1. FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO. V. TOLENTINO SP05858. Theft and qualified theft are felonies.

A felony is an act or omission punishable by the RPC and not by special la s. 2. PEOPLE V. ECHEGARAY !acts" Rodessa #che$aray% the &ictim% as '0 years old at the time of the commission of rape sometime on April '((). The accused *eo #che$aray is the common la spouse of the &ictim+s mother% Rosalie #che$aray. The &ictim as alle$edly raped by the accused hile her mother as a ay in a $amblin$ session. The act of rape happened 5 more times. The &ictim reported this incident to her maternal $randmother. Amon$ the defense itness is the &ictim+s mother. She supported the defense of the accused that his massi&e penis could not ha&e penetrated the &a$ina of the &ictim. ,ssue" ,s the defense tenable.ecision" /o. The &a$inal all and the hymenal membrane are elastic or$ans capable of &aryin$ de$rees of distensibility. The de$ree of distensibility of the female reproducti&e or$an is normally limited only by the character and si0e of the pel&ic inlet% other factors bein$ minor. The female reprodructi&e canal bein$ capable of allo in$ passa$e of a re$ular fetus% there ou$ht to be no difficulty allo in$ the entry of ob1ects of much lesser si0e% includin$ the male reproducti&e or$an% hich e&en in its lar$est dimensions% ould still be considerably smaller than the full2term fetus. ,n rape cases% a bro3en hymen is not an essential element thereof. 18 A mere 3noc3in$ at the doors of the pudenda% so to spea3% by the accused4s penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape as full entry into the &ictim4s &a$ina is not required to sustain a con&iction. 19 ,n the case% .r. !reyra% the medico2le$al e5aminer% cate$orically testified that the healed lacerations of Rodessa on her &a$ina ere consistent ith the date of the commission of the rape as narrated by the &ictim to ha&e ta3en place in April% '((). 3. SCHNECKENBURGER V. MORAN !acts" !acts" Schnec3enbur$er% ho is an honorary consul of 6ru$uay at 7anila as subsequently char$ed in C!,2 7anila ith the crime of falsification of a pri&ate document. 8e ob1ected to this sayin$ that under the 6S and Philippine Constitution% the C!, has no 1urisdiction to try him. After his ob1ection as o&erruled% he filed a petition for a rit of prohibition to pre&ent the C!, from ta3in$ co$ni0ance of the criminal action filed a$ainst him. Aside from this% he contended that ori$inal 1urisdiction o&er cases affectin$ ambassadors and consuls is conferred e5clusi&ely upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines. ,ssue" 9:/ ori$inal 1urisdiction o&er cases affectin$ ambassadors% consuls% et. al. is conferred e5clusi&ely upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines. .ecision" ;The Supreme Court shall ha&e ori$inal and appellate 1urisdiction as may be possessed and e5ercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.< Accordin$ to Sec. '=. of Act /o. '>? and by &irtue of it% 1urisdiction to issue rits of quo arranto% certiorari% mandamus% prohibition and habeas corpus as also conferred on the C!,+s. As a

