crim 1 Case Digest Two Sets

of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  Page | 1 FIRST SET (10 CASES) CASE NO. 1 U. S. VS FOWLER, 1 PHIL 614 FACTS:  the defendants were accused of the theft of 16 champagne bottles worth US $ 20 while on board the vessel, “Lawton”. The counsel for defendants  asked to dismiss the case alleging that the Court of First Instance of Manila were without jurisdiction over the crime charged since it happened in the high seas and not in the city of Manila or in the territory in which the jurisdiction of the court extends. ISSUE:  Whether or not the CFI of Manila has jurisdiction over the criminal case theft committed on board while navigating on high seas on a vessel not registered in the Philippines. RULING:  No, the CFI does not have jurisdiction over the said criminal case. Under the law, the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on high seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. The English Rule further provides that such crimes are triable in our country when crimes are committed on board a foreign vessel sailing from a foreign port and which enters the Philippine waters. In the case at bar, the vessel Lawton was navigating the high seas at the commission of the crime. Given the location of the vessel at the time, such act is not triable within our jurisdiction. CASE NO. 3 MALI AND WILDENHUS VS KEEPER OF THE COMMON JAIL, 120 U. S. 1 FACTS:  A Belgian steamer, the Noordland, was docked in the port city of New Jersey. One night, a fight broke out on the ship and a Belgian crew member killed another Belgian crew member. The Jersey City police boarded the vessel and arrested the man who murdered the other crew member  — who was then committed to the common jail of the county, awaiting trial for murder. The Belgian consul for NY and NJ petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that under international law and the provisions of the Belgian-US Consular Convention, the offence should be handled under Belgian law. ISSUE: Whether or not NJ had the right to arrest and try the Belgian murderer. RULING: Yes, New Jersey had the right to arrest and try the Belgian murderer.  Art. 9 of a royal decree of the king of the Belgians provides that except in the case where the peace of the port shall have been compromised by the occurrence, the consul shall protest against every attempt that the local authority may make to take cognizance of crimes or offenses committed on board of a Belgian vessel by one of the ship's company towards one. (He shall take the proper steps to have the cognizance of the case turned over to him, in order that it be ultimately tried according to Belgian laws.) In this case, the crime of murder inherently disturbs the tranquility and public order on shore or in a port, and thus is to be regarded as falling within the exceptions in which the local authorities have the right to interfere. CASE NO. 5 U. S. VS LOOK CHAW, 18 PHIL 573 FACTS:  August 19, 1909, the Port of Cebu and internal revenue agent of Cebu, respectively, went aboard the steamship Erroll to inspect and search its cargo, and found two sacks containing opium. Subsequently, it was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it came from Hong Kong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports in Manila and Cebu. ISSUE: Whether or not courts of local state can exercise its jurisdiction over foreign vessels stationed in its port. RULING: Yes, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the matter. Under the law, the mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of its own nationality. However, the same rule does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippines. In the present case, a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon the Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime. Only the court established in the said place itself has competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty.  Page | 2 CASE NO. 7 MINUCHER VS CA, G.R. NO. 142396, FEBRUARY 11 FACTS:  Petitioner filed for damages, after having been acquitted by the court, against Arthur Scalzo who accompanied the Philippine police narcotic agents in the conduct of a “buy - bust operation” in the house of Minucher where heroin was said to have been seized. Scalzo on his counterclaims that he had acted in the discharge of his official duties as being merely an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice. ISSUE: Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic immunity. RULING: Yes, Scalzo is entitled to immunity. Under the law, a foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state. In this case, however, Scalzo conducted surveillance activities on Minucher, later acted as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then become a principal witness in the criminal case against Minucher. With such acts, Scalzo can hardly be said to have acted beyond the scope of his official function or duties. CASE NO. 9 U. S. A. VS GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644 FACTS:  The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base. Consequently, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to the petition for preliminary injunction on the ground that the action was in effect a suit against USA which had not waived its non-suability ISSUE:  Whether or not the petitioners were immune from suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of their official duties. (WON the petitioners can use State Immunity (Art. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution) as defense.) RULING: No, petitioners cannot use state immunity as a defense. While it is true that the “ State may n ot be sued without its consent”,  this principle, however, does not mean that at all times, the State may not be sued. There needs to be a consideration if they were indeed acting within the capacity of their duties, or if they enter into a contract with a private party. In this case, the court finds the barbershops subject to the concessions granted by the US government to be commercial enterprises operated by private persons. They are not agencies of the US Armed Forces nor are their facilities demandable as a matter of right by the American servicemen. Hence, petitioners cannot plead any immunity from the complaint filed by the private respondents.  Page | 3 SECOND SET (29 CASES) CASE NO. 1 PP VS GONZALES, G.R. NO. 80762, MARCH 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 309 FACTS: Fausta Gonzales and five others were all found guilty of murder for killing Lloyd Penacerada. All of them, except for Custodio Sr. withdrew their appeal. The decision of the trial court was based on the testimony of witness Jose Huntoria who said that appellant was indeed one of the attackers of the deceased. The lower courts rejected appellant’s alibi that he was asleep at that moment. ISSUE: Whether or not appellant was indeed guilty of the crime charged?  