood in his hand entered the house. He
appellant played in the drama that had been thrust upon him, we cannot
then followed Hernan towards the kitchen. When about an armslength away
declare that he was an accomplice in the crime charged.
from Hernan, Wilfredo, immediately walloped Hernan on the right side of the
neck sending the latter unconscious and falling face down to the ground.
PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO
Wilfredo immediately instructed appellant and Merwin to help him bring
GR 128900, July 14, 2000
Hernan out of the house. Lifting Hernan out of the house, Wilfredo held him
by the neck while both appellant and Merwin grasped his feet. They then
FACTS: Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City
carried Hernan towards the creek, upon reaching the creekside, the three
convicting Alberto Antonio for the crime of Murder of Arnulfo Tuadles
stopped, then Wilfredo successively stabbed Hernan on different parts of the
qualified with treachery. Accused Juanito Nieto and Honorio Cartalla were
body causing the latter's instant death. 
included as accessories.
After Tuadles was shot by Antonio over a game of “pusoy dos”, two security
After throwing the victim's lifeless body in the creek, the three immediately
guards including the prosecution witness and SPO4 Nieto accompanied
left. Tolentino called Jonathan, Sheila and Merwin and warned them that if
Antonio to his house where he made phone calls and summoned his lawyer.
they will tell other people, he will kill them. Out of fear, they just followed
Later Antonio, accompanied by Nieto, surrendered himself and his gun to then
whatever Tolentino told them.
San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada at the San Juan Police Force.
On 01 March 1996, however, Jonathan was arrested for the death of Hernan
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Nieto as an
Sagario. Accused Jonathan Fabros and Wilfredo Tolentino both denied killing
accessory.
the victim. Instead, they pointed to each other as the one who killed Hernan
Sagario. Fabros pointed to Tolentino as the assailant and the latter also
HELD: The Revised Penal Code in Article 19 defines an accessory as one
fingered the former as the killer of Sagario.
who has knowledge of the commission of the crime, yet did not take part in its
commission as principal or accomplice, but took part in it subsequent to its
However, on 14 July 2000, long after the trial court's decision had become
commission by any of the three modes: (1) profiting himself or assisting the
final and executory on his part, Wilfredo Tolentino, apparently conscience-
offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (2) concealing or destroying the
stricken, executed an affidavit admitting sole responsibility for the death of
body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
Hernan Sagario and retracted his testimony implicating accused-appellant
discovery; and (3) harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
Jonathan Fabros. 
principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or when the offender is guilty of treason, parricide, murder or an
The trial court held that the prosecution's evidence positively identified
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually
Wilfredo Tolentino as the person who had hit the victim with a piece of wood
guilty of some other crime.
and later stabbed him with a bolo. It also ruled that the killing was qualified
by treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
Being a police officer in the active service, he had the duty to arrest appellant
Antonio after the latter committed a crime in his presence, and which he
The court a quo observed that overt and positive acts of appellant (Jonathan
himself witnesses. Unfortunately, he failed to do what was incumbent upon
Fabros) manifested his approval of the killing and the concurrence of his acts
him to do. Instead, he rode with the offender to the latter's house where they
with those of the other accused. Thus, the RTC concluded that Fabros was a
stayed for more than 5 hours.
co-conspirator and should be held equally responsible for the murder.
Under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, there are two (2)
Hence, this appeal.
classes of accessories, one who is a public officer who harbors, conceals or
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant (Jonathan Fabros) should be convicted as an
assists in the escape of the principal. Such public officer must have acted with
accomplice
abuse of his public functions, and the crime committed by the principal is any
crime, provided it is not a light felony. Appellant SPO4 Nieto is one such
RULING: Neither can appellant be convicted as an accomplice. Article 18 of
public officer, and he abused his public function when he failed to effect the
the Revised Penal Code defines accomplices as "those persons who, not being
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 1
immediate arrest of accused Antonio and to conduct a speedy investigation of described by their serial numbers. He marked each tire with a piece of chalk
the crime committed. before storing it inside his warehouse. On January 1995, he sold 6 tires.
Judgement affirmed with modifications. However, on February, the remaining 38 tires were stolen from the warehouse,
the gate forcibly opened. He reported the robbery to the Southern Police
PEOPLE VS. VERZOLA District at Fort Bonifacio. Hoping to locate the stolen tires, Azajar canvassed
from numerous business establishments until he entered Jong’s Marketing, a
FACTS: At about 10pm on September 28, 1969, Bernardo Molina was store selling tires, owned by  Jaime Ong.  There he found a tire which was
clubbed to death by accused-appellant Ricardo Verzola in the presence of marked and matched one of the serial numbers of the stolen tires. A buy-bust
appellant Josefina Molina, the wife of Bernardo, inside the Molina's house. operation was conducted. 13 of the 38 tires were recovered.
The body of the victim was subsequently carried by the two appellants to the
ground and left at the foot of the stairs. Verzola then went home and kept his Ong was convicted of the crime of the Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612). He
bloodstained clothes as well as the piece of wood used in clubbing Bernardo denied that he had knowledge that the tires were stolen, having bought them
inside his toilet. Afterwards, he went to the municipal building and reported to from Raymond Go of Goldlink.
the police authorities that Bernardo died in an accident. However, Josefina
revealed that the assailant of her husband was Verzola. Josefina testified that ISSUE: Whether the elements of the Anti-Fencing Law are present in the
Verzola went to their house that fateful night, entered the room where she was case.
sleeping with her husband, woke her up and had carnal knowledge of her.
When Bernardo woke up, Verzola clubbed him on the head. Afterwards, she RULING:Yes. All the elements of Anti-Fencing are present in the case.
heard the sound of the body being dragged downstairs and the voice of First, Azajar was able to prove that ownership of the tires through the sales
Verzola saying that he was leaving and warned her not to say anything. invoice and inventory list, and the happening of the robbery through their
Sinumpaang Salaysay.
The version of Verzola was Josefina was his paramour for about 10 years and
that when he went there that night, they “did everything that both of them Second, the facts establish that Ong was in possession of the tires. The serial
wanted to do” but before that night, Josefina told Verzola that her husband numbers of the recovered tires matched those of the serial numbers of the
was planning to kill him probably because he already knew of their affair. stolen tires. Ong also admitted that he bought the tires from Goldlink.
Because of that, he clubbed Bernardo three times at the nape and both he and
Josefina threw him downstairs of their house. Third, the words “should know” denote the fact that a person of reasonable
prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty
Court of First Instance of Abra found them guilty of Murder. Verzola as the to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists.
principal and Josefina Molina as an accessory after the fact. Ong’s experience of 24 years from the business should have given him doubt
as to the legitimate ownership of the tires considering that it was his first time
ISSUE: WON Josefina is an accessory after the fact to the murder of her to transact with Go and the manner it was sold is as if Go was just peddling
husband, Bernardo Molina the thirteen (13) tires in the streets.

