#LAWSCHOOLPH

[daphenominchief]

People v. Gutierrez [GR Nos. 147656-58 (09 May 2003)] 

A man appeals his conviction of three counts of rape, claiming consensual encounters, but the Supreme Court affirms the decision, emphasizing that the absence of physical injuries does not negate rape and that the victim's credibility and explanation for delay are sufficient evidence.

Facts:

Accused: Bernabe Gutierrez y Gutierrez

Victim: Gina V. Alcantara, his niece

Incidents: Occurred on July 24, 1999, July 30, 1999, and August 12, 1999

Location: Barangay Salaan, Mangaldan, Pangasinan

Circumstances: Gina and her sister Matet were living in Bernabe's house to care for their bedridden grandmother.

Allegations: Bernabe threatened Gina with a knife, forced her to undress, and raped her on three occasions.

Delay in Reporting: Gina did not report immediately due to fear for her life and her family's safety.

Disclosure: Gina confided in her uncle Boyet, who took her to her sister's house in Pasay City.

Formal Complaint: Filed on August 23, 1999; medical examination revealed hymenal lacerations.

Defense: Bernabe claimed the sexual encounters were consensual.

Trial Court: Found Gina's testimony credible, convicted Bernabe of three counts of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Appeal: Bernabe argued his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and cited several trial court errors.

Issue:

Jurisdiction: Did the trial court err in assuming jurisdiction over the three counts of rape despite alleged defects in the Informations?

Decision Clarity: Did the trial court fail to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which its decision was based?

Threat and Intimidation: Was the degree of threat, force, or intimidation sufficient to compel Gina to submit to Bernabe's advances?

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Did the prosecution fail to prove Bernabe's guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

Victim's Credibility: Did Gina's behavior after the alleged rapes undermine her credibility?

Medical Evidence: Was the trial court correct in concluding that the hymenal lacerations were consistent with Gina's allegations of rape?

Counsel's Diligence: Did Bernabe's counsel fail to exercise the required diligence in defending his client?

Ruling:

Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the Informations were sufficient and that the trial court had jurisdiction.

Decision Clarity: The Court found that the trial court's decision clearly and distinctly stated the facts and the law on which it was based.

Threat and Intimidation: The Court ruled that the degree of threat, force, or intimidation was sufficient to compel Gina to submit to Bernabe's advances.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court affirmed that the prosecution proved Bernabe's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Victim's Credibility: The Court held that Gina's behavior after the alleged rapes did not undermine her credibility.

Medical Evidence: The Court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that the hymenal lacerations were consistent with Gina's allegations of rape.

Counsel's Diligence: The Court found that Bernabe was bound by his counsel's conduct and that any alleged negligence did not warrant a different outcome.

Ratio:

Sufficiency of Information: The information was deemed sufficient as it contained necessary details, including the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense.

Decision Foundation: The trial court's decision was well-founded, clearly stating the facts and the applicable law.

Intimidation and Moral Ascendancy: The Court explained that intimidation and moral ascendancy, especially by a close kin, could compel submission without physical resistance.

Victim's Testimony: Gina's consistent and emotional testimony, despite rigorous cross-examination, was deemed credible.

Delay in Reporting: The Court noted that it is not uncommon for rape victims to delay reporting the crime due to fear and threats from the perpetrator.

Counsel's Conduct: The Court reiterated the principle that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct.

Sentencing: The Court upheld the trial court's imposition of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Damages: The awards for civil indemnity and moral damages were affirmed, but the award for exemplary damages was deleted due to the lack of an aggravating circumstance.

[eunbean-studies]

People vs. Temblor, 161 SCRA 623 (1988) - Case Digest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. VICENTE TEMBLOR alias "RONALD," defendant-appellant G.R. No. L-66884. May 28, 1988

Facts: Vicente Temblor was convicted of murder, sentenced to suffer reclusion perpertua, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim 12,000 pesos.

On December 30, 1980 at around 7:30 PM, Temblor bought a half-pack of Hope cigarettes from the store of Julius Cagampang adjacent to the latter’s house. While opening a pack of cigarettes, Cagampang was shot. Temblor and another person, Anecito Ellevera, demanded the victim’s wife to bring out her husband’s firearm. Temblor fired two more shots at the fallen victim. The wife gave a suitcase to Temblor who then took the .38 caliber revolver which was inside, and fled.

Temblor and Ellevera were admittedly members of the New People’s Army and hid in the mountains. He eventually surrendered and was then arrested. 

Issue: a.) Is the proof of  motive essential when the culprit was positively identified?

b. ) Is the flight of the accused considered an implied admission of guilt?