result% the ori$inal 1urisdiction possessed and e5ercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippines at the time the Constitution as adopted as not e5clusi&e of% but concurrent ith% that of the C!,+s. The ori$inal 1urisdiction conferred to SC by the Constitution as not an e5clusi&e 1urisdiction. 4. LIANG V. PEOPLE !acts" The accused a Chinese national ho as employed as an #conomist by the Asian .e&elopment @an3% hile the &ictim is a member of the clerical staff thereof. Accused as char$ed ith slander in the 7TC but as dismissed due to the ad&ice of the .!A that the accused en1oys immunity from le$al processes. The RTC ho e&er annulled said dismissal. Thus% the accused appealed to the SC. The SC affirmed the decision of the RTC% thus% this 7R. ,ssue" 9:/ the accused can be sued in this 1urisdiction. .ecision" Aes. The issue in this case% rather% boils do n to hether or not the statements alle$edly made by petitioner ere uttered hile in the performance of his official functions% in order for this case to fall squarely under the pro&isions of Section )5 BaC of the A$reement @et een the Asian .e&elopment @an3 and the Do&ernment of the Republic of the Philippines Re$ardin$ the 8eadquarters of the Asian .e&elopment @an3. 9e ruled% in essence% that the immunity $ranted to officers and staff of the A.@ is not absoluteE it is limited to acts performed in an official capacity. !urthermore% e held that the immunity cannot co&er the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of official duty. 5. RAQUISA V. BRADFORD !acts" Alle$in$ in their petition for a rit of habeas corpus% dated Au$ust >0% '()5% that they ha&e been and are bein$ Fconfined% restrained and depri&edF of their liberty in the Correctional ,nstitution for 9omen% petitioners% *ily Raqui0a% 8aydee Tee 8an Gee and #mma *in3 ,nfante% pray that the officers therein named% to it% *t. Col. *.H. @radford and Capt. ,ne0 *. T indle of the C,C% 6.S. Army% For hoe&er acts in her place or stead%F be directed to appear before this Court and produce the bodies of petitioners% and to sho cause hy petitioners should not forth ith be set at liberty. The three petitioners are detained for #spiona$e acti&ity for Hapanese% Acti&e collaboration ith the enemy% and Acti&e collaboration ith the Hapanese respecti&ely. This detention as in pursuance of the proclamation of the Commander ,n Chief of the 6S Army. ,ssue" 9:/ our court could ta3e co$ni0ance of the case. .ecision" /o. The po er of the Commander in Chief of the 6nited States Army to issue the fore$oin$ proclamation cannot be seriously questioned. ,n the case of the 6nited States Army of liberation% not only has the Common ealth Do&ernment as3ed% and the 6nited States Do&ernment a$reed% that it come and be stationed in the Philippines% but it is here for the &ery reali0ation of the o&errulin$ and &ehement desire and dream of the !ilipino to be freed from the shac3les of Hapanese tyranny% and to see this as brou$ht to a &ictorious end. ,f a forei$n army permitted to be stationed in a friendly country% Fby permission of its $o&ernment or so&erei$n%F

is e5empt from the ci&il and criminal 1urisdiction of the place% ith much more reason should the Army of the 6nited States hich is not only permitted by the Common ealth Do&ernment to be stationed here but has come to the islands and stayed in them for the e5press purpose of liberatin$ them% and further prosecutin$ the ar to a successful conclusion% be e5empt from the ci&il and criminal 1urisdiction of this place% at least for the time co&ered by said a$reement of the t o Do&ernments. At any rate% e do not thin3 that the petitioners are totally ithout remedy. 9e thin3 they may ha&e recourse to the proper military authorities by ma3in$ due representation to them. As to the contention that the ar has already ended% the SC held thus% 9ar% in the le$al sense% continues until% and terminates at the time of% some formal proclamation of peace by an authority competent to proclaim it. ,t is the pro&ince of the political department% and not of the 1udicial department% of $o&ernment to determine hen ar is at an end. . VALDE! V. LUCERO !acts" Petitioner Sil&erio Ialde0 assailed the 1urisdiction of the respondent 1ud$e of C!, and as3ed the SC to stop it from further proceedin$ ith the case. The main issue here is hether the ci&il courts ha&e 1urisdiction to ta3e co$ni0ance of and try the case for murder filed a$ainst petitioner Sil&erio Ialde0% as abo&e stated% because% he alle$es% he as not only a member of a reco$ni0ed $uerrilla and hence a member of the 6nited States armed forces in the Philippines% in /orth *u0on% but as also later on absorbed into the Philippine Army and therefore% he claims% he should be tried by a $eneral court martial% hich has 1urisdiction o&er the crime char$ed and the person of the accused pursuant to article (> of the Articles of 9ar BCommon ealth Act /o. )08C. ,ssue" 9:/ the ci&il court can acquire 1urisdiction o&er the case. .ecision" Aes. Drantin$ all the facts alle$ed by the petitioner and that he as a re$ular member of the $uerrilla duly reco$ni0ed by the 6nited States Army and $rantin$ further that his unit as incorporated into the 6nited States Army% thus $i&in$ him the standin$ of a re$ular member of the 6nited States armed forces% and that he as subsequently incorporated into the Philippine Army% e are of the opinion% ne&ertheless% that the ci&il courts of the Common ealth of the Philippines are not depri&ed of their 1urisdiction o&er the petitioner herein% but ha&e concurrent 1urisdiction ith the military courts or $eneral courts martial to try and ta3e co$ni0ance of the case of murder a$ainst the petitioner herein. The SC cited this case decided by the 6S SC% thus% ;Articles of War enacted Au$ust J(% '('?% do not deprive the civil courts, either in time of peace or war, of the concurrent jurisdiction previously vested in them over crimes against either federal or state law, committed within the United States, by persons subject to military law. ,n the instant case it also appears that hen the information for murder as filed the Philippines had already been liberated and the actual hostilities had already ceased. ,t is claimed% ho e&er% that up to the present time a status of ar still e5ists for the reason that the treaty of peace has not yet been si$ned. @ut this contention cannot be upheld because% althou$h the