RULING: No. Although appellant Josefina Molina admitted in her extra- Moreover, Ong knew the requirement of the law in selling second hand tires.
judicial statement that she was the paramour of her co-appellant for over a He has practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances from the police station
year, there is no proof that she had knowledge of the criminal design of her for some used tires he wanted to resell but, in this particular transaction, he
co-appellant. Neither has she cooperated with him by previous or was remiss in his duty as a diligent businessman who should have exercised
simultaneous acts, much less is there any showing that she supplied the prudence.
principal with material or moral aid. Her only participation was in assisting
her co-appellant in bringing the body of the deceased to the ground. Finally, there was evident intent to gain for himself, considering that during
the buy-bust operation, Ong was actually caught selling the stolen tires in his
An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the store.
commission of the felony, but, with knowledge of the commission of the
crime, he subsequently takes part in three (3) ways: (a) by profiting from the Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a prima facie
effects of the crime; (b) by concealing the body, effects or instruments of the presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any
crime in order to prevent its discovery; and (c) by assisting in the escape or good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has been the subject of
concealment of the principal of the crime, provided he acts with abuse of his robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
public functions or the principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an the property.
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually
guilty of some other crime. The main difference separating accessories after FRANCISCO VS. PEOPLE
the fact from principal and accomplice lies in the fact that the responsibility of
the accessories is subsequent to the consummation of the crime and FACTS: Jovita Rodriguez and her husband, the former Municipal Mayor of
subordinate to that of the principal. Even if she assisted her co-appellant Rodriguez, Rizal, acquired several pieces of jewelry which were placed inside
without duress, simply assisting Verzola in bringing the body down the house a locked cabinet in a locked room in their main house. Macario Linghon was
to the foot of the stairs and leaving said body for anyone to see, cannot be one of her workers. They hired Pacita Linghon, Macarios sister, as one of their
classified as an attempt to conceal or destroy the body of the crime. The household helpers. Sometime in May 1991, she left the employ of the
concealing or destroying of the body of the crime, the effects or instruments Rodriguez family.
thereof, must be done to prevent the discovery of the crime. In the case at bar,
Sometime in the third week of October 1991, Pacita contacted her brother
the body was left at the foot of the stairs at a place where it was easily visible
Macario and asked him to sell some pieces of jewelry. He then went to the
to the public. Under such circumstances, there could not have been any shop of petitioner Ernesto Erning Francisco and latter bought the jewelries.
attempt on the part of Josefina to conceal or destroy the body of the crime. Sometime in November 1991, Pacita asked Macario anew to sell a pair of
earrings. Macario sold it to Ernesto.
Anti-fencing law
After, sometime in November 1991, Jovita was shocked when she opened the
locked cabinet containing her jewelry, and found that the box was empty and
ONG VS. PEOPLE suspected Pacita as the one who stole her jewelries. Jovita filed complaint for
695 SCRA 588; April 10, 2013 theft against Pacita.
 