Ruling: a.) No, the appellant’s alleged lack of motive for killing Cagampang was rejected by the trial court which opined that the defendant’s knowledge that the victim possessed a firearm was motive enough to kill him as killings perpetrated by members of the NPA for the sole purpose of acquiring more arms and ammunition for their group which are prevalent not only in Agusan del Norte but elsewhere in the country. It is known as the NPA’s “agaw armas” campaign. Moreover, proof of motive is not essential when the culprit has been positively identified.

b.) Yes, the records further show that the accused and his companion fled after killing Cagampang and taking his firearm. They hid in the mountains of Agusan del Norte. Their flight was an implied admission of guilt.

Judgment was affirmed and the civil indemnity payable to the heirs of Cagampang was increased to 30,000 pesos. 

Subject: Criminal Law 1

Digest by: eunbean-studies

[thannxx]

I have decided to re-”launch” my other blog which I intended solely for everything about law school three years ago. I’ll be writing more about law school e.g, tips, experiences, perhaps even anecdotes, on  jouisdoctor.wordpress.com but my Tumblr account will remain for pictures 😁. Anyway I’ll be sharing the links to my blog posts in Wordpress here just in case you would like to see my writings. 

[abbythelawststudent]

Law Students from the Philippines!

I think there is a scarcity of law students from the Philippines here in Tumblr. It would really be great if I found them (or if they found me). My posts would probably bore them but it would really be nice to have a community that understands what you are going through. 

Do not get me wrong, I have friends. But I still find law school to be a very lonely journey. My friends from outside law school are busy with life. Plus, they do not really get what I am going through. On the other hand, friends from law school share your experiences but at the end of the day, we spend most of our times alone-- studying. 

This is why I wish to meet more law students from the Philippines here, through this platform, where I can interact with them even if I’m in my own little corner at home-- while studying. Hehe. :)

[thegirlcalledprincess]

Missin' the days when I had plenty of time for an after-class photoshoot. 😅 Oh well, caption still holds true. 😉 #lawschool #studying #photoshoot #xavier #lawschoolph (at Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan)

[whylaw]

❓What would you do if you know you can’t fail?

Recently, I revisited my tumblr account—I only created it but never really used it— and so I tried to search for law school related posts. I came upon a post made by an undergrad who applied for Ateneo Law this year (no updates yet but I’m really curious). He posted this question of: what would you do if you knew you can’t fail at anything? It was a really striking question because fear of failure puts a barrier before us.

Past me would say: Apply for that internship you wanted even tho it’s not required!!

Current me is now planning on taking the opportunities I want regardless of whether or not I’m ready.

I’ll never be ready. I’ll never be able to get out of the “I’m not ready” stage, to move on from branding myself as an amateur or a newbie, unless I actively get myself out of it.

#studyphilippines #studyph #lawstudentph #lawstudent #lawstudentlife #lawstudentproblems #study #studygram #studynotes #studywithme #studytime #studying #studyhard #studyingph #lawschool #lawschoolph #onlineclasses #notes #notestagram #studynotesph

[eunbean-studies]

United States vs. Lagnason, 3 Phil. 472, March 28, 1904

Facts: Dalmacio Lagnason, defendant-appellant, was convicted of treason under Section 1 of Act No. 292 and sentenced to death by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.

Lagnason was found to have led a band of men in arms against the United States. After the said band made an attack upon the pueblo of Marcia, they had an encounter with the Constabulary which lasted an hour and a half wherein the defendant-appellant was captured armed with a rifle, revolver, and a bolo.

Issues: (1) Does the act of the defendant-appellant constitute treason or rebellion? (2) If so, what penalty should be imposed on him?

Ruling:  (1) Both. Engaging in a rebellion and giving it aid and comfort amounts to levying a war within the meaning of Section 1 of Act No. 292, no matter how vain and futile the attempt.

(2)  The crimes of rebellion and insurrection constitute treason, but when treason consists in engaging in an insurrection or rebellion it is to be punished in accordance with Section 3 of Act No. 292.

Judgment was affirmed with a change of the penalty from death to ten years and a fine of 10,000 dollars as well as the costs.

Subject: Criminal Law 2

Digest by: eunbean-studies

[thannxx]

Starting tomorrow I will try to document my journey to the Bar exam, which shall consist of some study-with-me, as often as I can. This is supposed to be my last year in law school, I’m supposed to be part of Bar2021, but I decided to take a gap year because online classes amidst the pandemic have taken its toll on my mental health last semester and I would rather extend for one year than risk going down that miserable dark place again. I also heard some of my batch mates are planning to enroll on the second semester instead because they do not want to be “lab rats” as this is likewise the pilot semester of online review classes. I share this sentiment, except that I’m taking a year off because I’m extending anyway, might as well maximize my break lol. Nevertheless I’ll try to keep up with my batch mates in terms of review; some of my friends have already promised to share their notes in their review classes so I could keep up with the review even if I’m not enrolled. Plus, I still want to be productive despite the break; I believe finally entering review classes will become difficult if I remain “stagnant” for an entire year lol. Thus, I would like to share how I’m preparing for Bar Exam in 2022, primarily by reason of accountability lol. I’m also hoping I find other law students here whom I can (in a sense), study with 😅

[abbythelawststudent]

Failed Subject

As I have said in my previous post, I got my first ever failing grade recently. Actually, I took the subject a few semesters back but the grade was only released this summer. I did not lose it. Meaning I did not cry nor mourn over the grade. However, I actually felt empty, which I think is a lot more worse than crying about it. I told my Mom about it and of course, she was disappointed. 

