CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

Contents
GR No. 88189: PEOPLE VS ABALOS.............................................................................................................................2
G.R. No. 121047-57: LAYUG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN ....................................................................................................3
G.R. No. 93173: SAAVEDRA VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE........................................................................................4
G.R. No. 162187: VILLANUEVA VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ......................................................................................5
G.R. No. 178626: LEGRAMA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN....................................................................................................6
G.R. No. 197567: GARCIA VS. OMBUDSMAN .............................................................................................................7
G.R. No. 196966: PEOPLE VS. MAONGCO ..................................................................................................................8
G.R. No. 175939: PEOPLE VS. LAGMAN ......................................................................................................................9
G.R. No. 214490: LESCANO VS. PEOPLE .................................................................................................................. 10
G.R. No. 200748: DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE ............................................................................................................... 11
G.R. No. 157870: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD AND PDEA ........................................ 12
G.R. No. L-33254 & G.R. No. L-33253: PEOPLE VS. SENDAYDIEGO ......................................................................... 13
G.R. No. 190834: LIM VS. PEOPLE ........................................................................................................................... 14
G.R. No. 197562: FRANSDILLA VS. PEOPLE .............................................................................................................. 15
G.R. No. 200081: PEOPLE VS. CRUZ ......................................................................................................................... 16
G.R. No. 206442: CANCERAN VS. PEOPLE ............................................................................................................... 17
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

GR No. 88189: PEOPLE VS ABALOS

Facts:
Tiburcio Abalos, the appellant, was the son of Police Major Cecilio Abalos. Pfc. Sofronio Labine, a
member of Integrated National Police (INP), was the victim and was wearing his uniform during the incident.
The incident transpired during a barangay fiesta in Canlapwas, Catbalogan, Samar. The victim was the police
officer on duty to keep peace in order during the celebration of fiesta.

The incident happened when a woman shouted that somebody was making trouble. The victim
appeared in the scene and saluted to Major Abalos. As Major Abalos leveled his carbine at the victim,
appellant hurriedly left and procured a piece of wood. When the appellant returned, he then, from behind,
swiftly swung with that wooden piece of wood at the back right side of labine’s head.

The appellant, on his defense, alleged that the victim was a member of New People’s Army (NPA) and
was about to attack his father.

The court found the Tiburcio Abalos guilty of direct assult with murder.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of a complex crime of direct assault with murder.

Ruling:

The court ruled in the affirmative. Under Article 148, there are two ways of committing direct assault.
One of those was committed by the appellant which has the following elements: (1) there must be an attack,
use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent; (2) the assault was
made when the said person was performing his duties or on the occasion of such performance; (3) and the
accused knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is, that the accused must have the
intention to offend, injure or assault the offended party as a person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority.

In the instant case, the victim was a duly appointed member of the INP and, thus, was an agent of a
person in authority. There was also no dispute that he was in the actual performance of his duties when
assaulted by the appellant, that is, he was maintaining peace and order during the barangay fiesta. Moreover,
the appellant himself testified that he personally knew the victim to be a policeman and, in fact, the victim
was then wearing his uniform. These facts should have sufficiently deterred appellant from attacking him,
and his defiant conduct clearly demonstrates that he really had the criminal intent to assault and injure an
agent of the law.

The killing in the instant case constituted the felony of murder qualified by alevosia through
treacherous means deliberately adopted because Labine was struck from behind while he was being
confronted at the same time by appellant's father. The evidence shows that appellant deliberately went
behind the victim whom he then hit with a piece of wood which he deliberately got for that purpose.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 121047-57: LAYUG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
Ponciano Layug, the petitioner, was duly appointed as a secondary public school teacher of Davao del
Sur National High School. The subjects assigned to him were English and Science. However, the petitioner
refused to teach the Science subjects because he said that he was inexperienced and incompetent with regard
to the subject. Thereafter, it was found out that the science classes assigned to him were unattended for
almost a week, even if he was inside the campus talking with friends and security guards.

It was alleged that he has falsified his daily time record (DTR) from June 1986 to Arpil 1987. In June
1986, he submitted a signed daily time record but the principal did not sign it. Thus, a complaint for estafa
through falsification of documents against him was filed. It was alleged that he made it appear that he had
completed the required number of work hours in his DTR.

On May 1986, the petitioner filed with Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (DECS) in Davao City
complaint for harassment and oppression and for unjustifiable refusal to release his vacation salary. He
wrote a letter indicating his request for the subjects that he was competent, experienced and ready. It was
found out the he was not paid his salary from June 1986 to April 1987.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of falsification of public documents.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime filed against
him. Under Article 171 of RPC, to convict an accused of crime of falsification of public documents, the
following requisites must be established: (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in
narration of facts; (2) he has the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; (3) the
facts narrated by him was absolutely false; and (4) the act of falsification was committed to the damage of a
third party or with intent to cause such damage.

In the case at bar, the Supreme court found that the entry made by the petitioner in his daily time
record was not absolutely false as he did report for work at the DSNHS. The entry in his DTR was made in
good faith, he just acted in an erroneous belief that he had the choice of what subjects to be taught. Moreover,
with regard to the fourth requisite stated above, it was found that he did not unduly benefit from his DTR
because actually he was deprived of his salary from June 1986 to April 1987, thus no government fund was
paid to him.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 93173: SAAVEDRA VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Facts:
Honorio Saavedra, the petitioner, bought the stocks of Pine Philippines Inc. (PPI) for P1.2 million
from the owners of the company, including the Gregorio Ramos, the private respondent. A Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) and Deed of Assignment (DOA) were executed to evidence the transaction. The MOA has
an automatic rescission clause in cause any installment was not paid on its due date.

The last installment payment due on September 15, 1987 was withheld by the petitioner for the
reason that the sellers failed to comply with their warranties. The installment payment was deposited in an
escrow fund and will be released once the warranties were complied with.

On November 5, 1987, the petitioner filed a verified civil complaint claiming for damages in behalf of
PPI against the private respondent, alleging that the petitioner was the President and principal stockholder
of the company. However, it was challenged by the private respondent claiming that the petitioner ceased to
be its president when the sale of PPI stocks was automatically rescinded on September 15, 1987.

On December 7, 1987, the private respondent filed a criminal case for perjury against the petitioner,
alleging that the petitioner perjured himself when he declared himself as president in the verified civil
complaint. The Provincial Prosecutor found a prima facie evidence case for perjury.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a prima facie case of perjury when the petitioner filed a verified civil case as
president in behalf of PPI on November 5, 1987.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no prima face case of perjury. There are four elements of
perjury, to wit: (1) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter; (2) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath; (3) that in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of
a falsehood; and (4) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing falsity is required by law or made for a
legal purpose.

The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence that would prove that the falsehood made was
done willfully and deliberately. As a matter of fact, the assertion of the petitioner was done in good faith, in
the belief that the non-payment of the last installment price was justified by the seller’s non-compliance of
their warranties. Furthermore, another element of perjury was absent – the sworn statement containing the
falsity is required by law. The falsehood made in a verified pleading is not mandated by law to be verified.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 162187: VILLANUEVA VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

Facts:
Refractories Corporation of the Philippines (RCP), represented by its Senior Vice President Criste
Villanueva, the petitioner, and Assistant General Manager Jesus Borgonia, had a conference with Hamburg
Trading Corporation (HTC), represented by its President Horst-Kessler Von Sprengeisen, the private
respondent, and Sales Manager Dennis Gonzales. The conference ensued to come up with an agreement that
HTC shall reform its price policy of its importation and sale of refractory bricks from Germany to conform to
the provision of RA 7843.

Thereafter, Borgonio prepared the compromised agreement which was signed by Borgonio and
petitioner. It was delivered to the private respondent for signature, but it was not signed. Borgonio revised
the agreement by inserting the phrase “based on the findings of the BIS” and then signed by Borgonio and
petitioner. It was delivered to the private respondent and then it was signed by him.

Thereafter, HTC filed a Motion to declare the Compromise Agreement null and void on the grounds
that there was fraud during negotiation and that insertion and/or substitution of the facts not agreed upon
was deliberately and surreptitiously made by RPC. HTC averred that the petitioner violated Article 172 of
the Revised Penal Code.

The RCP opposed the motion when Villanueva filed a criminal complaint of perjury against the
private petitioner in its (private petitioner) Urgent Motion.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a probable cause for the private respondent’s indictment for perjury.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Perjury has the following elements: (a) that the accused
made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or
affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in that
statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) that the
sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.