FACTS: Francisco Azajar bought 44 firestone tires from Philtread Tire and Pacita was invited by police for investigation. Pacita admitted that she sold the
Rubber Corporation for P223,401.81. This acquisition was evidenced by a jewelries to Mang Erning. Later, Pacita accompanied the police officers to the
sales invoice and an inventory list acknowledging receipt of the tires shop and pointed to the petitioner as the Mang Erning who had purchased the
jewelry from her.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 2
 A criminal complaint against the petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 1612 was TAN VS. PEOPLE
filed.
FACTS: Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries
The court rendered judgment finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable engaged in the business of manufacturing propellers or spare parts for boats.
doubt of violating P.D. No. 1612. Manuelito Mendez was one of the employees working for her. Manuelito
Mendez left the employ of the company. Complainant Lim noticed that some
In the meantime, Pacita was found guilty of theft. of the welding rods, propellers and boat spare parts, such as bronze and
stainless propellers and brass screws were missing. She conducted an
ISSUE: WON petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of P.D. inventory and discovered that propellers and stocks were missing.
No. 1612 or Anti-Fencing Law. Complainant Rosita Lim informed Victor Sy, uncle of Manuelito Mendez, of
the loss. Subsequently, Manuelito Mendez was arrested in the Visayas and he
RULING: No. admitted that he and his companion Gaudencio Dayop stole from the
complainant's warehouse some boat spare parts such as bronze and stainless
The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: propellers and brass screws. Manuelito Mendez asked the complainant's
(1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; forgiveness. He pointed to petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the one who bought the
(2) the accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the stolen items and who paid cash to Mendez and Dayop, and they split the
crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, amount with one another. Complainant did not file a case against Manuelito
sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, Mendez and Gaudencio Dayop. An Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila filed
object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the an information against petitioner charging him with violation of Presidential
crime of robbery or theft; Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). Petitioner denies the allegation stating
(3) the accused knew or should have shown that the said article, item, object that he was engaged in selling hardware parts and that he never bought the
or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of stolen articles and talked to Mendex.
robbery or theft; and,  
(4) there is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another Trial Court: Tan is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt 
CA: Affirmed.
On first element, the decision of the RTC of Rizal, Branch 76, in Criminal  
Case No. 2005 convicting Pacita of theft does not constitute proof against him ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution has successfully established the
in this case that Pacita had, indeed, stolen the jewelry. There is no showing elements of fencing as against petitioner - NO
that the said decision in Criminal Case No. 2005 was already final and  
executory when the trial court rendered its decision in the instant case. RULING: Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 is "the act of any
person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
On second element, the trial and appellate courts held that the prosecution possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in
proved the same beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of Jovita, any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he
confession of Pacita, joint affidavit of PO1 Roldan and SPO1 Peralta, knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of
testimony of Macario. But the Court found that the crime of robbery or theft."
1. Jovita’s testimony, that Pacita had confessed to her that she had sold four  
pieces of jewelry to the petitioner, is inadmissible in evidence against the Short of evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the
latter to prove the truth of the said admission. It bears stressing that the essential elements of fencing, there can be no conviction for such offense.
petitioner was not a party in the said criminal cases. The well-entrenched rule  
is that only parties to a case are bound by a judgment of the trial Complainant Lim testified that she lost certain items and Manuelito Mendez
court. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment of said case. confessed that he stole those items and sold them to the accused. However,
Rosita Lim never reported the theft or even loss to the police. She admitted
Jovita did not reiterate her testimony in the said criminal cases during the trial that after Manuelito Mendez, her former employee, confessed to the unlawful
in the court a quo. The prosecution did not present Pacita as witness therein to taking of the items, she forgave him, and did not prosecute him. Theft is a
testify on the admission she purportedly made to Jovita; hence, the petitioner public crime. It can be prosecuted de oficio, or even without a private
was not able to cross-examine Pacita complainant, but it cannot be without a victim. As complainant Rosita Lim
reported no loss, we cannot hold for certain that there was committed a crime
2. The testimony of Pacita during the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case of theft. Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent, that is, crime
No. 92-13841, as well as her supplemental affidavit, is, likewise, inadmissible of robbery or theft has been committed.
against the petitioner since Pacita did not testify in the court a quo.  
There was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of another's property.
3. The testimony of PO1 Roldan, Jr., that Pacita pointed to the petitioner as the True, witness Mendez admitted in an extra-judicial confession that he sold the
person who bought the subject jewelry from her, is indeed admissible but only boat parts he had pilfered from complainant to petitioner. However, an
to prove the prove the truth of Pacitas declaration to the policemen, that the admission or confession acknowledging guilt of an offense may be given in
petitioner was the one who purchased the jewelry from her. It must be stressed evidence only against the person admitting or confessing. Even on this, if
that the policemen had no personal knowledge of the said sale, and, more given extra-judicially, the confessant must have the assistance of counsel;
importantly, Pacita did not testify in the court a quo otherwise, the admission would be inadmissible in evidence against the person
so admitting. Here, the extra-judicial confession of witness Mendez was not
4. The testimony of Macario is admissible in evidence against the petitioner given with the assistance of counsel, hence, inadmissible against the witness.
since he testified for the prosecution and was cross-examined. BUT his Neither may such extra-judicial confession be considered evidence against
testimony is dubious; hence, barren of probative weight accused. There must be corroboration by evidence of corpus delicti to sustain
a finding of guilt. Corpus delicti means the "body or substance of the crime,
Macario admitted when he testified in the court a quo that his testimony and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually
during the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 92-13841 and his committed.
testimony in the court a quo were inconsistent  
The "essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the
On third element, assuming that the petitioner purchased the said jewelry from property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent of gain;
Macario, there is no evidence on record that the petitioner knew that they (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the
were stolen. Significantly, even Macario did not know that the jewelry was taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons
stolen. Macario learned, after the case against Pacita had already been filed in or force upon things (U.S. vs. De Vera, 43 Phil. 1000)." In theft, corpus delicti
the trial court, that the jewelry was, after all, owned by Jovita. However, he has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2)
failed to inform the petitioner that the said jewelry was stolen that it was lost by felonious taking. In this case, the theft was not proved
because complainant Rosita Lim did not complain to the public authorities of
Thus, Court rule that the petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of violating the felonious taking of her property. She sought out her former employee
P.D. No. 1612 for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable Manuelito Mendez, who confessed that he stole certain articles from the
doubt.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 3
warehouse of the complainant and sold them to petitioner. Such confession is
insufficient to convict, without evidence of corpus delicti. It is insisted that, since a textual examination of the pardon given to and
  accepted by former President Estrada does not actually specify which political
There was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known that right is restored, it could be inferred that former President Arroyo did not
the very stolen articles were the ones sold him. "One is deemed to know a deliberately intend to restore former President Estrada’s rights of suffrage and
particular fact if he has the cognizance, consciousness or awareness thereof, or to hold public office, orto otherwise remit the penalty of perpetual absolute
is aware of the existence of something, or has the acquaintance with facts, or disqualification. Even if her intention was the contrary, the same cannot be
if he has something within the mind's grasp with certitude and clarity. When
upheld based on the pardon’s text.
knowledge of the existence of a particular factis an element of an offense,
such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its
existence unless he actually believes that it does not exist. On the other hand,
the words "should know" denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence
and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another
or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists. The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited by legislative action.
Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact. Since the court
cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section 5 of
contained therein, it must determine such knowledge with care from the overt Article IX-C, provides that the President of the Philippines possesses the
acts of that person. And given two equally plausible states of cognition or power to grant pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency, to wit:
mental awareness, the court should choose the one which sustains the Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this
constitutional presumption of innocence." Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons,
  and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
Without petitioner knowing that he acquired stolen articles, he cannot be
guilty of "fencing". He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of the Congress.
Pardon xxxx

Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation

RISOS-VIDAL VS. COMELEC
of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President
G.R. No. 206666; January 21, 2015
without the favorable recommendation of the Commission.
It is apparent from the foregoing constitutional provisions that the only
FACTS: In September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted former
instances in which the President may not extend pardon remain to be in: (1)
President Estrada for the crime of plunder and was sentenced to suffer the
impeachment cases; (2) cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction;
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the accessory penalties of civil interdiction
and (3) cases involving violations of election laws, rules and regulations in
during the period of sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification. On
which there was no favorable recommendation coming from the COMELEC.
October 25, 2007, however, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
Therefore, it can be argued that any act of Congress by way of statute cannot
extended executive clemency, by way of pardon, to former President Estrada,
operate to delimit the pardoning power of the President.
explicitly stating that he is restored to his civil and political rights.
The proper interpretation of Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
In 2009, Estrada filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of President.
None of the disqualification cases against him prospered but he only placed
A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former President Estrada
second in the results.
shows that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory
penalties are included in the pardon. The sentence which states that “(h)e is
In 2012, Estrada once more ventured into the political arena, and filed a
hereby restored to his civil and political rights,” expressly remitted the
Certificate of Candidacy, this time vying for a local elective post, that of the
accessory penalties that attached to the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Mayor of the City of Manila.
Hence, even if we apply Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is
indubitable from the text of the pardon that the accessory penalties of civil
Petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a Petition for Disqualification against Estrada
interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were expressly remitted
before the Comelec stating that Estrada is disqualified to run for public office
together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.
because of his conviction for plunder sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua with perpetual absolute disqualification. Petitioner relied
The disqualification of former President Estrada under Section 40 of the LGC
on Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC), in relation to Section 12
in relation to Section 12 of the OEC was removed by his acceptance of the
of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). 
absolute pardon granted to him
The Comelec dismissed the petition for disqualification holding that President
While it may be apparent that the proscription in Section 40(a) of the LGC is
Estrada’s right to seek public office has been effectively restored by the
worded in absolute terms, Section 12 of the OEC provides a legal escape from
pardon vested upon him by former President Gloria M. Arroyo.
the prohibition – a plenary pardon or amnesty. In other words, the latter
provision allows any person who has been granted plenary pardon or amnesty
Estrada won the mayoralty race in May 13, 2013 elections. Alfredo Lim, who
after conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude,
garnered the second highest votes, intervened and sought to disqualify Estrada
inter alia, to run for and hold any public office, whether local or national
for the same ground as the contention of Risos-Vidal and praying that he be
position.
proclaimed as Mayor of Manila.
The third preambular clause of the pardon did not operate to make the pardon
ISSUE: May former President Joseph Estrada run for public office despite
conditional.
having been convicted of the crime of plunder which carried an accessory
penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office?
Contrary to Risos-Vidal’s declaration, the third preambular clause of the
pardon, i.e., "[w]hereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no
HELD: Yes. Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all his
longer seek any elective position or office," neither makes the pardon
civil and political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public
conditional, nor militate against the conclusion that former President Estrada’s
elective office, the focal point of this controversy. The wording of the pardon
rights to suffrage and to seek public elective office have been restored.
extended to former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and
unqualified. It is likewise unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised
This is especially true as the pardon itself does not explicitly impose a
Penal Code. The only reasonable, objective, and constitutional interpretation
condition or limitation, considering the unqualified use of the term "civil and
of the language of the pardon is that the same in fact conforms to Articles 36
political rights"as being restored. Jurisprudence educates that a preamble is
and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. 
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 4
not an essential part of an act as it is an introductory or preparatory clause that deprived of liberty without due process of law. This constitutional provision
explains the reasons for the enactment, usually introduced by the word was in a sense incorporated in Article 78 of the Revised Penal Code, which
"whereas." Whereas clauses do not form part of a statute because, strictly prescribes that no penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final
speaking, they are not part of the operative language of the statute. In this judgment. If there is no judgment sentencing the accused to suffer subsidiary
case, the whereas clause at issue is not an integral part of the decree of the imprisonment in case of insolvent to pay the fine imposed upon him, it is clear
pardon, and therefore, does not by itself alone operate to make the pardon that the court could not legally compel him to serve said subsidiary
conditional or to make its effectivity contingent upon the fulfilment of the imprisonment.
aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon.
Here, the judgment of conviction did not provide subsidiary imprisonment in
Besides, a preamble is really not an integral part of a law. It is merely an case of failure to pay the penalty of fine. Thus, subsidiary imprisonment may
introduction to show its intent or purposes. It cannot be the origin of rights not be imposed without violating the RPC and the constitutional provision on
and obligations. Where the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the due process.
preamble can neither expand nor restrict its operation much less prevail over
its text. DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 22 November
2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118333 is
If former President Arroyo intended for the pardon to be conditional on AFFIRMED.
Respondent’s promise never to seek a public office again, the former ought to
have explicitly stated the same in the text of the pardon itself. Since former
President Arroyo did not make this an integral part of the decree of pardon, Complex Crimes
the Commission is constrained to rule that the 3rd preambular clause cannot
be interpreted as a condition to the pardon extended to former President PEOPLE VS. ESUGON
Estrada.  
DOCTRINE: Esugon is guilty of robbery with homicide. Robbery with
Art. 29  homicide is a composite crime, also known as a special complex crime. It is
composed of two or more crimes but is treated by law as a single indivisible
and unique offense for being the product of one criminal impulse. It is a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SALVADOR ALAPAN specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law and is to be
G.R. No. 199527; January 10, 2018 distinguished from a compound or complex crime under Article48 of the
Revised Penal Code. A composite crime is truly distinct and different from a
DOCTRINE: Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be complex or compound crime. In a composite crime, the composition of the
expressly stated in the judgment of conviction. If there is no judgment offenses is fixed by law, but in a complex or compound crime, the
sentencing the accused to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave
insolvent to pay the fine imposed upon him, the court could not legally and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the
compel him to serve said subsidiary imprisonment. other. In a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of
crimes is specific, but in a complex or compound crime the penalty is that
FACTS: In August 2005, the Spouses Alapan borrowed ₱400,000.00 from corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum
petitioner Brian Victor Britchford with a promise that they would pay the said period. A light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or
amount within 3 months. To secure the indebtedness, respondent issued 8 compound crime may be made the subject of a separate information, but a
postdated checks. When the checks matured, petitioner deposited then at the light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed.
PNB. After a week, PNB informed petitioner that the checks were dishonored
because the account against which the checks were drawn was closed. FACTS: An information filed against Alvin Esugon (appellant) charging him
Spouses Alapan averred that their account was closed because they suffered with robbery with homicide. It was alleged that with the use of a bladed
business reverses. In May 2006, respondent Salvador Alapan and his wife weapon, Esugon stole and carried away the cash money belonging to
Myrna Alapan were charged with 8 counts of violation of B.P. 22. Josephine Castro. It was further alleged that, with the used of the bladed
weapon, Esugon attacked, assault and stabbed Castro inflicting upon the latter
MTC: It convicted respondent of 8 counts of violation of B.P. Big. 22. It also her physical injuries which directly caused her death.
imposed a penalty of fine of P30,000 for each case (or a total of P240,000)
instead of imprisonment considering that respondent’s act of issuing the In turn, the appellant denied the accusation. According to him, he had
bounced checks was not tainted with bad faith. Meanwhile, it acquitted Myrna frequented the victim’s billiard hall, which was situated only four houses away
because she did not participate in the issuance of the dishonored checks. After from where he lived, and, on the evening in question, he had been the last to
the MTC Decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued. leave the billiard hall at 11 o’clock p.m. and had then gone home. He recalled
However, the writ was unsatisfied. This prompted petitioner to file a Motion that he had been roused from slumber by screams for help around two o’clock
to Impose Subsidiary Penalty for respondent’s failure to pay the fine imposed a.m., prompting him to ask his mother for the key to the door; that he had then
by the MTC. gone outside where he learned of the killing of the victim; that police officers
had later on approached him to inquire what he knew about the killing
RTC: Respondent could not be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment because they told him that Carl, the young son of the victim, had pointed to
because the judgment of conviction did not provide for such penalty in case of him as the perpetrator, making him the primary suspect; that he had replied
non-payment of fine. that he had had nothing to do with the crime; and that he had assured the
police officers that he had never been involved in any wrongdoing in his years
CA: It dismissed the petition as it was filed without the intervention of the of living in the neighborhood.
OSG contrary to the Administrative Code.
RTC: Guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 293 and
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent may undergo subsidiary imprisonment for punished under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
failure to pay the fine – NO.
CA: Affirmed conviction of Esugon.
RULING: The first paragraph of article 39 of the Revised Penal Code states: ISSUE: Whether Esugon may be convicted of robbery with homicide.
“If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in
paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary RULING: Yes. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the
personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the Prosecution must prove the concurrence of the following elements, namely:
following rules: ...” Also, Article 78 of Chapter V of the Revised Penal Code, (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to
which deals with the execution and service of penalties, provides: “No penalty gain;(3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) the
shall executed except by virtue of a final judgment.” No person may be crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed on the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 5
occasion or by reason of the robbery. A conviction requires certitude that the 2) Does Article 48 (complex crimes) apply to acts penalized under Article 365
robbery is the main objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely of the Revised Penal Code (reckless imprudence, a quasi-crime)?
incidental to the robbery.
RULING: 1) Yes. The doctrine is that reckless imprudence under Article 365
TThe CA has indicated that the appellant carried a long-bladed weapon. The is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other
fact that the appellant was armed with the long-bladed weapon, which was crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent
undoubtedly a deadly weapon, competently proved the presence of violence or prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts.
intimidation against persons that qualified the offense as robbery instead of This is undergirded this Court’s unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double
theft. For sure, too, the patent intent of the appellant was originally to commit jeopardy as applied to Article 365.
robbery, with the homicide being committed only in the course or on the
occasion of the perpetration of the robbery. As the records show, Dennis Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a
(husband of the victim was awakened by someone shouting “Magnanakaw!” specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again
The shout was most probably made by the victim, whom the appellant then for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence
stabbed in order to facilitate his escape. Considering that the original criminal under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an
design to rob had been consummated with the taking of the money amounting imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a
toP13,000.00, the killing of the victim under the circumstances rendered the felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. doubt of thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to
robbery with homicide. determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as
the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person
IVLER VS. MODESTO or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the
same, and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
FACTS: Following a vehicular collision, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner)
was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court with two separate offenses: 2)  We hold that prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single
(1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences. In imposing
No. 82367) for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the penalties under Article 365
(respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and for each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting
Damage to Property (Criminal Case No. 82366) for the death of respondent of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the
Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle. same first level court.
Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases.
To explain:
Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge in Criminal Case No. 82367 and was The confusion lies in the attempts to harmonize conceptually incompatible
meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner substantive and procedural rules in criminal law, namely, Article 365 defining
moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing him and penalizing quasi-offenses and Article 48 on complexing of crimes, both
in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless under the Revised Penal Code. Article 48 is a procedural device allowing
imprudence. The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two categories:
the two cases. (1) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (thus
After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration, petitioner elevated the matter to excluding from its operation light felonies); and (2) when an offense is a
the Regional Trial Court in a petition for certiorari (S.C.A. No. 2803). necessary means for committing the other. The legislature crafted this
procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving multiple
Meanwhile, petitioner sought from the MeTC the suspension of proceedings penalties, will only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most serious
in Criminal Case No. 82366, invoking S.C.A. No. 2803 as a prejudicial crime.
question. Without acting on petitioner’s motion, the MeTC proceeded with
the arraignment and, because of petitioner’s absence, cancelled his bail and In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a
ordered his arrest. felony but "the mental attitude x x x behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight x x x,"47 a single mental attitude
Relying on the arrest order against petitioner, respondent Ponce sought in the regardless of the resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one
RTC the dismissal of S.C.A. No. 2803 for petitioner’s loss of standing to quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences.
maintain the suit. The RTC dismissed S.C.A. No. 2803, on petitioner’s
forfeiture of standing to maintain S.C.A. No. 2803 arising from the MeTC’s The complexities of human interaction can produce a hybrid quasi-offense not
order to arrest petitioner for his non-appearance at the arraignment in Criminal falling under either models – that of a single criminal negligence resulting in
Case No. 82366. multiple non-crime damages to persons and property with varying penalties
corresponding to light, less grave or grave offenses. The ensuing prosecutorial
Petitioner laments the RTC’s failure to reach the merits of his petition in dilemma is obvious: how should such a quasi-crime be prosecuted? Should
S.C.A. 2803. Invoking jurisprudence, petitioner argues that his constitutional Article 48’s framework apply to "complex" the single quasi-offense with its
right not to be placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense multiple (non-criminal) consequences (excluding those amounting to light
bars his prosecution in Criminal Case No. 82366, having been previously offenses which will be tried separately)? Or should the prosecution proceed
convicted in Criminal Case No. 82367 for the same offense of reckless under a single charge, collectively alleging all the consequences of the single
imprudence charged in Criminal Case No. 82366. Petitioner submits that the quasi-crime, to be penalized separately following the scheme of penalties
multiple consequences of such crime are material only to determine his under Article 365?
penalty.
In view of the foregoing, either (1) we allow the "complexing" of a single
Respondent Ponce finds no reason for the Court to disturb the RTC’s decision quasi-crime by breaking its resulting acts into separate offenses (except for
forfeiting petitioner’s standing to maintain his petition in S.C.A. 2803. On the light felonies), thus re-conceptualize a quasi-crime, abandon its present
merits, respondent Ponce calls the Court’s attention to jurisprudence framing under Article 365, and treat the multiple consequences of a quasi-
holding that light offenses (e.g. slight physical injuries) cannot be crime as separate intentional felonies defined under Titles 1-13, Book II under
complexed under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code with grave or less the penal code; or (2) we forbid the application of Article 48 in the
grave felonies (e.g. homicide). Hence, the prosecution was obliged to prosecution and sentencing of quasi-crimes, require single prosecution of all
separate the charge in Criminal Case No. 82366 for the slight physical the resulting acts regardless of their number and severity, separately penalize
injuries from Criminal Case No. 82367 for the homicide and damage to each as provided in Article 365, and thus maintain the distinct concept of
property. quasi-crimes as crafted under Article 365.