You see, I am an on-and-off honor student back in elementary, high school and college. I never once failed. In fact, I was even a scholar in college. But I think the root of this kind of reaction is that I have been anticipating having a failed grade since day one of law school. It is not that I am excited about it but it is because before you enter law school, and even while in it, you will hear stories of failures and failed grades happening as early as the first year. My friends say that I am even lucky to have just gotten the failed grade on my second year. Well, as they say, it is the little things. 

My problem now is how to avoid it in the future.  As much as I wanted my mother to know and to understand that failing grades are part of law school, having those will put a strain on our finances. I know that this particular one may not be the last but I hope that I will be able to keep it at a minimum. 

[eunbean-studies]

Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil. 856, January 30, 1947

Facts: Anastacio Laurel filed a petition of habeas corpus on the grounds that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code for the following reasons:

The sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and

There was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.

Issue: Is the contention of the petitioner valid?

Ruling: No. 

(1) The sovereignty itself of the legitimate government or sovereign de jure is not suspended and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance. 

(2) The change of our form of government from Commonwealth to the Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people, for Article XVIII of the Constitution provides that, “The government established by this Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines.”

Petition was denied.

Subject: Criminal Law 2

Digest by: eunbean-studies

[eunbean-studies]

United States vs. Abad, 1 Phil. 437, October 22, 1902

Facts: Maximo Abad, defendant-appellant, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Marinduque of violation of oaths of allegiance as defined in Section 14 of Act No. 292 of the United States Philippine Commission. Abad, a former insurgent officer, denied to an officer of the United States Army the existence of certain rifles, which had been concealed by his orders at the time of his surrender, and of the existence and whereabouts of which he was cognizant at the time of the denial. 

The defendant-appellant appealed the CFI’s decision by  a motion of discharge under the amnesty proclamation which referred to offenses of treason and sedition.

Issue: Does the crime of treason include violation of oaths of allegiance?

Ruling: Yes. The offense of violation of oaths of allegiance, being one of the political offenses defined in Act. No 292, is included in the general words “treason and sedition”, as used in the proclamation.

In construing an executive act of the character of this proclamation, as in construing a remedial statute, a court is justified in applying a more liberal rule of construction in order to effectuate, if possible, the beneficent purpose intended. 

Motion was granted and the defendant-appellant was held to be entitled to the benefits of the amnesty proclamation.

Subject: Criminal Law 2

Digest by: eunbean-studies

[eunbean-studies]

People vs. Martin, 86 Phil. 204, April 25, 1950

Facts: Agaton Martin, defendant-appellant, was convicted of treason by the People’s Court on seven counts out of the initial 38 counts charged against him. Martin was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay 10,000 pesos as well as the costs.

Martin, by the testimony of at least two witnesses on each count, was found by the People’s Court to have been  involved in the apprehension of suspected guerillas during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines.

The defendant-appellant presented a defense of alibi and contented that the prosecution failed to establish his Filipino citizenship as an essential element in the crime of treason.

Issues: (1) Can the alibi of the accused in the crime of treason prevail over the testimony of witnesses?

(2) Has the prosecution established the Filipino citizenship of the defendant-appellant?

Ruling: (1) No. The defendant-appellant’s defense of alibi has nothing to support it except the doubtful testimony of his prison mates, which certainly cannot prevail over that of the witnesses for the prosecution who saw him commit different treasonous acts attributed to him and by whom he was clearly identified.

(2) Yes. The defendant-appellant’s prison record —its contents verified by him, shows him to be a Filipino citizen and it is sufficient proof of that fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Martin was found guilty of treason on three counts out of the seven he was initially convicted on, but this necessitated no change in the sentence imposed below so judgment was affirmed.

Subject: Criminal Law 2

Digest by: eunbean-studies

[eunbean-studies]

People vs. Adriano, 78 Phil 561, June 30, 1947

Facts: Apolinar Adriano, defendant-appellant, was convicted of treason by the People’s Court, sentenced to life imprisonment, and ordered to pay Php10,000 as well as the costs. 

The People’s Court found that Adriano, as a member of the Makapili, participated with Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in confiscation of personal property. No two of the prosecution witnesses testified to a single one of the various acts of treason imputed by them to the defendant-appellant. The witnesses referred to acts allegedly committed on different dates without any two witnesses coinciding in any one specific deed — they only agree on the item that Adriano was a Makapili and was seen by them in Makapili uniform carrying arms. 

Issue: Is the two-witness rule required for conviction of treason fulfilled in this case by the testimony of one witness who saw the defendant-appellant in Makapili uniform bearing a gun one day, another witness another day, and so forth?

Ruling: No, natural inferences, however strong or conclusive, flowing from the testimony of a most trustworthy witness or from other sources are unavailing as a substitute for the needed corroboration in the form of direct testimony of another eye-witness to the same overt act. 

This is based on the clear meaning of the two-witness provision of the American Constitution by which the Philippine law on treason finds its origin. 

The judgment was reversed and the defendant-appellant was acquitted with costs charged de oficio.

Subject: Criminal Law 2

Digest by: eunbean-studies

[eunbean-studies]

People v. Pimentel, 288 SCRA 542 (1998) - Case Digest

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, as Judge, RTC of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 148 and ANTONIO A. TUJAN, respondents. G.R. No. 100210. April 1, 1998

Facts: In 1983, Antonio Tujan was charged with subversion under R.A. No. 1700 or the Anti-Subversion Law upon which a warrant of arrest was issued. On June 5, 1990, Tujan was arrested on the basis of the warrant of arrest in the subversion case during which a .38 special caliber revolver and six rounds of live ammunition were found in his possession. He was then charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of subversion under P.D. No. 1866. Tujan filed a motion to quash invoking  protection against double jeopardy under Article III of the Constitution which was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Should the charge under P.D. No. 1866 be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy in view of the previous charge under R.A. No. 1700?

Ruling: No, the accused was not put in double jeopardy since they are different offenses. Subversion is charged under R.A. No. 1700, while the case of  Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in furtherance of Subversion is punishable under P.D. No. 1866. Thus, both charges can co-exist. 

Since R.A. No. 7636 totally repealed R.A. No. 1700, and since this is favorable to the accused, he can no longer be charged under R.A. No. 1700. Thus, the subversion case was dismissed. The information for  Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in furtherance of Subversion was deemed amended to Simple Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition.

Judgment was reversed and set aside. It was also ordered for Tujan to be released immediately from detention for the reason stated above unless he is being detained for any other offense.

Subject: Criminal Law 1

Digest by: eunbean-studies

[eunbean-studies]

Bernardo vs. People, 123 SCRA 365 - Case Digest

ISIDRO BERNARDO and CAYETANO BERNARDO, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent G.R. No. L-62114. July 5, 1983

Facts: Isidro Bernardo and his son Cayetano Bernardo were sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Br. VI to pay 2500 pesos each with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency for violation of Presidential Decree No. 772.

Isidro was a tenant of Ledda Sta. Rosa in her riceland and during which Isidro constructed a house for his family’s dwelling. Isidro subsequently left without Sta. Rosa’s knowledge but transferred his tenancy rights to Cayetano. Sta. Rosa eventually took possession of the whole riceland while the Bernardos stayed in their dwelling and refused to vacate.

Issue: Can P.D. No. 772 be applied in the case at bar?

Ruling: No, it is intended to apply only to urban communities, particularly to illegal constructions. No person should be brought within the terms of a penal statute who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made by the statute.

The petition for certiorari was granted, judgment of conviction was set aside and the criminal case was dismissed. 

Subject: Criminal Law 1

Digest by: eunbean-studies

[eunbean-studies]

Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 - Case Digest

MARIO GUMABON, BLAS BAGOLBAGOL, GAUDENCIO AGAPITO, EPIFANIO PADUA and PATERNO PALMARES, petitioners, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-30026 January 30, 1971

Facts: Gumabon, Bagolbagol, Agapito, Padua, and Palmares were sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the complex crime of rebellion with murder and other crimes. They now invoke the People v. Hernandez doctrine that the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, arson, and robbery was not warranted under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code — which was a ruling handed down after their convictions had become final. Since the petitioners’ convictions, each of them had served more than 13 years. Thus, this petition for habeas corpus.

Issue: Can the People v. Hernandez doctrine be applied retroactively to grant the petition for habeas corpus?

Ruling: Yes, once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the court that rendered judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the illegality of the detention. In the case at bar, it is the denial of equal protection. Based on Article 22 of the R.P.C. and Article 8 of the Civil Code, retroactive application is allowed. 

Petition for habeas was granted and it was ordered that petitioners be forthwith set at liberty. 

Subject: Criminal Law 1

Digest by: eunbean-studies