You are on page 1of 10

ASSAULT

1. PEOPLE v DOLLANTES (151 SCRA 592) June 30, 1987 G.R. 70639
FACTS
Marcos Gabutero at the time of his death was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Maglihe,
Tayasan, Negros Oriental. The Barangay Captain delivered a speech to start a dance for an
approaching fiesta in the evening of April 21, 1983. While the Barangay Captain was delivering a
speech, the accused Pedro Dollantes went to the middle of the dancing floor, making a dance
movement known in the visayan as "nagkorantsa", brandishing his knife and challenging everyone
as to who was brave among the people present; the Barangay Captain approached Pedro
Dollantes and reprimanded him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance. However, the accused,
instead of heeding to the advice of the Barangay Captain, stabbed the latter on the left arm .
Immediately thereafter, accused Hamlet Dollantes, who rushed towards the Barangay Captain,
stabbed the Barangay Captain at the back and the other co-accused also took turns in stabbing
the Barangay Captain; the Barangay Captain at that time was not armed. When the Barangay
Captain fell to the ground and died, the accused took turns in kicking the dead body of the
Barangay Captain and were dancing around said dead body. The Barangay Captain suffered
eleven (11) wounds in the different parts of his body, two of which happened to be at the back of
his dead body. According to the attending physician, Dr. Rogelio Kho who examined the body of
the deceased, the victim died of severe hemorrhage and cardiac tamponade due to stab wounds.
ISSUE
WON, the accused is guilty of the complex crime of assault upon a person in authority resulting to
murder
HELD
When a Barangay Captain is in the act of trying to pacify a person who was making trouble in the
dance hall, he is therefore killed while in the performance of his duties. As the Barangay Captain, it
was his duty to enforce the laws and ordinances within the Barangay and if in the enforcement
thereof, he incurs, the enmity of his people who thereafter treacherously slew him, the crime
committed is murder with assault upon a person in authority.

2. JUSTO v COURT OF APPEALS (99 PHIL 453) June 28, 1956 G.R. L-8611
FACTS
Nemesio de la Cuesta is a duly appointed District Supervisor of the Bureau of Public Schools
stationed at Sarat, Ilocos Norte. On October 16, 1950, he went to Laoag to answer a call from the
office to revise the plantilla of his district. At about 11:25 am, de la Cuesta was about to leave his
office to take his meal when he saw Severino Justo conversing with Severino Caridad, an
Academic Supervisor. Justo requested de la Cuesta to go with him and Caridad to the office of the
latter. In the office, Justo asked about the possibility of accommodating a certain Miss Racela as a
teacher. Caridad said that there was no vacancy except the position of shop teacher, Justo
abruptly said shet, you are a double crosser. One who cannot keep his promise, Justo grabbed a
lead paper weight and challenged de la Cuesta to go out. They left the office, when theyre in front
of the table of Carlos Bueno, de la Cuesta asked Justo to put down the paper weight but instead
Justo grabbed the neck and collar of the polo shirt of de la Cuesta, which was torn as a result.
Carlos Bueno separated de la Cuesta, but not before de la Cuesta had boxed Justo several times.
Justo argued that when de la Cuesta accepted his challenged to fight outside and followed him out
of the room of Mr. Caridad where they had a verbal clash, de la Cuesta disrobed himself of the
mantle of authority and waived the privilege of protection as a person in authority.
ISSUE
WON, the de la Cuesta is still a person in authority after accepting the challenge to go out and
fight
HELD
The character of person in authority is not assumed or laid off at will, but attaches to a public
official until he ceases to be in office. Assuming that the complainant is not actually performing the
duties of his office when assaulted, this fact does not bar the existence of the crime of assault
upon a person in authority, so long as the impelling motive of the attack is the performance of
official duty. Also, where there is a mutual agreement to fight, an aggression ahead of the
stipulated time and place would be unlawful since to hold otherwise would be to sanction
unexpected assaults contrary to all sense of loyalty and fair play.