In the case at bar, the court found that there was no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood on
the part of the private respondent. Even if the private respondent erred in its allegation that it was Villanueva
who inserted the phrase in the agreement, the former cannot be held liable of perjury because it is natural
for one to presume that the latter made the insertion because he was a signatory to the agreement.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 178626: LEGRAMA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts:
Cecilla Legrama, the petitioner, was the Treasurer of the Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales.
Commission on Audit (COA) conduted an examination of cash and account of the petitioner. Thereafter, the
audit team found that the petitioner is short of P1,152,900.75. A criminal case of Malversation of Public Funds
was charged against the petitioner. Petitioner denied that she put the amount involved to personal use and
presented various sales invoice, chits, vale forms, and disbursement voucher to prove her claim. During trial,
the petitioner failed to account for the shortage after she was demanded to do so.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of committing Malversation of Public Funds.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Under Articlce 217 of the RPC, Malversation of Public
Funds has the following elements: (1) that the offender be a public officer; (2) he had the custody or control
of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable; and (4) he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

Under Article 217, a presumption was installed that upon demand by any duly authorized officer, the
failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property – with which said officer is
accountable – should be prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or properties to personal
use.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 197567: GARCIA VS. OMBUDSMAN

Facts:
Leonardo Roman, Romeo Mendiola, Pastor Vichuaco, Aurora Tiambeng and Numeriano Medina were
the former officers of Bataan Provincial Office as Governor, Executive Assistance, Provincial Treasurer,
Budget Officer, and incumbent Provincial Accountant, respectively. They were the respondents in this case.
While the petitioner is the incumbent Governor of Bataan, Enrique Garcia.

During the term of Roman as Governor in 2003, he entered into a contract with VF Construction for
the construction of mini-theater at Bataan State College. He signed and issued a certification of acceptance
stating that the project is 100% completed. Thereafter, two (2) checks amounting to P1,655,318.18 each
were issued by Roman and Vichuaco pursuant to two (2) separate Disbursement Vouchers prepared and
issued by De Pano, Medina, and Vichuaco, approved for payment by Roman. In addition, an Allotment and
Obligation Slips (ALOBS) was issued, prepared, and signed by De Pano, Tiambeng, and Medina to reimiburse
VF Construction for the cost of labor and materials. Tiambeng also certified in the ALOBS the “existence of
an appropriation for the project,” which was later on found that there was no valid appropriation of the
project, hence the construction contract was null and void.

Garcia authorized the inspection of the project and discovered that while the construction already
commenced, it remained unfinished. Then, Garcia filed a complaint charging the respondents the crime of
Malversation of public funds through Falsification of Public Documents.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of the said crime charged.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court did not find the respondents guilty of Malversation of public funds through
Falsification of Public Documents. Under Article 217 of the RPC, in the crime of Malversation of Public Funds,
the offender misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such
public funds for the latter’s personal use. , the Court observes that there lies no evidence which would give
a prima facie indication that the funds disbursed for the project were misappropriated for any personal use.
The CoA Memo shows that the Province’s funds were used for a public purpose, i.e., the mini-theater project,
albeit without any allotment issued therefor. Garcia also fails to convince the Court that the Province’s funds
were diverted to some personal purpose.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 196966: PEOPLE VS. MAONGCO

Facts:
Alvin Carpio was apprehended for illegal possession of dangerous drug (shabu) during the conduct
of special operation. When he was asked about the source of the shabu, he told the police that it was Michael
Maongco. Thereafter, police officers conducted an operation involving Carpio buying two (2) “bulto” of shabu
from Maongco. Thereafter, the police officers went to the place where Maongco was waiting and was
apprehended after the latter showed the one (1) “bulto” of shabu. Arugay asked where the other “bulto” was,
Maongco said that it was in the possession of Phans Bandali who was waiting in Jollibee, Pantranco Branch.

Thereafter, they went to that place and Maongco told the police officers that Bandali was wearing a
blue t-shirt. Vener Ong, a polic officer, approached Bandali and demanded from the latter the other half of
the drugs ordered. Bandali voluntarily handed over a sachet of shabu. Then, Bandali was apprised of his
violation and of his constitutional rights. The seized shabu was properly preserved in accoradance with
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165.

Maongco and Bandali, the petitioner, were both charged for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Acto of 2002). The petitioners alleged there was no legitimate buy-
bust operation because there was no actual sale of dangerous drug in the operation conducted by police
officers.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners may still be held criminally liable under Section 5, Article II of RA
9165 even if there was no legitimate buy-bust operation.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Well-settled in jurisprudence that the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The same
ruling may also be applied to the other acts penalized under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
because for the accused to be able to trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit, or transport any dangerous drug, he must necessarily be in possession of said drugs. Thus,
still, the petitioner are held liable.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 175939: PEOPLE VS. LAGMAN

Facts:
The PNP – Olongapo City conducted a test-buy operation against Lagman, the petitioner, as he was
suspected as dealer of Marijuana. During the search operation in the house of the petitioner, a 750 grams of
dried leaves of Marijuana, a prohibited drug, was found. Thereafter, a case of illegal sale of prohibited drugs
was filed against him initially, but the prosecutor of the case wanted to modify the crime charged to illegal
possession of prohibited drugs. However, the RTC did not act on the motion to modify. The RTC convicted
the petitioner of illegal possession which was affirmed by the CA.

Issue:
Whether or not the offense of illegal possession of prohibited drugs is necessarily included in the
offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. While no conviction for the unlawful sale of prohibited
drugs may be had under the present circumstances, the established principle is that possession of marijuana
is absorbed in the sale thereof.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 214490: LESCANO VS. PEOPLE

Facts:
An informant sought the assistance of the City Anit-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Team (CAIDSOT)
– Olangapo City on the alleged drug-pushing activity of Howard Lescano, the petitioner. After CAIDSOT found
out the information was true, it conducted a buy-bust operation to apprehend the petitioner. During the buy-
bust operation, PO3 Javier bought marijuana to the petitioner and paying a marked P100 bill. The seized
transparent plastic sachet contained 1.4 grams of marijuana.

PO3 Javier marked the seized plastic sachet with the initials “HJ” and turned it over to SPO1 Delos
Reyes. At the CAIDSOT office, an inventory was conducted and photographs of marked money and seized
plastic sachet were taken. The plastic sachet then was brought to PNP Crime Laboratory and was tested
positive as Marijuana. Thereafter, the petitioner was charged of the illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused-petitioner is guilty of illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused. In the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, 2 elements must be
proved by the prosecutions, to wit: (1) the proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution
failed to establish the second element which is the corpus delicti. The requirement of Section 21(1) of RA
9165 as to the seizure of drugs were not complied with. Further, it was claimed by the prosecution that the
seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia is the result of carefully planned operations, and not as what has
been provided in RA 9165 Section 21(1).
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 200748: DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE

Facts:
An entrapment operation was conducted by NBI after a complaint from Corazon Absin that James
Dela Cruz, the petitioner, was demanding P100,000 in exchange of the release of her live-in partner Ariel
for the alleged selling of drugs. The petitioner was nabbed by the NBI by using a pre-marked P500-bill with
fluorescent powder, which was part of the money demanded by James. Thereafter, the petitioner was
brought to the Forensic Office of NBI wherein he was required to submit a urine sample for drug testing
even after his refusal and he wanted it done by the PNP Crime Laboratory, and he also requested to call his
lawyer prior to taking of his urine sample but was denied. The drug test result was positive. Thus, he was
charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 for the illegal use of Shabu.

Issue:
Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner was legal.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court declared that the drug testing conducted upon the petitioner was not grounded
upon any existing law or jurisprudence. The drug testing in Section 15 of RA 9165 does not cover persons
apprehended or arrested for unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the same law.
The court failed to see how a urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion which was the crime
for which the reason of apprehension was conducted. Hence, the drug test was inadmissible as evidence
and the petitioner was acquitted for the offense charged against him.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 157870: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD AND PDEA

Facts:
The constitutionality of the Section 36 of RA 9165 was contested in 3 cases consolidated with regard
to mandatory drug testing on public officers, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and
employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain
offenses. The drug test is to be conducted by drug testing laboratory accredited and monitored by
Department of Health. And, those found out to be positive for dangerous drugs shall be subjected to the
provision of Section 15 of RA 9165.

Issue:
Whether or not some provisions of Article 36 of RA 9165 violate the right to privacy, the right against
unreasonable searches and seizure and the equal protection clause.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory drug test on student of secondary and tertiary schools and
officers and employees and public and private offices are constitutional. In the case of student, there was a
primary waiver on their part of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their
voluntary submitting their persons to the parental authority of the school authority. In case of employees,
the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing emanates from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and
requirement of the employer.
On persons charge before the prosecutor’s office of crimes with penalty of more than 6 years and 1
day of imprisonment was unconstitutional because it is a blatant attempt to harness medical test as a tool
from criminal prosecution, which violates the right to privacy.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. L-33254 & G.R. No. L-33253: PEOPLE VS. SENDAYDIEGO

Facts:
Licerio Sendaydiego, the provincial treasure of Pangasinan, and Anastacio Quimirit, the provincial
auditor, in conspiracy with Juan Samson, the employee of lumber and hardware store in Dagupan, were the
defendant in the case of committing Malversation of funds through falsification of public documents charged
against them.
Six (6) vouchers for the payment of lumber and hardware materials used for the repairs of bridges.
The signatures in supporting documents of one of the vouchers were forged, and the signatures of the 2
signatories of the other 5 vouchers were also forged and denied by those signatories.
Juan Samson played a stellar role in the processing of the six vouchers. He used to be an employee of
the provincial treasurer's office. He resigned and worked with several firms doing business with the
provincial government. He was in possession of the said vouchers and the supporting documents for
presentment for payment in the provincial treasurer’s office. His 2 signatures on the margin of each of 6
vouchers were authentic.