RULING: No, appellant is not guilty.  As stated under Arts. 3 and 4 of the Revised Penal Code, for one to be criminally liable, a felony should be committed. In this case, the Supreme Court found Huntoria to be an unreliable witness. Accordingly, he admitted during the cross-examination that he cannot determine the group of people stabbing the deceased, hence, failed to point definitely that appellant did the crime.  Also, the found that Huntoria was an interested witness as he was also the tenant of the deceased. His testimony was sought to ingratiate himself with the deceased’s family. The SC found appellant’s guilt not proven by reasonable doubt thus acquitting him. CASE NO. 3 US VS MENDOZA, 38 PHIL 691 FACTS: The present case was instituted against barrio-lieutenant Vicente Mendoza through an information for concealment of crime of arson, wherein accordingly, upon knowing the said occurrence, Mendoza ordered the junior lieutenant, to summon the accused. But when the latter appeared, said Mendoza took no action whatever, nor did he even report the facts to the proper higher authority, but, on the contrary, permitted the incendiary to return home. Consequently, it has been proved that the alleged incendiary, Bernabe Mangunay, was acquitted for lack of evidence. ISSUE:  Whether or not it is proper to maintain the charged against the defendant notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal actor in the crime. RULING: No, it is not proper to convict the defendant. Under the law, the responsibility of the accessory after the fact is subordinate to that of the principal in a crime. In this case, there are indications that the fire was accidental and, if so, the acquittal of the accused in the other case was perhaps due to the lack of proof of his guilt as an incendiary and to the fact that the acts charged do not constitute a crime. Therefore, upon this hypothesis, and because the alleged incendiary was acquitted, it is neither proper nor possible to convict the defendant, Mendoza, as accessory after the fact, of Bernabe Mangunay, who was acquitted of the said crime of arson. CASE NO. 5 PP VS SIA TEB BAN, 54 PHIL 52 FACTS:  Defendant was found guilty of qualified theft and habitual delinquency as he took the watch described in the information without the owner's consent, having been overtaken a few moments later by a friend of the offended party, who found the stolen watch on the appellant. ISSUE:  Whether or not appellant is guilty of the crime charged. RULING: Yes, appellant is guilty of the crime charged. Under Art. 1 of the Penal Code, the act penalized by the law is presumed to be voluntary unless contrary is shown. And from the appellant's felonious acts, freely and deliberately executed, the moral and legal presumption of a criminal and injurious intent arises conclusively and indisputably, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In this case, the Court found “ animus lucrandi  ” to have been sufficiently established, as the acts of the accused (one's intention may be gathered from one's deeds) unequivocally show.  Page | 4 CASE NO. 7 US VS PENALOSA, 1 PHIL 109 FACTS:  The accused were convicted in the lower court for the violation of Art 475 of the Penal Code, it appearing from the evidence adduced that the accused, Marcosa Penalosa, was not 21 years of age when she married the codefendant, and that she contracted the marriage without the consent of her father. Defendant contended that she believed that she was born in 1879; that so her parents had given her to understand ever since her tenderest age. ISSUE: Whether or not defendants shall be convicted for the said violation. RULING: No, defendants shall not be convicted.  Article 475 of the prevailing Penal Code provides that, any minor who shall contract marriage without the consent of his or her parents or of the persons who for such purpose stand in their stead shall be punished with prison correctional in its minimum and medium degrees. In this case, the conviction of the defendants has not been prayed for, and even if it had been, the court do not consider the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. Her husband had the right to accept the sworn statement of the woman. The only person whom she could ask for information was her father, and he had told her age repeatedly. CASE NO. 9 PP VS BERONILLA, 96 PHIL 566 FACTS:  Manuel Beronilla, and three others, file an appeal from the judgement of the Abra CFI, which convicted them of murder for the execution of Arsenio Borjal, the elected mayor of La, Paz, Abra (at the outbreak of war), which was found to be aiding the enemy. They were convicted on the grounds that the crime was made on purely personal motives and that the crime was committed after the expiration of time limit for amnesty proclamation. ISSUE:  Whether or not the defendant- appellants’ actions are covered by justifying circumstances for ob edience to lawful order of superior RULING: Yes, defendant- appellants’ actions are covered by justifying circumstances.   Art. 11 of the RPC provides that any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose do not incur criminal liability. In this case, the accused acted upon orders of their superior officers, which as military subordinates, they could not question and obeyed in good faith without the being aware of its illegality. Hence, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of the defense that arrest, prosecution and trial of Borjal was done in pursuant to express orders of superiors. CASE NO. 11 US VS AH CHONG, 15 PHIL 488 FACTS: One evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by someone trying to force open the door of their room. Ah Chong sat up in bed and called out twice, “Who is there?” but heard no answer. Suddenly, he was struck by the edge of the chair which had been placed against the door. Believing that he was being attacked, as there had been recent robberies in Fort McKinley, he seized a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow and wildly struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, Pascual. ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible.  RULING: No, Ah Chong cannot be held criminally liable. The rule is that one is not criminally liable if he acted without malice (criminal intent), negligence, and imprudence. In this case, the accused acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense. Had the facts been as he believed them to be, he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks