People vs. Godines 196 SCRA 765 Case Digest

49

People vs. Godines

196 SCRA 765

Facts:

The victim Estehr Ancajas, was sleeping/staying at one of the houses of Alejandro Vilaksia and she was awakened by a commotion from one of the adjacent room which were occupied by Vilaksi and his wife Milagros. She saw the accused talk to the couple and Godines hacked Milagros and took some money from them while co-accused Moreno stood by as look out. Complainant attempted to escape with her small child but the defendants caught her. They dragged her outside and as they forcibly brought her to a vacant lot they simultaneously fondled her private parts. When they arrived at the vacant lot, they took turns in having carnal knowledge with her while the other one was holding the small child.

The appellants insist that there are no conclusive medical findings that the complainant had indeed been raped.

Issue:  

Whether or not the crime of rape was committed

Held:

Yes.

Ratio:

A medical examination is not an indispensable element in a prosecution of rape. Further, the defense of alibi cannot prosper because the distance between the alleged whereabouts of the appellants at the time of the commission of the crime and the scene of the crime itself may be easily negotiated by ordinary means and in light of the positive identification of the accused as the authors of the crime.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

 

People vs. Alburo 184 SCRA 655 Case Digest

48

People vs. Alburo

184 SCRA 655

Jones Avenue and Colon Street

Image Source: Tripadvisor.com

Facts:

 Evelyn Cantina and her friends were going home from Abellana National High School. The driver, Ronilo Alburo – the accused, invited the three girls to board his jeepney. Initially they declined but they boarded soon after with Evelyn taking the front seat. When they reached the corner of Jones Avenue and Colon Street, Evelyn was about to alight but was prevented from doing so because Alburo threatened to raise her skirt. Her two friends were trying to pull her out but the green light turned on and the jeepney sped off. Her two friends realized that Evelyn was being prevented from leaving attempted to pull her out but did not succeed. Alburo did not heed Evelyn's plea. Instead, he pulled a knife and threatened to slash her side if she would disembark.

Alburo stopped the jeepney. Holding the knife, he went down from the jeepney and threateningly came close to Evelyn. He pushed Evelyn's head against the steering wheel which rendered the latter unconscious. When Evelyn regained her senses she found herself without her panty anymore. Blood was on her vagina and she felt pain on her stomach and she saw Alburo with his face close to hers, getting up from her then raising his pants.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of forcible abduction with rape

Held:

Yes

Ratio:

The SC is not persuaded by the theory that Appellant and Evelyn were sweethearts. In reviewing the evidence adduced by the prosecution for this crime of Rape, we have likewise been guided by three well-known principles, namely, (1) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weaknesses of the evidence for the defense.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

People vs Jose 37 SCRA 450 Case Digest

47

People vs Jose

37 SCRA 450

 Actual Image of the Trial

Image Source: ExecutedToday.com

Facts:

On June 26, 1967, Jaime Jose, together with 3 principal-accused; and with Wong Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon and Jessie Guion as accomplices, conspired together, confederated with and mutually helped one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena “Maggie” de la Riva, 25 years old and single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.

Issue:

            Whether or not the accused are liable for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape

Held:

            Yes.

Ratio:

As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the crimes committed, and the latter is the more serious; hence, pursuant to the provision of Art 48 of the RPC, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period. Consequently, the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

JOSE A. SADDUL vs CA 192 SCRA 277 (Case Digest)

JOSE A. SADDUL vs CA

192 SCRA 277 (Case Digest)

CrimLaw (No. 34)

G-one T. Paisones

Facts: 

In 1973, the petitioner became a vice-president and director of Amalgamated Motors (Phils.) Inc. (AMPI for brevity). AMPI was then a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Leyland. It was the sole distributor in the Philippines of British and Japanese heavy equipment, trucks, farm implements, spare parts, and other automotive products and machines manufactured by Leyland International, Land Rover Ltd. (LAND ROVER for brevity), Avelyn Barfourd, Mitsubishi, and Furokawa.

In 1985, LAND ROVER supplied P1.5 million worth of spare parts to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) through AMPI, but the merchandise were returned to AMPI because they were not the correct items needed by the AFP. The parts were kept by AMPI pending disposal instructions from LAND ROVER.

Saddul sold some of the spare parts (worth P143,085.00) to Rover Motor Parts (a different entity from LAND ROVER) whose president was Jose P. Garcia.  Saddul did not deposit the proceeds of the sales in AMPI's account but held them in trust for LAND ROVER.

Issue:

Whether or not Saddul is guilty of estafa through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidense?

Held:

No

Ratio:

The accused was acquitted of the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence for the following reasons: (1) Saddul received the spare parts from AFP in trust for Land Rover which authorized him to sell; (2) Saddul sold them in accordance with the authority given to him; (3) AMPI not being the owner of the property incurred no loss and suffered injury on account of Sadul’s retention of proceeds and; (4) no demand for return was made by AMPI who knew that the spare parts are to be sold for the account of Land Rover.

VICENTE S. ALMARIO v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES (532 SCRA 614)

VICENTE S. ALMARIO v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

532 scra 614

Facts:

            On October 21, 1988, petitioner, Vicente S. Almario (Almario), was hired by respondent, Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), as a Boeing 747 Systems Engineer.
On April 28, 1995, Almario, then about 39 years of age¹ and a Boeing 737 (B-737) First Officer at PAL, successfully bid for the higher position of Airbus 300 (A-300) First Officer.² Since said higher position required additional training, he underwent, at PAL’s expense, more than five months of training consisting of ground schooling in Manila and flight simulation in Melbourne, Australia.³
After completing the training course, Almario served as A-300 First Officer of PAL, but after eight months of service as such or on September 16, 1996, he tendered his resignation, for "personal reasons," effective October 15, 1996

Issue:

                Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that Article 22 of the Civil Code can be applied to recover training costs which were never agreed to nor included as reimbursable expenses under the Collective Bargaining Agreement

Held:

                No

Ratio:

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him, applies.

This provision on unjust enrichment recognizes the principle that one may not enrich himself at the expense of another. An authority on Civil Law³⁴ writes on the subject, viz:

Enrichment of the defendant consists in every patrimonial, physical, or moral advantage, so long as it is appreciable in money. It may consist of some positive pecuniary value incorporated into the patrimony of the defendant, such as: (1) the enjoyment of a thing belonging to the plaintiff; (2) the benefits from service rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant; (3) the acquisition of a right, whether real or personal; (4) the increase of value of property of the defendant; (5) the improvement of a right of the defendant, such as the acquisition of a right of preference; (6) the recognition of the existence of a right in the defendant; and (7) the improvement of the conditions of life of the defendant.