1
LIMITATION OF PENAL LAWS
Artemio Villareal vs. People of the Philippines (Consolidated case)
G.R. No. 151258
February 1, 2012
Facts:
Seven freshmen of Ateneo De Manila University College of Law intended to join the fraternity,
Aquila Fraternity. One of them is the deceased Leonardo Leny Villa. On the night of February 8, 1991, the
neophytes were met by some members of the fraternity at the lobby of the Ateneo Law School. They went
to the house of Micheal Musngi for briefing. The neophytes were warned that there will be physical beating
and they could quit anytime.
Initiation rites started as soon as the briefing had been completed. On the morning of February 9,
1991, initiation continued and after few hours, the initiation for the day officially ended. Accused Dizon and
Villareal demanded to reopen the initiation but the head of the rites refused. However, Dizon and Villareal
reopened the initation rites and started to beat the neophytes with [Link] was hitted hardly and after
the initiation rites, he can no longer walk by his own. The rites ended for the day on the second time. While
sleeping, the neophytes were roused by Lenys shivering and incoherent mumblings. He was rushed to the
hospital but was declared dead on arrival.
A criminal case for homicide was filed against 35 members of the fraternity. The RTC rendered its
decision in favor of the prosecution. On 10 January 2002, the CA set aside the finding of conspiracy by the
trial court and modified the criminal liability of each of the accused according to individual participation.
Petitioners filed a petition for review on Certiorari to the SC. While the Petition was pending before the
Court, counsel for petitioner Villareal filed a Notice of Death of Party on August 10, 2011. According to the
Notice, petitioner Villareal died on March 13, 2011.
Issue:
Whether or not the death of Villareal terminate his criminal liability
Ruling:
Yes, the death of Villareal terminates his criminal liability.
According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability for personal penalties is
totally extinguished by the death of the convict. In contrast, criminal liability for pecuniary penalties is
extinguished if the offender dies prior to final judgment. The term personal penalties refers to the service of
personal or imprisonment penalties, while the term pecuniary penalties refers to fines and costs, including
civil liability predicated on the criminal offense complained of. However, civil liability based on a source of
obligation other than the delict survives the death of the accused and is recoverable through a separate
civil action.
Thus, the court hold that the death of petitioner Villareal extinguished his criminal liability for both
personal and pecuniary penalties, including his civil liability directly arising from the delict complained of.
2
CARDINAL FEATURES / MAIN CHARACTERISTICS / COMPONENTS OF PHILIPPINES CRIMINAL
LAW
The United States vs. Gabino Soliman
G.R. No. 11555
January 6, 1917
Facts:
Gabino Soliman, testifying in his own behalf in the course of another criminal case in which he, with
several others, was charged with estafa, swore falsely to certain-material allegations of fact.
On that occasion he testified falsely that a sworn statement offered in evidence in support of the charge
of estafa, which was in effect an extrajudicial confession of his guilt, had not been executed voluntarily, and
that its execution had been procured by the police by the use of force, intimidation and prolonged torture.
The Trial Court in its decision, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no room for
reasonable doubt as to whether the extrajudicial confession was made voluntarily.
The Court found the accused guilty of perjury as defined and penalized in section 3 of Act No. 1697 and
that the sentence of six months' imprisonment and P300 fine imposed by the trial judge was correctly
imposed under the provisions of that statute. It appears however that since judgment was entered in this
case on November 23, 1915, section 3 of Act No. 1697 has been expressly repealed by the enactment of
the Administrative Code, which became effective on July 1, 1916, and it has been suggested that the
judgment convicting and sentencing the accused under the provisions of that statute should not be
sustained, and that the repeal of the statute should be held to have the effect of remitting and extinguishing
the criminal responsibility of the accused incurred under the provisions of the repealed law prior to the
enactment of the Administrative Code.
Issue:
Whether the penalty to be imposed must be in accordance with the new statute
Ruling:
Yes, the penalty to be imposed must be in accordance with the new statute.
In any case in which a statute prescribing a penalty for the commission of a specific offense is
repealed, and in which the new statute provides new and distinct penalties for the commission of such
offense, the penalty which must be imposed on one who committed the offense prior to the enactment of
the repealing statute is that one which is more favorable to the convict.
Section 12 of the Administrative Code provides that "when a law which expressly repeals a prior
law is itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided," but
this provision does not change or modify the rule which prescribes that when a law which repeals a prior
law, not expressly but by implication, is itself repealed, the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior law,
unless the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise.
3
CARDINAL FEATURES / MAIN CHARACTERISTICS / COMPONENTS OF PHILIPPINES CRIMINAL
LAW
People of the Philippines vs. Martin Simon y Sunga
G.R. No. 93028
July 29, 1994
Facts:
On October 22, 1988, he was arrested at Brgy. Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga, as he sold four
tea bags of marijuana for and had a total weight of 3.8 grams of marijuana, to a NARCOM poseur-buyer.
After the arrest, he was examined by a medical officer at Camp Olivas, and the result is that he is found
positive of Marijuana.
On December 4, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant for a violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment,
to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos and to pay the costs. The four tea bags of marijuana dried leaves
were likewise ordered confiscated in favor of the Government.
Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by R.A. no 7659 effective
December 31, 1989, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended stating The
penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of
Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is xxx 5.750 grams or more of indian
hemp or marijuana. If the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantity, the penalty shall range from
prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending on the quantity.
Issue:
Whether the favorable provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 should be given retroactive effect to
entitle Martin Simon to the lesser penalty provided thereunder, pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal
Code
Ruling:
Although Republic Act No. 6425 was enacted as a special law, it has long been settled that by
force of Article 10 of said Code the beneficient provisions of Article 22 thereof applies to and shall be given
retrospective effect to crimes punished by special laws. The execution in said article would not apply to
those convicted of drug offenses since habitual delinquency refers to convictions for the third time.
If the judgment which could be affected and modified by the reduced penalties provided in Republic
Act No. 7659 has already become final and executory or the accused is serving sentence thereunder, then
practice, procedure and pragmatic considerations would warrant and necessitate the matter being brought
to the judicial authorities for relief under a writ of habeas corpus.
4
CARDINAL FEATURES / MAIN CHARACTERISTICS / COMPONENTS OF PHILIPPINES CRIMINAL
LAW
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CONSTANCIO CANDIDO y COLLARGA
G.R. Nos. 134072-73
June 10, 2002
Facts:
At around 10:30 pm of October 9, 1994, the Constancio Candido walked towards the victim,
Nelson Daras and he immediately pulled out a gun and fired at the victim. The victim fell but Candido, not
satisfied, came closer to him and fired him twice hitting him once on the right side of his chest. After the
incident, Candido ran while Daras was brought to the hospital but declared dead on arrival.
The gun used by Candido was not registered as required by law. The accused admitted the killing
but claimed that he did so in defense.
Accused-appellant Constancio Candido y Collarga was found guilty of murder aggravated by the
use of an unlicensed firearm and sentenced to death in the Decision dated June 22, 1998 rendered by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 220, Quezon City. He was likewise found guilty of Violation of Presidential
Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of prision correccional in its maximum period.
Issue:
Whether illegal possession of firearm is an aggravating circumstance in the murder case, instead
of treating it as a separate crime in accordance to R.A. No. 8294
Ruling:
Yes, illegal possession of firearm is an aggravating circumstance in the murder case.
Republic Act No. 8294 took effect on July 6, 1997. Republic Act No. 8294 should be given
retrospective application insofar as it spares the accused from a separate conviction for the crime of illegal
possession of firearm.
The Court held that there can be no separate conviction of the crime of illegal possession of firearm in
a case where another crime, as indicated in RA. No. 8294 (murder or homicide under Section 1, and
rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup detat under Section 3), is committed.
Section 1 of R.A. No. 8294 further amended Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, which in part, provides,
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
In the case at bar, R.A. No. 8294 merely considers the use of an unlicensed firearm as a special
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, and not as a separate offense.
5
Cardinal Features / Main Characteristics / Components of Philippines Criminal Law
People of the Philippines vs. Armando De Lara y Galaro
G.R. No. 94953
September 5, 1994
Facts:
Sgt. Enrique David was instructed by Capt. Restituto Cablayan to conduct a surveillance operation
in the vicinity of Garrido and Zamora Streets at Sta. Ana, Manila, after receiving reports of rampant drug-
pushing in that area.
On the buy-bust operation, informant introduces Pfc. Orolfo Jr to the appellant as an interested
buyer of Marijuana. Two foils of Marijuana was sold to Pfc Orolfo Jr. worth 20 pesos. Appellant realized that
he was transacting with a police officer after handling the marijuana. He tried to escape but he was
prevented to do [Link] admitted that he kept prohibited drugs in his house. Appellant showed the arresting
officers a blue plastic bag with white lining containing prohibited drugs.
On October 2, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Sec 4, Art II of R.A. 6425 as amended as charged in the Information; and
hereby sentences the accused to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.
Issue:
Whether or not the penalty of Life imprisonment is the right penalty to be serve to the accused.
Ruling:
No, the penalty of Life imprisonment is not the penalty to be imposed to the accused.
Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, was further amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty to be imposed for selling, administering, delivering or
distributing less than 750 grams of marijuana, shall range from "prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua depending upon the quantity." If the marijuana involved is from 500 to 749 grams, the penalty to
be imposed is reclusion temporal. If the marijuana involved is from 250 to 499 grams, the penalty to be
imposed is prision mayor and if the weight of the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be
imposed is prision correccional.
The court, in its decision, favored appellants contention that the quantity involved was below 750
grams and not less than 250 grams but not more than 499 grams since there was no evidence as to the
weight of the two foils and one plastic bag of marijuana seized from appellant.
6
Cardinal Features / Main Characteristics / Components of Philippines Criminal Law
Trinidad H. Pardo De Tavera vs. Vicente Garcia Valdez
G.R. No. L-922
November 8, 1902
Facts:
In September, 1901, the editor of "Miau"(also the defendant), of a periodical published and
circulated in Manila, claimed that an article containing an allegedly injurious matter was published in the
issue of that periodical of September 15, 1901. The article is couched throughout in grossly abusive
language, and in terms not capable of being misunderstood. The said published article charges the private
prosecutor, who had been then recently appointed a member of the United States Philippine Commission,
with having displayed cowardice at the time of the murder of his mother and sister and with having
subsequently entered into intimate political relations with the assassin. The article contains other
statements and imputations of a derogatory character.
Issue:
Whether or not injurias graves is punishable with the penalty of destierro in its medium degree
Ruling:
Yes, grave injuries is punishable in its medium degree
Act No. 277 of the United States Philippine Commission "defining the law of libel." etc., and
reforming the preexisting Spanish law on the subject of calumnia and injurias affixes to the offense of
publishing a libel as defined in the act the punishment of "a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for
not exceeding one year, or both." Section 13 of the same act provides as follows: "All laws and parts of
laws now in force, so far as the same may be in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed: Provided, That
nothing herein contained shall operate as a repeal of existing laws in so far as they are applicable to
pending actions or existing causes of action, but as to such causes of action or pending actions existing
laws shall remain in full force and effect." This act went into effect October 24, 1901, subsequent to the
publication of the article in question, and during the pendency of the prosecution .
In Article 22 of the Penal Code "Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the
person guilty of a crime of misdemeanor.