3. PEOPLE v RECTO (367 SCRA ___) October 17, 2001 G.R. 129069
FACTS
On or about the 18th day of April 1994, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, in Barangay
Ambulong, Municipality of Magdiwang, Province of Romblon,SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male together
with Barangay Kagawad Macalipay, chairman of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC), conducted an investigation on stolen palay in the bodega of certain Rance. At this point,
Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto passed by and inquired. Barangay Captain Orbe told him that the
palay were stolen. Orbe requested Melchor Recto to stay as he might be needed.
While SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male were leaving the premises, the group of Julio Recto, Cornelio
Regis, Jr., Dante Regis, Melvar Relox, Teodoro de la Serna, Enrica Regis and Nida Regis arrived.
Barangay Captain Orbe advised them not to create trouble, but, Dante Regis pulled a piece of
wood and threw it towards them. Thereafter, Julio Recto, while holding a balisong or fan knife,
approached Orbe, stepped backward, opened his jacket and pulled out a gun, a de sabog and,
immediately pulled the trigger, hitting Barangay Kagawad Macalipay, causing him to fall down on
the ground. Then Cornelio Regis, Jr. approached the fallen Macalipay and flipped his bolo at the
latter who rolled and fell into the rice paddy.
Melchor Recto saw the shooting from his hiding place then ran inside the old dilapidated bathroom
of the bodega, then jumped out of the bathroom window and ran. While running, Julio Recto shot
him hitting the latter's thigh. Barangay Captain Orbe also got out of the bathroom and landed unto
the ricefield. Before he could take a step, he was also shot by Julio Recto at his right elbow, but
was still able to continue running.
ISSUE
WON, Recto is guilty of direct assault when he shot Melchor Recto knowing that the latter is a duly
appointed Barangay Chief Tanod
HELD
In the case at bar, the victim, Melchor Recto being then the barangay chief tanod of Ambulong,
Magdiwang, Romblon was clearly an agent of a person in authority. However, he was not
engaged in the performance of his official duties at the time he was shot. Neither was he attacked
on the occasion of such performance. Melchor Recto was on his way home when he happened to
pass by the bodega of the Rance couple.Unquestionably, Melchor Recto was a barangay
chief tanod; however, at the crime scene he was a mere bystander. Apparently, he was not acting
and had no occasion to act in the performance of his official duties that afternoon. Thus, the attack
on him did not amount to direct assault.The victim is considered a mere bystander even if he is a
Barangay Chief Tanod, an agent of a person in authority, if he is not acting and had no occasion to
act in the performance of his official duties. As such, the attacks on him do not amount to direct
assault.

4. PEOPLE v RODIL (109 SCRA 306) November 20 1981 G.R. L-35156

FACTS
Accused Floro Rodil was charged under an information that states that on April 24, 1971, with the
use of a double-bladed dagger, attacked and stabbed to death Philippine Constabulary Lieutenant
Guillermo Masana in Indang, Cavite, while Masana was in the performance of his official duties.
April 24, 1971, Masana; deceased, together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Philippine Coast Guard
serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and Patrolman Felix Mojica was having lunch inside a restaurant.
While inside, they saw through the glass window, the accused Rodil blowing his whistle. Lt.
Masana then in civilian clothing, accompanied by PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, went out of the
restaurant, approached Rodil and asked the latter, after Identifying himself as a PC officer,
whether the gun tucked in his waist had a license. Instead of answering, Rodil stepped backwards
and tried to draw his gun but Fidel immediately grabbed the gun and surrendered it to Lt. Masana.
The three went inside the restaurant. Masana and Rodil occupied a separate table. Masana
placed the gun on the table, pulled out a piece of paper and wrote a receipt for the gun and signed
it. He asked Rodil to countersign it, but he refused. Rodil asked Masana to return the gun but
Masana refused the plea. As Masana was about to stand, Rodil pulled out a double- bladed
dagger and stabbed Masana on the chest and stomach several times, which led to Masanas
death.
ISSUE
WON Rodil is guilty of a complex crime of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in
authority
HELD
While the evidence definitely demonstrated that the Rodil knew because the victim, who was in
civilian clothing, told him that he was an agent of a person in authority, he cannot be convicted of
the complex crime of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in authority for the simple
reason that the information does not allege the fact that the accused then knew that, before or at
the time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. Such knowledge must be
expressly and specifically averred in the information, otherwise, in the absence of such allegation,
the required knowledge, like a qualifying circumstance, although proven, would only be
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.

REBELLION
5. UMIL v RAMOS (187 SCRA 311)
FACTS
On February 1, 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt,
Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received by their office, about a
sparrow man (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound.
That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male sparrows who murdered
two (2) CAPCOM mobile patrols the day before, or on January 31 1988 at about 12 oclock noon,
before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The wounded mans
name was listed by the hospital management as Ronnie Javellon, twenty- two (22) years old of
Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Binan, Laguna. However, it was disclosed later that the true
name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was
transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined
thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM
mobile patrols.
ISSUE
Whether or not Rolando was lawfully arrested
HELD
The arrest was legal. Subversion is a continuing crime. Subversion and rebellion are anchored on
an ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness and violence
until the objective of overthrowing organized government is attained. As such, authorities, upon
determination of probable cause may execute a valid arrest pursuant to Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure.

6. PEOPLE v LOVERDIORO (250 SCRA 389) November 29, 1995 G.R. 112235
FACTS
Elias Lovedioro with three (3) other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while the latter
was walking along Burgos St. away from Daraga, Albay Public Market. SPO3 died on the same
died due to massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, Elias Lovedioro was charged of the crime
murder, and subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro appealed contesting the verdict of murder
instead of rebellion, since it was confirmed that he was a member of the New Peoples Army.
ISSUE
WON, Lovedioro was liable for the crime of rebellion instead of murder
HELD
In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for the courts to
ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political end. The political motive of
the act should be conclusively demonstrated as it is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are
duly proven otherwise if no political motive is established and proved, the accused should be
convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.

