VIERNES vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No.156643

FACTS:
Three criminal Complaints, all dated August 21, 1997, were filed by Catherine Linatoc
(assisted by her mother Lina Dela Cruz-Linatoc) before Second Assistant City Prosecutor Danilo
S. Sandoval. In one of the complaint, the appellant was charged as follows:
That on or about the 29th day of September, 1996 at about 10:00 oclock in the morning
at Barangay Tibig, Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being then the common law husband of the mother of the victim, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation have
carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant who is a minor below 12 years old, against
her will and consent to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded to her
under the provision of the Civil Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Viernes is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation
of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Robbery Law of
1974

HELD:
Yes. After a considered review of the records of the case, the Court found that the guilt
of Viernes has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In crimes of robbery, the offender must be proven to have unlawfully taken personal
property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or
using force upon anything.
While the general rule is that contradictions and discrepancies between the testimony
of a witness and his sworn statement do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte
statements are generally incomplete, the rule is not without exception as, e.g., when the
omission in the sworn statement refers to a very important detail of the incident which the
one relating the incident as an eyewitness would not be expected to fail to mention, or when
the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AGOMO-O

G.R. No. 131829

FACTS:
The information charged against the accused herein provides as follows:
That on or about the 22nd day of September, 1993, along the national highway, in the
Municipality of San Enrique, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring confederating and mutually helping
one another, armed with a pistolized homemade shotgun and bladed weapons announced a
hold-up when the passenger jeepney driven by Rodito Lasap reached Barangay Mapili, San
Enrique, Iloilo, and by means of violence against or intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, take steal and carry away cash money, in the
amount of Php 50,000 and a wrist watch with a value of Php 3,000 both belonging to Jose
Amador, another amount of Php 130 belonging to Freddie Agrabio and the amount of Php 200
belonging to the driver, Rodito Lasap, with a total value of Php 3,380 to the damage and
prejudice of the aforesaid persons and on the occasion of said robbery, the accused, with
intent to kill shot the driver Rodito Lasap, with the firearms they were provided at that time
which resulted in the death of Rodito Lasap and with deliberate intent to kill likewise stab one
Freddie Agrabio with a bladed weapon they were provided thus hitting him on the left elbow,
thus commencing the commission of homicide directly by overt acts but did not perform all
the acts of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than their own spontaneous desistance.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the guilt of Agomo-o in the violation of P.D. No. 532 has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to the latter’s claim of inconsistencies and weakness of the
evidence against him; and
Whether or not Agomo-o’s alibi can prosper

HELD:
Yes. The inconsistencies referred to by the defense are inconsequential. The points that
mattered most in the eye witnesses testimonies were their presence at the locus
criminis, their identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime and their
credible and corroborated narration of accused-appellants manner of shooting Crisanto
Suarez. 
To reiterate, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses that refer to insignificant
details do not destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies even manifest truthfulness
and candor erasing any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the following must be established: (a) the
presence of the accused-appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the
offense; and, (b) physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime. These requisites
were not fulfilled in this case. Considering that accused-appellants themselves admitted that
they were in the same municipality as the place where the offense occurred, it cannot be said
that it was physically impossible for them to have committed the crime. On the contrary, they
were in the immediate vicinity of the area where the robbery took place. Thus, their defense
of alibi cannot prosper.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REANZARES

G.R. No. 130656
FACTS:
The facts of the case show that Spouses Gregorio and Lilia Tactacan are owners of
a sari-sari store. Sometime in 10 May 1994, at around 8 o’clock in the evening, the
proceeded to close their store and left for home on board a passenger-type jeepney
vehicle.
As Gregorio was maneuvering his jeep backwards from where it was parked, two
unidentified men suddenly climbed on board the said vehicle. The latter two asked that
they be dropped of in the town proper. Thereafter, Lilia informed the same that they
were not passing through town, to which the two men replied that they would alight at
the nearest intersection. However, about 500 meters from the intersection, the spouses
were robbed by the two men and Lilia was stabbed to death.
Thereafter, two informations were filed against the accused herein charching him
for the violation of P.D. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Robbery Law
of 1974, and the violation of R.A. No. 6539 (carnapping). Subsequently, he was found
guilty by the RTC for the first information.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant was correctly convicted for the violation of P.D. No. 532

HELD:
No. Conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were organized
for the purpose of committing it indiscriminately.  There is no proof in the instant case that the
accused and his cohorts organized themselves to commit highway robbery.  Neither is there
proof that they attempted to commit robbery as to show the “indiscriminate” perpetration
thereof.  On the other hand, what the prosecution established was only a single act of
depredation is not what is contemplated under PD 532 as its objective is to deter and punish
lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent
and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another.
Accused should be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide as
the allegation in the information are enough to convict him therefore.

SAYOC vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 157723

FACTS:
In the afternoon of 4 March 1999, Elmer Jaen (Jaen) was aboard a bus when a fellow
passenger announced a hold-up. Three (3) persons then proceeded to divest the passengers of
their belongings. Under knife-point, purportedly by a man later identified as Ricardo Santos
(Santos), Jaens necklace was taken by Santos cohort Teodoro Almadin (Almadin). The third
robber, Romeo Sayoc (Sayoc), meanwhile, reportedly threatened to explode the hand grenade
he was carrying if anybody would move. After taking Jaens two gold rings, bracelet and watch,
the trio alighted from the bus.
 
PO2 Remedios Terte (police officer), who was a passenger in the same bus, ran after the
accused, upon hearing somebody shouting about a hold-up.Sayoc was found by the police
officer hiding in an owner-type jeep. The latter instructed Jaen to guard Sayoc while she
pursued the two robbers. Sayoc was then brought to the police station.
 
 
 
 
A few hours later, barangay officials arrived at the police station with Santos and
Almadin. They reported that the two accused were found hiding inside the house of one
Alfredo Bautista but were prevailed upon to surrender.
 
The victims bracelet was recovered from Santos while the two rings were retrieved from
Almadin.
 
On 8 March 1999, an information was filed against the accused in the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City

ISSUE:
Whether or not the guilt of the accused for the crime alleged herein has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt

HELD:
Yes. The contention of the accused that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the
witness is inconclusive is without merit. The Court maintains that minor inconsistencies in the
narration of a witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as it is on the whole
coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witness is telling
the truth and has not been rehearsed as it is not to be expected that he will be able to
remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. The positive
identification of the petitioners as perpetrators made by the victim himself and the police
officer cannot be overthrown by the weak denial and alibi of petitioners.
Moreover, there is no shred of evidence to show that the police officer was actuated by
improper motives to testify falsely against the petitioners. Her testimony deserves great
appreciation in light of the presumption that she is regularly performing her duties.
 The contention of Santos that he was illegally arrested and searched deserves scant
consideration. As held by the trial court, Santos was not arrested, instead, he voluntarily
surrendered to the barangay officials, and no countervailing evidence to dispute this fact
appears from the record.
TANZO vs. HON. DRILON
G.R. No. 106671

FACTS:
Private respondents herein, Manuel and Mario, are brothers engaged in the business of
forwarding and transporting “balikbayan” boxes from California, U.S.A. to Metro Manila,
Philippines.
Sometime in February 1989, Mario tried to convince his brother to invest some money
in the business. Mario had allegedly represented that petitioner’s money will be help in trust
and administered by both him and his brother for the exclusive use of the business, and that a
return of investment amounting to 10% per annum plus the original money invested shall be
returned to him.
Eventually, the petitioner gave in to the private respondents’ offer and invested the
amount of U.S. $ 34,000. However, when the petitioner was demanding for the return of his
capital plus interest, the latter was ignored by the respondents and their obligation was
avoided. Hence, the petitioner filed for a complaint for estafa against respondents but which
was denied by the courts. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court correctly ruled in dismissing the complaint for estafa against
the private respondents

HELD:
No. The true nature of the contract between petitioner and private respondents was
that of a simple loan. In such a contract, the debtor promises to pay to the creditor an equal
amount of money plus interest if stipulated. It is true that private respondents failed to fulfill
their promise to petitioner to return his money plus interest at the end of one month.
However, mere non-compliance of a promise to perform a thing does not constitute deceit
because it is hard to determine and infer a priori the criminal intent to the person promising.
In other words, deceit should be proved and established by acts distinct from and independent
of, the non-compliance of the promise, and this, petitioner failed to do.

NEPOMUCENO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 166246

FACTS:
Sometime in 08 November 1996, Antonio Nepomuceno was charged with estafa in an
information which reads as follows:
“That on or about the 22nd day of October, 1994 at Lipa City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being [then] employed as
manager of Lipa Lending Investor, Inc. and as such has the duty to manage and administer the
funds of the said corporation, with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon him by the
officers of the aforesaid corporation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misapply, misappropriate and convert to his own personal use and benefit the amount of One
Hundred Eighty Thousand (P180,000.00) Pesos belonging to Lipa Lending Investor, Inc. by
making it appear that the said amount was part of the change or overpayment due to a certain
Rommel Villanueva, a borrower of Lipa Lending Investor, Inc., when in truth and in fact as he
very well knew he was not authorized to receive the same and despite demands to return the
said amount accused failed and refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of Lipa Lending
Investor, Inc. in the aforesaid amount of P180,000.00, Philippine currency.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of festafa

HELD:
The elements of estafa under Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are as
follows:  (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in
trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and, (4) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the offender.
The petitioner, during cross-examination, admitted he appropriated the P180,000 for his
own use and claimed that the P180,000 given to him was his commission from Villanueva.
Moreover, the promissory note executed between Lipa Lending and Villanueva did not intend a
loan payable in installments.  For while said document is a standard form with blanks for the
provisions of installment of the loan, the parties only wrote down the amount of the loan and
the due date of its payment.  If their intention was really to settle the loan on installment, they
would have clearly provided the terms thereof.  Thus, there is no basis to believe otherwise that
the entire amount of the loan became due and demandable on the date agreed upon, which
is October 14, 1994. It is thus clear that Nepomuceno caused the preparation of the checks in
his name and gave himself money due to the company he works for, to the prejudice and
damage of said company.
The court finds Nepomuceno’s acts inexcusable and his testimony unconvincing, and
affirms the decision of the lower court.

* * * END * * *