formal termination of ar by means of the si$nin$ of the treaty has not yet been effected% at the time hen the petitioner as prosecuted for murder in the ci&il courts the actual fi$htin$ or hostilities ere no lon$er $oin$ onE in other ords% the actual fi$htin$ had already ceased and the Philippines had already been liberated. Thus it as held in the follo in$ decision" /ot ithstandin$ this section BArt. =)C% requirin$ a soldier to be deli&ered to ci&il authorities for trial for an alle$ed crime except in time of war, the jurisdiction of the military courts over a soldier is not exclusive of the civil court even during time of war, if the soldier as stationed ithin one of the states here the ci&il courts ere functionin$ and where no actual hostilities were in progress. B x parte Goester K'(JJL% J0? P.% '??E 5? Cal. App.% ?J'E emphasis added.C ". PEOPLE V. SMITH 8. PARDO DE TAVERA V. VALDE! !acts" The defendant as char$ed ith the crime of injurias graves under article )5= and )58 of the Penal Code for publishin$ in the ;7iau< in1urious matters a$ainst the complainant. 8e char$es the pri&ate prosecutor% ho had been then recently appointed a member of the 6nited States Philippine Commission% ith ha&in$ displayed co ardice at the time of the murder of his mother and sister and ith ha&in$ subsequently entered into intimate political relations ith the assassin. ,ssue" 9:/ the accused should be punished under the la e5istin$ durin$ the commission of the act or under the ne la hich is more fa&orable to the accused. .ecision" The question raised by the appeal of the pri&ate prosecutor relates solely to the propriety of the punishment imposed by the court belo . Article )58 of the Penal Code pro&ides that ;injurias graves% put into ritin$ and made public K hich is the present caseL shall be punished ith the penalty ofdestierro in its medium to its ma5imum de$ree% and a fine of from ?J5 to ?%J50 pesetas.< Act /o. J== of the 6nited States Philippine Commission ;definin$ the la of libel.< etc.% and reformin$ the pree5istin$ Spanish la on the sub1ect of calumnia and injurias affi5es to the offense of publishin$ a libel as defined in the act the punishment of ;a fine not e5ceedin$ MJ%000 or imprisonment for not e5ceedin$ one year% or both.< Section '> of the same act pro&ides as follo s" ;All la s and parts of la s no in force% so far as the same may be in conflict here ith% are hereby repealed" !rovided, That nothin$ herein contained shall operate as a repeal of e5istin$ la s in so far as they are applicable to pendin$ actions or e5istin$ causes of action% but as to such causes of action or pendin$ actions e5istin$ la s shall remain in full force and effect.< Althou$h the penal code in art. JJ pro&ides that Penal la s shall ha&e a retroacti&e effect in so far as they fa&or the person $uilty of a crime of misdemeanor%< etc.% still% the Pro&iso in the ne la is clear. 9. CO V. CA 1#. QUE V. PEOPLE !acts" Iictor Nue issued a chec3 that had bounced. To a&oid criminal liability% he ar$ued that he issued the chec3s in question merely to $uarantee the payment of

the purchases by Po erhouse Supply% ,nc. of the 7ana$er. ,ssue" 9:/ lac3 of criminal intent accused from incurrin$ criminal liability.

hich he is

ill pre&ent the

.ecision" /o. ,t is no settled that @atas Pambansa @ilan$ JJ applies e&en in cases here dishonored chec3s are issued merely in the form of a deposit or a $uarantee. The enactment in question does not ma3e any distinction as to hether the chec3s ithin its contemplation are issued in payment of an obli$ation or merely to $uarantee the said obli$ation. 9hat are important are the facts that the accused had deliberately issued the chec3s in question to co&er accounts and that the chec3s ere dishonored upon presentment re$ardless of hether or not the accused merely issued the chec3s as a $uarantee. ,t is clear that is the intention of the framers of @atas Pambansa @ilan$ JJ to ma3e the mere act of issuin$ a orthless chec3 malum prohibitum and thus punishable under such la .