7. PEOPLE v GERONIMO (100 PHIL 90) October 23, 1956 G.R. L-8936
FACTS
On June 24, 1954 a certain Federico Geronimo, et. al. were charged with the complex crime of
rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping. In the information alleged, five (5) instances
including an ambush on Mrs. Aurora Quezons convoy, took Eighty Thousand Pesos (P 80, 000)
from the Provincial Capitol Building, burned and looted private buildings, shot and cut the neck of
said Nemesio Palo, ambushed and fired upon an Army Patrol and ending on February 1954 where
Geronimo killed Policarpio Tipay a Barrio Lieutenant. He pleaded guilty to the accusation and the
trial court found him guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and
kidnappings, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. He appealed questioning the decision whether
the crime committed by him is not the complex crime of rebellion but simply rebellion.
ISSUE
WON, rebellion be complex with murder, robbery or kidnapping
HELD
No. Not every act of violence is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it was
committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc. were
done for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be separately
punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion and the individual misdeed could not be
taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be
unrelated to each other. The individual crime would not be a means necessary for committing the
rebellion, as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter.

SEDITION
8. PEOPLE v UMALI (96 PHIL 185) November 29, 1954 G.R. L-5803
FACTS
The complex crime of which appellants Narciso Umali, et. al. were found guilty was said to have
been committed during the raid staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00- and 9:00 in
the evening of November 14, 1951, by armed men. The raid took place resulting in the burning
down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its content
valued at P24, 023, the house of Valentin Robles, valued at P10, 000 and the house of one
Mortega, the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio
Untalan, and the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five (5) civilians.
During and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing one
house and two Chinese stores; and that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the
town by the Philippine Army stationed in the town led by Captain Alzate.
ISSUE
WON, Umali, et.al. are liable for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated
murder, arson and robbery
HELD
No. The crime committed here was not rebellion but rather that of sedition. The purpose of the raid
and acts of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms, were not exactly against the
Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal
Code under rebellion, but rather, by means of force and intimidation, to inflict an act of hate or
revenge upon the person or property of a public official. The raiders did not even attack the seat of
the local government rather, the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc. one
object, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official.

R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002"
9. PEOPLE v BALIBAY ET. AL September 10, 2014 G.R. No. 202701
FACTS
On June 16, 2004, at more or less 1:30 oclock in the afternoon, at Barra, Macabalan, Cagayan de
Oro City, accused Edilberto Balibay Labis and Maricel Balibay Bijaan, were arrested for violation
R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" during a buy
bust operation. During trial, the prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: SPO1 Mariano
Durango, PO3 Danilo Radam, and PO1 Cotta Tanggote. However, PO1 Tanggote testimony failed
to ascertain the identity of the seized substance, and failed to establish the manner of handling,
storage, labeling and recording of the substance from the time it was seized until it was offered as
evidence in court as the substance contained unidentified markings and sealing.Further, the
evidence custodian, SPO1 Amacanim, was not presented in court, and due to his absence it
cannot be ascertain that the substance offered as evidence in court was the same substance
seized from the accused.
ISSUE
WON, the accused are guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
HELD
When there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance examined and
established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of
a prohibited drug. Failure to prove that the specimen allegedly seized from the accused was the
same one presented in court is fatal to the prosecutions case. The failure to identify the corpus
delicti with moral certainty, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The
chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handing, storage, labeling and recording, and
must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.

10. PEOPLE v SUMILI February 04, 2015 G.R No. 212160


FACTS
On June 7, 2006, the PDEA Iligan City Sub-Office received a report from a confidential informant
that certain Sumili was selling shabu. Acting on the same,SPO2 Edgardo Englatiera dispatched
SPO2 Diosdado Cabahug conduct surveillance on Sumili, which confirmed the truth of the report.
At around 5:10 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team headed to the target area.
Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer approached Sumilis house to buy shabu. After Sumili let the
poseur-buyer in, the latter gave the pre-arranged signal that the sale has been consummated.
Almost immediately, the buy-bust team stormed the house but Sumili escaped by jumping through
the window, throwing the marked money at the roof beside his house. The poseur-buyer turned
over the sachet of suspected shabu to SPO2 Englatiera, who marked the same with DC-1,
representing the initials of SPO2 Cabahug. SPO2 Englatiera then prepared a request for
laboratory examination and instructed Non-Uniform Personnel Carlito Ong (NUP Ong) to bring the
sachet together with the request to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
However, NUP Ong admitted in his testimony that he had failed to bring the sachet on the same
day as the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed on June 7, 2006, and since it was a Friday,
the delivery of the seized sachet was only done on June 9, 2006. It was only on June 9, 2006, or
two (2) days after the buy-bust operation, that NUP Ong was able to bring and turn-over the
seized sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory. However, contrary to their claims, June 7, 2006 is not
a Friday, but a Wednesday.
ISSUE
WON Sumilis conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld
HELD
When there was delay in the turn- over of the copus delicti to the PNP Crime Laboratory as it was
alleged that the date the illegal sachet was seized falls on a Friday and therefore the PNP Crime
Laboratory was closed but it appears that said date falls on a Wednesday, not on a Friday,
conviction must be immediately set aside. It must be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions
involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime
calls for the necessity of proving with the moral certainty that they are the same seized items.

You might also like