ISSUES: 1) Was there double jeopardy in this case?

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 6

 In the first method: We apply Article 48 by "complexing" one quasi-crime  Miraculously, almost all of its passengers, with the exception of Rolando
with its multiple consequences unless one consequence amounts to a light
Tugadi. Marlon Tugadi tried to pull his brother Rolando Tugadi from the
felony, in which case charges were split by grouping, on the one hand,
vehicle to safety only to realize that he was not only too heavy, he was already
resulting acts amounting to grave or less grave felonies and filing the charge
dead. As the pursuing gunmen drew near, Marlon decided to abandon Rolando
with the second level courts and, on the other hand, resulting acts amounting
and scampered away with the other victims until they reached a bushy area
to light felonies and filing the charge with the first level courts. Expectedly,
about fifteen (15) meters away from the vehicle.
this is the approach the MeTC impliedly sanctioned (and respondent Ponce
invokes), even though under Republic Act No. 7691, the MeTC has now  The fire engulfed the jeep, illuminated the malefactors who stood nearby and
exclusive original jurisdiction to impose the most serious penalty under watched it blaze.
Article 365 which is prision correccional in its medium period.  It could not be determined whether the accused purposely set the vehicle on
fire or the fuel tank was hit during the shooting that ignited the fire. Marlon
In the second method: We nix Article 48 and sanction a single prosecution of Tugadi and Pepito Tugadi later heard one of the unidentified companions of
all the effects of the quasi-crime collectively alleged in one charge, regardless accused-appellant Sanidad say to him: "My gosh, we were not able to kill all
of their number or severity, penalizing each consequence separately. of them."10 Thereafter, the accused left the scene, firing their guns
indiscriminately into the air as they walked away.11
The second method prevails. Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed
from a single charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences.  An Information for murder with multiple attempted murder and malicious
In imposing penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the penalties mischief was filed against Jimmel Sanidad, Ponce Manuel alias Pambong,
under Article 365 for each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there John Doe and Peter Doe. 
shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one information  RTC: convicted them to death. 
shall be filed in the same first level court.
 SC: We affirm the conviction. We find that the prosecution succeeded
By prohibiting the splitting of charges under Article 365, irrespective of the overwhelmingly in meeting the quantum of proof required to overturn the
number and severity of the resulting acts, rampant occasions of constitutional presumption of innocence. 
constitutionally impermissible second prosecutions are avoided, not to  We fully agree with the lower court that the instant case comes within the
mention that scarce state resources are conserved and diverted to proper use. purview of Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code which, speaking of complex
crimes, provides that when "a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the
stronger and simpler protection of their constitutional right under the Double other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum
Jeopardy Clause. True, they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the period." 
favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but any disadvantage thus
caused is more than compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for
 In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they
constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of
quasi-crime effects qualifying as "light offenses" (or, as here, for the more
the offender.25
serious consequence prosecuted belatedly).
 Although several independent acts were performed by the accused in
PEOPLE VS. SANIDAD firing separate shots from their individual firearms, it was not possible to
determine who among them actually killed victim Rolando Tugadi. 
FACTS:  Moreover, there is no evidence that accused-appellants intended to fire at each
 On 16 January 1999 at around five o'clock in the afternoon Marlon Tugadi and every one of the victims separately and distinctly from each other. On the
with 8 others left Budac, Tagum, Abra, on board a passenger jeepney driven contrary, the evidence clearly shows a single criminal impulse to kill Marlon
by Delfin Tadeo to attend a barangay fiesta in the neighboring town of Tugadi's group as a whole. 26 Thus, one of accused-appellants exclaimed in
Lagangilang, Abra.  frustration after the ambush: "My gosh, we were not able to kill all of
 They joined the residents in the drinking spree where in the course of their them." Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose,
their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a
conviviality, accused Sanidad, Ponce Manuel and several other residents
single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a single complex offense.28
joined the drinking that lasted until wee hours in the morning. 
 Marlon Tugadi and accused Jimmel Sanidad were drinking buddies and WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo of 26 July 2000 finding
members of the CAFGU before then. accused-appellants JIMMEL SANIDAD and PONCE MANUEL
 At 4 AM, Sanidad and his companions finished drinking and left. Then the alias PAMBONG guilty of the complex crime of murder and multiple
group of Tugadi also headed home boarding same jeepney. attempted murder and imposing upon them the supreme penalty of DEATH is
AFFIRMED.
 Seated next to Delfin in front were Ricardo Tadeo and Rolando Tugadi, while
on the left rear seat were Marlon Tugadi, Jun Quipay and Raymund PEOPLE VS. GONZALES
Fontanilla. Seated on the right rear seat were Bobby Velasquez, Dennis G.R. No. 139542; June 21, 2001
Balueg, Edwin Tumalip and Pepito Tugadi.
 With Delfin Tadeo on the wheels the jeepney cruised the rough and gravelly FACTS: On October 31, 1998 at about 2:30 p.m., the families of Noel Andres
dirt road of Abra-Cervantes with its passengers completely unaware that and herein accused-appellant were both on their way to the exit of the Loyola
danger lurked ahead in the dark and dreary stretch of the road. The jeepney's Memorial Park. At the intersection point, the cars they were driving almost
headlights sharply ablaze and glaring illuminated the path and radiated collided. Later on, when Andres found an opportunity, he cut Gonzalez off,
towards the lush vegetation of the surrounding landscape. disembarked from his car and went over to Gonzales’. Altercation then
 As the jeepney approached a plantation, its headlights beamed at accused- ensued. Meanwhile, Dino Gonzalez, son of Inocencio, entered the scene in
appellants Jimmel Sanidad, Ponce Manuel and two (2) other unidentified defense of his father. Fearing that his son was in danger, Gonzalez took out
companions who were positioned next to a mango tree at the left side of the the gun which was already in his car compartment. Upon seeing his father,
road approximately fifteen (15) meters away. Accused-appellants were armed Gonzalez’s daughter, Trisha, hugged her father and in the process held his
with an armalite, a .45 caliber pistol and shotguns with buckshots.  hand holding the gun. The appellant tried to free his hand and with Trisha’s
substantial body weight pushing against him the appellant lost his balance and
 As the jeepney moved closer, the unleashed a volley of shots at the
the gun accidentally fired. Feliber Andres, Noel’s wife, was shot to death
jeepney. Delfin stepped on the gas in a vain effort to elude their assailants, but while their son, Kenneth and nephew Kevin were wounded.
they continued firing at the hapless victims. Bullets plowed the side of the
vehicle and all the passengers sitting at the back instinctively ducked on the
floor to avoid being hit. The accused pursued the vehicle on foot and fired at it The trial court found the accused guilty of the complex crime of murder and
incessantly until it finally stalled a few meters away. (AMBUSHED) two counts of frustrated murder and accordingly sentenced him to death.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 7
Accused were also ordered to pay for civil liabilities to the heirs of Mrs. killed on the spot while another trainee died a few days after the incident.
Andres, and the parents of Kevin Valdez. Eleven (11) other trainees were seriously wounded and some sustained minor
injuries. The accused escaped after the incident, leaving behind the victims
helpless.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error when it
found treachery was present in the commission of the crime. The trial court convicted Glenn de los Santos of the crime of multiple murder,
2. Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to multiple frustrated murder, and multiple attempted murder, with use of motor
appreciate voluntary surrender, passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense vehicle as the qualifying circumstance.
of a relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong be considered as
mitigating circumstances. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an intent to kill or injure the jogging the
trainees or was it reckless imprudence.
RULINGS: 1. It has been consistently held by this court that chance HELD: The conclusion of the trial court and the OSG that the accused
encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment or intentionally rammed and hit the jogging trainees was premised on the
that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by assumption that despite the first bumping thuds, he continued to accelerate his
treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a vehicle instead of applying his brakes, as shown by the absence of brake
treacherous mode of attack. Thus, the sudden attack made by the accused due marks or skid marks along the traffic scenes.
to his infuriation by reason of the victim’s provocation was held to be without
treachery. Sudden attacks made by the accused preceded by curses and insults The defense, meanwhile, attributed the continuous movement of the vehicle to
by the victim or acts taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious or the reason that the Isuzu Elf truck, a huge vehicle, was moving fast that even
aggressive behavior of the victim were held to be without treachery as the if the brakes were applied, the truck would have still proceeded further on
victim was sufficiently forewarned of reprisal. For the rules on treachery to account of its own momentum, albeit at a reduced speed, and would have
apply the sudden attack must have been preconceived by the accused, stopped only after a certain distance.
unexpected by the victim and without provocation on the part of the latter. We
affirm the recommendation of the Solicitor-General that the shooting was not It is a well-entrenched rule that if the inculpatory facts are capable of two or
more explanations – one consistent with the innocence or lesser degree of
attended by treachery and accordingly the crime committed for the death of
liability of the accused, and the other consistent with his guilt or graver
Feliber Andres is homicide and not murder.
responsibility – the Court should adopt the explanation which is more
favorable to the accused.
2. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, passion and
obfuscation, incomplete defense of a relative and lack of intent to commit so The Court was convinced that the incident, tragic though it was in light of the
grave a wrong, pleaded by the defense, were not convincingly proved and number of persons killed and seriously injured, was an accident and not an
none can be considered in the imposition of penalties. The testimony of intentional felony. It is significant to note that there is no shred of evidence
that Glenn de los Santos had anything against the police trainees that would
prosecution witness contradicts the appellant’s pretense of voluntary
drive him into deliberately hitting them with intent to kill. Although proof of
surrender.
motive is not indispensable to a conviction especially where the assailant is
positively identified, such proof is important in determining which of two
The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. conflicting theories of the incident is more likely to be true.
Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong
committed and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime Considering that the incident was not a product of a malicious intent but rather
committed. The sufficiency of provocation varies according to the the result of a single act of reckless driving, the accused should be guilty of
circumstances of the case. The aggressive behavior of Noel Andres towards the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with
serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries.
the appellant and his son may be demeaning or humiliating but it is not
sufficient provocation to shoot at the complainant’s vehicle.
REODICA VS CA
 
The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete FACTS: Petitioner Isabelita Reodica was driving a van along Doña Soledad
defense of a relative is also unmeritorious since the act of Andres in cursing Avenue, Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque, Metro Manila. Allegedly
and shouting at the appellant and his son do not amount to an unlawful because of her recklessness, her van hit the car of complainant Norberto
aggression against them, Dino Gonzalez. Bonsol. As a result, complainant sustained physical injuries, while the damage
to his car amounted to P8,542.00. Hence, the complainant filed an information
charging petitioner with "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to
Finally, the plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of
Property with Slight Physical Injury." 
intent to commit so grave a wrong is likewise devoid of merit. This mitigating
circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means
The RTC of Makat rendered a decision convicting petitioner of the "quasi
employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime
offense of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with slight
committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the
physical injuries”, and sentencing her:
crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and
[t]o suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, and to pay the
the injury sustained by the victim. The appellant’s use of a gun, although not
complainant, Norberto Bonsol y Atienza, the sum of Thirteen Thousand Five
deliberately sought nor employed in the shooting, should have reasonably
Hundred Forty-Two (P13,542), Philippine Currency, without subsidiary
placed the appellant on guard of the possible consequences of his act. The use
impairment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. 
of a gun is sufficient to produce the resulting crimes committed.

PEOPLE VS. DE LOS SANTOS The trial court justified imposing a 6-month prison term in this wise:
355 SCRA 415 As a result of the reckless imprudence of the accused, complainant suffered
slight physical injuries (Exhs. D, H and I). In view of the resulting physical
FACTS: In the early morning of October 5, 1995, at the Maitum Highway in injuries, the penalty to be imposed is not fine, but imprisonment (Gregorio,
Cagayan de Oro City, a team of PNP members who were undergoing a Special Fundamental of Criminal Law Review, Eight Edition 1988, p. 711). Slight
Training Course, wearing black T-shirts and black short pants, were physical injuries thru reckless imprudence is now punished with penalty of
performing an “Endurance Run” of 35 km coming from their camp in Manolo arresto mayor in its maximum period.
Fortich, Bukidnon and heading to Regional Training Headquarters in Camp
Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City, running in a column of three with a distance of The CA affirmed.
two feet or less from one another. The group was jogging on the right side of
the lane. Petitioner avers that the courts below should have pronounced that there were
two separate light felonies involved, namely: (1) reckless imprudence with
The accused, Glenn de los Santos, driving an Isuzu Elf, hit and killed
slight physical injuries; and (2) reckless imprudence with damage to property,
members of the jogging PNP team. As a result, some PNP members were
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 8
instead of considering them a complex crime. Two light felonies, she insists, rebellion, whereas the information against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder
"do not . . . rate a single penalty of arresto mayor or imprisonment of six and frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of
months.” She then suggests that "at worst, the penalties of two light offenses, rebellion. Stated otherwise, the Solicitor General would distinguish between
both imposable in their maximum period and computed or added together, the complex crime ("delito complejo") arising from an offense being a
only sum up to 60 days imprisonment and not six months as imposed by the necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the second
lower courts." clause of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, and is the subject of the Hernandez
ruling, and the compound crime ("delito compuesto") arising from a single
ISSUE: Whether the rule on complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised act constituting two or more grave or less grave offenses referred to in the first
Penal Code applies to the quasi offenses in question. clause of the same paragraph, with which Hernandez was not concerned and
to which, therefore, it should not apply.
RULING: III. Applicability of the Rule on Complex Crimes.
Since criminal negligence may, as here, result in more than one felony, should The parties' oral and written pleas presented the Court with the following
Article 48 of the Revised Code on complex crimes be applied? Article 48 options:
provides as follows: (a) abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view expressed in the main
dissent of Justice Montemayor in said case that rebellion cannot absorb more
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or serious crimes, and that under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code rebellion
more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is necessary a means for may properly be complexed with common offenses, so-called; this option was
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, suggested by the Solicitor General in oral argument although it is not offered
the same to be applied in its maximum period. in his written pleadings;
(b) hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses committed in furtherance, or
Clearly, if a reckless, imprudent or negligent act results in two or more grave as a necessary means for the commission, of rebellion, but not to acts
or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. However, in Lontok v. committed in the course of a rebellion which also constitute "common" crimes
Gorgonio, 27 this Court declared that where one of the resulting offenses in of grave or less grave character;
criminal negligence constitutes a light felony, there is no complex crime, thus: (c) maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion absorb all other
offenses committed in its course, whether or not necessary to its commission
Applying article 48, it follows that if one offense is light, there is no complex or in furtherance thereof. 
crime. The resulting offenses may be treated as separate or the light felony
may be absorbed by the grave felony. Thus, the light felonies of damage to ISSUE: WON the crime charged against Petitioners is a Complex Crime of
property and slight physical injuries, both resulting from a single act of Rebellion or a Compound Crime
imprudence, do not constitute a complex crime. They cannot be charged in
one information. They are separate offenses subject to distinct penalties. RULING On the first option, eleven (11) Members of the Court voted against
abandoning Hernandez. Two (2) Members felt that the doctrine should be re-
Where the single act of imprudence resulted in double less serious physical examined. In the view of the majority, the ruling remains good law, its
injuries, damage to property amounting to P10,000 and slight physical substantive and logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and no
injuries, a chief of police did not err in filing a separate complaint for the new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete
slight physical injuries and another complaint for the lesiones menor graves reversal.
and damage to property. 
On the second option, the Court unanimously voted to reject the theory that
Hence, the trial court erred in considering the following felonies as a complex Hernandez is, or should be, limited in its application to offenses committed as
crime: the less grave felony of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to a necessary means for the commission of rebellion and that the ruling should
property in the amount of P8,542.00 and the light felony of reckless not be interpreted as prohibiting the complexing of rebellion with other
imprudence resulting in physical injuries. common crimes committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, thereof

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, JUAN Article 48, as is made clear by the following excerpt from the majority
PONCE ENRILE vs. JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR opinion in that case: There is one other reason-and a fundamental one at that-
why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If
FACTS:  1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished
on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of RTC QC in separately (assuming that this could be done), the following penalties would
Criminal Case. The warrant had issued on an information charging Senator be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine
Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period,
the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12
committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in
December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances
NBI without bail, none having been recommended in the information and present. in other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the
none fixed in the arrest warrant. Then, he was brought to Camp Tomas extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48
Karingal in Quezon City. said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a
Senator Enrile filed the petition for habeas corpus alleging that he was single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in
deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having been: conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the
(a) held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute movant.
books;
(b) charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the purpose of favoring
was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than that which
denied due process; would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished
(c) denied his right to bail; and separately.
(d) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge
who issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable We are aware of the fact that this observation refers to Article 71 (later 75) of
cause. the Spanish Penal Code (the counterpart of our Article 48), as amended in
1908 and then in 1932, inserted in said amendment, restricting the imposition
Solicitor General filed a return for the respondents and urged that the of the penalty for the graver offense in its maximum period to the case when it
petitioners' case does not fall within the Hernandez ruling because-and this is does not exceed the sum total of the penalties imposable if the acts charged
putting it very simply-the information in Hernandez charged murders and were dealt with separately. The absence of said limitation in our Penal Code
other common crimes committed as a necessary means for the commission of does not, to our mind, affect substantially the spirit of said Article 48. Indeed,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 9
if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a filing a petition to be admitted to bail, claiming a right to bail per se by reason
punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put of the weakness of the evidence against him. Only after that remedy was
together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case, denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court have been
imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose invoked, and even then, not without first applying to the Court of Appeals if
than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each appropriate relief was also available there.
offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of article
48 is readily discernible. When two or more crimes are the result of a single Even acceptance of petitioner's premise that going by the Hernandez ruling,
act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes the information charges a non-existent crime or, contrarily, theorizing on the
thru separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime same basis that it charges more than one offense, would not excuse or justify
independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for his improper choice of remedies. Under either hypothesis, the obvious
the more serious one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total recourse would have been a motion to quash brought in the criminal action
of the separate penalties for each offense. before the respondent Judge.

The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary ruling of the FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Court reiterates that based on the doctrine
Court, which is that Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned information filed against
the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio
thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended must be read as charging simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are
effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right. The Court's earlier
grant of bail to petitioners being merely provisional in character, the
However, this does not write finis to the case. Petitioner's guilt or innocence is proceedings in both cases are ordered REMANDED to the respondent Judge
not here inquired into, much less adjudged. That is for the trial court to do at to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the petitioners. Once bail is fixed by
the proper time. The Court's ruling merely provides a take-off point for the said respondent for any of the petitioners, the corresponding bail bond flied
disposition of other questions relevant to the petitioner's complaints about the with this Court shall become functus oficio. No pronouncement as to costs.
denial of his rights and to the propriety of the recourse he has taken.

The Court rules that the information filed against the petitioner does in fact
charge an offense. Disregarding the objectionable phrasing that would
complex rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, that indictment
is to be read as charging simple rebellion. Thus, in Hernandez, the Court
said: In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended
information against defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders,
arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of
rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants, as means "necessary" for
the perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the crime charged in the
aforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies; that
the maximum penalty imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12)
years of prision mayor and a fine of P2H,HHH; and that, in conformity with
the policy of this court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar
punishment, said defendant may be allowed bail.

The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime that does not
exist in the statute books, while technically correct so far as the Court has
ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with other offenses committed
on the occasion thereof, must therefore be dismissed as a mere flight of
rhetoric. Read in the context of Hernandez, the information does indeed
charge the petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised
Penal Code: simple rebellion.
Was the petitioner charged without a complaint having been initially filed
and/or preliminary investigation conducted?

The record shows otherwise, that a complaint against petitioner for simple
rebellion was filed by the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation,
and that on the strength of said complaint a preliminary investigation was
conducted by the respondent prosecutors, culminating in the filing of the
questioned information. There is nothing inherently irregular or contrary
to law in filing against a respondent an indictment for an offense different
from what is charged in the initiatory complaint, if warranted by the
evidence developed during the preliminary investigation.

In the light of the Court's reaffirmation of Hernandez as applicable to

petitioner's case, and of the logical and necessary corollary that the
information against him should be considered as charging only the crime of
simple rebellion, which is bailable before conviction, that must now be
accepted as a correct proposition. But the question remains: Given the facts
from which this case arose, was a petition for habeas corpus in this Court the
appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial?

The criminal case before the respondent Judge was the normal venue for
invoking the petitioner's right to have provisional liberty pending trial and
judgment. The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested with said
respondent. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction by
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 02/07/2020 10