Issue:
Whether or not Juan Samson, a private person, may be held liable for Malversation through
falsification of public documents.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. It said that Samson was a co-principal with Sendaydiego
whom is a public official in the commission of 6 counts of malversation through falsification of public
documents. A private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is
also guilty of malversation.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 190834: LIM VS. PEOPLE

Facts:
Ariel Lim, the petitioner, issued 2 checks amounting to P100,000 each in favor of Willie Castor as
campaign donation. Thereafter, Castor used the checks for the payment of printing materials. Castor ordered
Lim to make a stop-payment order for the said checks. Then, the checks, upon presentment for payment by
Magna Badiee, were dishonored. Badiee, the private complainant, sent 2 demand letters to Lim. After 1
month from the receipt of demand letters, he received a subpoena from prosecutor’s officer and he wrote a
check amounting to P200,000 which was encashed by Dabiee.
6 months after payment, two cases of violation of BP 22 were filed against Lim.

Issue:
Whether or not Lim still violated BP 22 despite payment 6 months before the filing of the case.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court found the petitioner not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of BP 22.
The spirit of the law which, for B.P. Blg. 22, is the protection of the credibility and stability of the banking
system, would not be served by penalizing people who have evidently made amends for their mistakes and
made restitution for damages even before charges have been filed against them. In effect, the payment of the
checks before the filing of the informations has already attained the purpose of the law.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 197562: FRANSDILLA VS. PEOPLE

Facts:
Aurora Engson Fransdilla, the petitioner, along with 4 men was able to enter the house of Cynthia
Yreverre by introducing herself that she was from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). They
were able to rob the house and took in possession of the jewelries, bags, watch and cash belonging to Cynthia
and her sister Lalaine Yreverre. During the robbery, it was the 4 men who used threats to rob the house. They
herded the maids, lalaine’s cousin and niece inside the bodega.
A case was filed against Fransdilla and 4 men, charging them of complex crime of robbery in an
inhabited house by armed persons and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by
armed persons and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons even if she was not the one who
inflicted violence or intimidation upon the victim.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The case at bar is complex crime, it being having the
elements of both crimes in a single act. It is immaterial whether the petitioner was not the one inflicted injury
and intimidation because she was principally liable on the crime committed, it being done in conspiracy with
those 4 men who inflicted violence and intimidation. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 200081: PEOPLE VS. CRUZ

Facts:
Edgardo Cruz, the accused, registered and manage the business of Chromax Marketing “Chromax”.
He was responsible to attend to the needs of the customers, receive orders, issue receipts and accept
payments, and to prepare daily sales report for Carlos, the owner of the business, to be able for the latter to
monitor the sales, credits and collection.
There was suspicion when despite the increase in the number of clients, the financial capital
remained unimpressive. Thereafter, it was found out that Cruz was stealing from Chromax. In the balance
sheet, there was an acknowledgment that the amount lost was actually used by Cruz which he promises to
pay. Furthermore, irregularity in the issuance of receipt was discovered.
Thus, Carlos filed a case against of Qualified Theft against Cruz.

Issue:
Whether or not Cruz was guilty of Qualified Theft.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Cruz guilty of Qualified Theft. In the crime of qualified theft, the following
elements are necessary, to wit: (1) taking of personal property; (2) said property belongs to another; (3) said
taking was done with intent to gain; (4) taking was done without owner’s consent; (5) taking was done
without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and (6) taking was done
with grave abuse of confidence. And all these elements were present in the instant case as he confessed that
he was the one who took the money for his personal use without the consent of Carlos. He has done this in
violation of trust given him by Carlos as he was the one responsible in the collection of money from
customers.
CASE DIGEST
CRIMINAL LAW 2 RF LIM, JD1A

G.R. No. 206442: CANCERAN VS. PEOPLE

Facts:
In Ororama Mega Center, Canceran approach one of the counters with pushing cart containing 2
boxes of magic flakes which he paid P1,423. However, upon inspection of the boxes it was found out that
the contents were 14 smaller boxes of Ponds Beauty White Cream worth P28,627.20.
He was charged of frustrated theft.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a crime of frustrated theft.

Ruling: