THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

PEDRO robbery committed upon the property of Juana; and

LAHOYLAHOY and MARCOS MADANLOG, the plea of former jeopardy would be of no avail.
defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. 12453 July 15, 1918 In the light of what has been said it is evident that,
by reason of the lack of conformity between the
NATURE allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of
Review of a decision of the CFI of Province of Iloilo, the property, it is impossible to convict the two
sentencing the defendants Pedro Lahoylahoy and accused of the offense of robbery committed by
Marcos Madanlog to death upon a complaint them in this case; and therefore they cannot be
charging the crime of robbery with multiple convicted of the complex offense of robbery with
homicide. homicide. HOWEVER, the accused were sentenced
by the Supreme Court for four separate homicides.
FACTS:
[ GR No. L-21688, Nov 28, 1969 ]
The information in a prosecution for robbery with PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES v. SALIP MANLA +
quadruple homicide charged that the accused
criminally and by force appropriated certain articles FACTS:
of value, the property of one Roman Estriba, and on
occasion thereof killed the said Roman Estriba and In the late afternoon of February 8, 1960, while
three others. However, the proof showed that the Diego Mahinay, was preparing supper, he saw two
money which was the subject of the robbery was (2) vintas, which eventually docked alongside
taken from one Juana Seran who was robbed and the Macions' privately-constructed wharf. Thinking
killed separately from the other three victims. that the new arrivals were fishermen and realizing
According to the proof the person robbed was Juana, that he had no sufficient viands for that evening,
while the complaint charges that the property taken he stepped out and proceeded to meet the men in
belonged to Roman Estriba. the vintas. Some of the passengers of the vinta were
known to him by name while the others are by face
ISSUE: only. Upon being informed by the new arrivals that
they had no fish to sell, he returned to the
Whether or not the conviction for robbery with kitchen. Completely taken by surprise and unable to
quadruple homicide can be sustained understand why they should enter the store through
the kitchen instead of the usual passage by the side
HELD:zz alley, he followed behind them. When he reached
the door connecting the kitchen to the store he
NO saw one of the accused fire his carbine at the
To constitute robbery, the property obtained must storekeeper, Raymundo Yuayan. The result was
be that of another, and indictments for such fatal. The rest of the companions then began
offenses must name the owner. It is also necessary breaking the store's shelves and looting the contents
in order to identify the offense, a complaint charging thereof. Each defendant set up the defense of alibi.
the commission of the complex offense of robbery
with homicide must necessarily charge each of the ISSUE:
component offenses with the same precision that WON the penalty of death imposed to the accused is
would be necessary if they were made the subject of proper.
separate complaints. It is well recognized in this
jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged HELD:
and the evidence fails to support the charge as to
one of the component offenses the defendant can Yes.
be convicted of the other. The mere circumstance The crime committed by the defendants is
that the two crimes are so related as to constitute robbery with homicide as defined and penalized
one transaction in no way affects the principles of under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. In
pleading involved in the case. To permit a defendant automatically imposing the death penalty, the trial
to be convicted upon a charge of robbing one person court appears to be under the impression that in
when the proof shows that he robbed an entirely every case of robbery with homicide committed by a
different person, when the first was not present, is band, with the perpetrators thereof armed with
violative of the rudimentary principles of pleading; unlicensed firearms, there is no alternative but to
and in addition, is subject to the criticism that the impose the death penalty. Art. 295
defendant is thereby placed in a position where he provides, inter alia, that it is only when the offenses
could not be protected from a future prosecution by described in subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of Art. 294 are
a plea of former conviction or acquittal. If we should committed by a band that the proper penalties in
convict or acquit these defendants today of the their maximum periods should be imposed.
robbery which is alleged to have been committed The offense in this case was attended by
upon the property of Roman Estriba, it is perfectly the circumstances of "dwelling," treachery and
clear that they could be prosecuted tomorrow for premeditation, this last being evident from the fact
that the defendants must have planned the robbery
beforehand, as indicated by their coming as an
armed group and by the manner in which they Among others, DELA CRUZ argues that even if the
entered the store. allegation on the loss of some cash were true, the
Wherefore, the imposition of death penalty to the same should be absorbed in carnapping since
accused is proper. carnapping and robbery have the same element of
taking with intent to gain.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARLON DELA ISSUE:

CRUZ, ET AL.G.R. No. 174658, February 24, 2009
Is the contention of DELA CRUZ tenable?
Criminal Case Digest / Digested Case
HELD:
Anti-Carnapping; Robbery with Homicide (Can one
absorb the other?) No. Carnapping refers specifically to the taking of
a motor vehicle. It does not cover the taking of cash
FACTS: or personal property which is not a motor vehicle. As
the Court of Appeals noted:
Two Informations, one for violation of Republic Act
No. 6539 (the Anti-Carnapping Law), and the other x x x Two (2) articles were taken from TEOFILLO, SR.,
for Robbery with Homicide, were filed against 1) his tricycle and some cash. The taking of the tricycle
appellant Marlon dela Cruz (DELA CRUZ), together constitutes a violation of the anti-carnapping law, RA
with 2) Adriano Melecio (Melecio), 3) Jessie Reyes 6539, while the taking of the cash from tEOFILO, SR.
(REYES), and 4) Jepoy Obello (Obello) before the by hitting him with a stone and stabbing him in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City. Melecio chest constitutes the crime of robbery with homicide
and Obello have remained at large. under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

From information gathered from bystanders, the

police learned that de la Cruz, a notorious thief who [G.R. No. L-1542. August 30, 1949.]
had previously been convicted for theft, and an JOSE CRISTOBAL, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE
unidentified man were seen riding on a red Yamaha PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
motorcycle on June 4, 2001, that from a surveillance
conducted, de la Cruz was not in his Dagupan FACTS:
residence; and that his mother Maria Rosario (Maria)
is living in the municipality of San Quintin. The Carmen M. de Caro discovered that her diamond
carnapped motorcycle was owned by a ring had been stolen. Suspicion fell upon her 20-year
certain Juliana Tamin. old son, Rolando Caro, who had disappeared from
the house and, according to some friends, had tried
De la Cruz’s friends Angelica Perez (Angelica) and to sell a diamond ring to a certain family. Questioned
Anna Datlag (Anna), who were at the time staying at about the matter, Rolando confessed to the theft
Maria’s house, were invited for questioning. and further revealed that he had sold the ring to the
appellant Jose Cristobal, a silversmith in the City of
Anna further related: On June 6, 2001, she asked de Manila, for P800. Seen at his shop by Mrs. Caro and
la Cruz who owns the red motorcycle to which he her lawyer, appellant admitted having bought the
replied that he took it from an old man who was ring from Rolando for the sum above named and,
sleeping after he hit the old man with a stone and upon Mrs. Caro’s supplication, agreed to let her
Melecio stabbed him at the right side of his body, redeem it for the same amount without any profit.
following which they took the money of the old But Mrs. Caro was for some time unable to raise the
man. necessary sum, and when at last she found someone
who was willing to advance the money, appellant
Upon the other hand, de la Cruz put up alibi, could not let her have the ring because, according to
claiming that he was asleep in his house at Callejon him, the same had already been sold by his agent for
Extension, Dagupan City on the night of January 3, P1,200. But neither he nor the agent could name the
2001; that on waking up the following day, January person to whom the ring was said to have been sold.
4, 2001, Obello and Melecio arrived and invited him And it is significant that when Mrs. Caro asked for
to, as he did join them to San Quintin on board a the agent’s address, appellant did not give her the
motorcycle which the two claimed belongs to their right one. As the ring was never recovered, its owner
uncle; that the group went first to Lupao, Nueva complained to the authorities with the result that
Ecija where they met Anna and Angelica who, on his appellant was prosecuted for the crime of theft as an
invitation, joined them in San Quintin where they accessory after the fact.
stayed for a few days.
Jose Cristobal was convicted by the Court of First
After trial, Branch 43 of the Dagupan City RTC Instance of Manila and sentenced to suffer three
convicted DELA CRUZ of both charges. It acquitted years, six months, and twenty-one days of destierro,
Reyes. The conviction was affirmed by the CA. to indemnify the victim Carmen M. de Caro in the
sum of P3,000, with the corresponding subsidiary GR No. 140665, Nov 13, 2000
destierro in case of insolvency. VICTOR TING 'SENG DEE' v. CA

1. Appellant vehemently assails as erroneous the FACTS:

finding of the Court of Appeals that he disposed of From 1991 to 1992, Juliet Ting "Chan Sioc Hiu"
the ring knowing that it had been stolen. That obtained loans, from private complainant Josefina K.
finding of fact, however, is final and conclusive upon Tagle for use in Juliet's furniture business. As
this court. We are not empowered to review and payment thereof, Juliet issued eleven (11) post-
reverse it. (Hodges v. People, 40 Off. Gaz. (1st Supp.) dated checks which, upon maturity, were
, 227; section 3, Commonwealth Act No. 3; and dishonored for reasons of "Closed Account" or
Republic Act No. 52.) "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." Juliet was
subsequently prosecuted for violation of Batas
ISSUE: Pambansa Blg. 22.

WON the penalty imposed is correct Due to her financial difficulties, Juliet requested her
husband Victor Ting "Seng Dee" and her sister Emily
HELD: Chan-Azajar (petitioners herein) to take over her
furniture business, including the obligations
No. appurtenant thereto. Agreeing to Juliet's request,
In order to convict the defendant of the crime of petitioners issued nineteen (19) checks in
being accessory to the crime of robbery committed replacement of the eleven (11) checks earlier issued
as shown by the evidence in this case, it was not by Juliet. Since the planned take-over did not take
necessary to show that he had participated therein. place, petitioners requested Juliet to reassume her
It was sufficient to show that he had knowledge of it, obligation to private complainant Tagle by replacing
and the proof shows that he acquired such the checks they had previously issued to the latter.
knowledge when he was told by the owners that the Thus, Juliet replaced the nineteen (19) checks issued
ting is stolen. After having obtained this knowledge by petitioners with twenty-three (23) Far East Bank
he disposed of the property or concealed the same checks in favor of Tagle. Petitioners then requested
so that the owners were deprived of their property private complainant Tagle to return the nineteen
— the body and effects of the crime. (19) checks they had issued to her. Instead of
returning the checks, Tagle deposited seven of the
The penalty provided by article 309, paragraph 3, of checks with MetroBank where they were dishonored
the Revised Penal Code where the value of the for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds."
property stolen is more than P200 but does not
exceed P6,000, is prision correccional in its minimum Private complainant Tagle alleged that sometime in
and medium periods. The penalty lower by two April 1993, petitioners obtained a loan from her,
degrees than this should be imposed upon the issuing several post-dated checks in payment
accused as accessory to the commission of a thereof. But they were dishonored for having been
consummated felony. Two degrees lower than drawn against insufficient funds. Tagle alleged that
prision correccional in its minimum and medium despite verbal and written demands, petitioners
periods is destierro in its maximum period to arresto failed to pay her the value of the dishonored checks.
mayor in its minimum period. The medium degree of
this penalty should be imposed, there being neither Consequently, seven informations for violation of
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances. Destierro Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 were filed against
in its maximum period is from four years, two petitioners.
months, and one day to six years of banishment;
while arresto mayor in its minimum period is one On March 16, 1995, the trial court found petitioners
month and one day to two months of imprisonment. guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in each of
There is no medium or middle ground between the seven cases.
these two penalties. So we must impose either one
or the other. We think one month and one day of ISSUE:
arresto mayor is preferable or more favorable to the WON the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the
accused. decision of the trial court, given the absence of proof
beyond reasonable doubt or in the presence of facts
In view of the foregoing considerations, the creating reasonable doubt.
appealed judgment is modified and the appellant is
hereby sentenced to suffer one month and one day HELD:
of arresto mayor, to indemnify the offended party in The petition has merit.
the sum of P1,200, with subsidiary imprisonment in For a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 to be
case of insolvency which shall not exceed one-third committed, the elements provided by said law must
of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs of both be present
instances. the making, drawing, and issuance of any check
(1)
to apply for account or for value;
 the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that we have on record is an illegible signature on
that at the time of issue there are no sufficient the registry receipt as evidence that someone
(2) funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the received the letter. There being insufficient proof
payment of such check in full upon is that petitioners received notice that their checks had
presentment; and been dishonored, the presumption that they knew of
the insufficiency of the funds therefor cannot arise.
the subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
or dishonor for the same reason had not the petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision of the
(3)
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the Court of Appeals dated February 12, 1999 REVERSED
bank to stop payment (Sycip, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Victor Ting "Seng Dee"
125059, March 17, 2000). and Emily Chan-Azajar are hereby ACQUITTED of the
In the instant case an analysis of the evidence charges against them for violation of Batas
presented, however, shows that not all the Pambansa Blg. 22, for lack of sufficient evidence to
aforementioned elements have been established by prove the offenses charged beyond reasonable
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. doubt. No special pronouncement is made as to
In the instant case, the fact of the checks' dishonor is costs.
sufficiently shown by the return slips issued by
MetroBank, the depository bank, stating that the G.R. Nos. 59568-76 January 11, 1990 PETER
checks had been returned for the reason "DAIF -- NIERRAS, petitioner, vs. HON. AUXENCIO C.
Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." Not only are DACUYCUY and HON. ANTONIO S. LOPEZ, in
these check return slips prima facie evidence that
the drawee bank dishonored the checks, but the FACTS:
defense did not present any evidence to rebut these Before Us is a petition for certiorari with preliminary
documents. In fact, counsel for petitioners even injunction for the annulment of the resolution dated
admitted the fact of the checks' dishonor, agreeing September 17, 1981 of the respondent Judge
to dispense with the presentation of the bank Auxencio C. Dacuycuy in nine (9) criminal cases,
representative who was supposed to prove the fact entitled "People of the Philippines v. Peter Nierras"
of dishonor of said checks. for estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised
Penal Code which denied petitioner's motion to
However, for liability to attach under Batas quash. Said motion to quash was filed by petitioner
Pambansa Blg. 22, it is not enough that the on the ground of double jeopardy as these offenses
prosecution establishes that a check was issued and were already included in Criminal Cases entitled
that the same was subsequently dishonored. The "People of the Philippines v. Peter Nierras," for
prosecution must also prove the second element, violation of the Bouncing Checks Law or Batas
that is, it must further show that the issuer, at the Pambansa Blg. 22, pending before the lower court. It
time of the check's issuance, had knowledge that he appears that petitioner, a customer of Pilipinas Shell
did not have enough funds or credit in the bank for Petroleum Corporation, purchased oil products from
payment thereof upon its presentment. Since the it. Simultaneous with the delivery of the products,
second element involves a state of mind which is he issued nine (9) checks in payment thereof. Upon
difficult to verify, Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. presentation to the Philippine National Bank at
22 creates a presumption juris tantum that the Naval, Leyte, said checks were dishonored for the
second element prima facie exists when the first and reason that his account was already closed.
third elements of the offense are present (Magno v. Thereafter, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation
People, 210 SCRA 471 [1992]). Section 2 provides: repeatedly demanded of petitioner either to deposit
funds for his checks or pay for the oil products he
It was alleged that the demand letter had been sent had purchased but he failed and refused to do
by mail, it presented a copy of the demand letter as either. Petitioner Contends Petitioner argues that he
well as the registry return receipt. However, no would be placed in double jeopardy as all the
attempt was made to show that the demand letter elements of estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the
was indeed sent through registered mail nor was the Revised Penal Code are also present in that crime
signature on the registry return receipt punishable under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 namely
authenticated or identified. (1) "the postdating or issuance of a check in payment
of an obligation contracted at the time the check
In the instant case, the prosecution did not present was issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover
proof that the demand letter was sent through the check and (3) damage to the payee thereof."
registered mail, relying as it did only on the registry ISSUE:
return receipt. Whether or not the filing of estafa after being
charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for
Likewise, for notice by mail, it must appear that the issuing the same bouncing checks will place the
same was served on the addressee or a duly accuse in double jeopardy. SC
authorized agent of the addressee.." In the case at RULING.
bar, no effort was made to show that the demand NO. What petitioner failed to mention in his
letter was received by petitioners or their agent. All argument is the fact that deceit and damage are
essential elements in Article 315 (2-d) Revised Penal
Code, but are not required in Batas Pambansa Bilang
22. Under the latter law, mere issuance of a check
that is dishonored gives rise to the presumption of
knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued
the same without sufficient funds and hence
punishable which is not so under the Penal Code.
Other differences between the two also include the
following: (1) a drawer of a dishonored check may be
convicted under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 even if
he had issued the same for a pre-existing obligation,
while under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal
Code such Page 2 of 2 Anonymous Lawyer
(https://www.facebook.com/Anonymouslawer/)
circumstance negates criminal liability; (2) specific
and different penalties are imposed in each of the
two offenses; (3) estafa is essentially a crime against
property, while violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 is principally a crime against public interest as it
does injury to the entire banking system; (4)
violations of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
are mala in se, while those of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 are mala prohibita. While the filing of the two
sets of Information under the provisions of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 and under the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, may
refer to identical acts committed by petitioner, the
prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one
offense, because a single criminal act may give rise
to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is
variance or differences between the elements of an
offense in one law and another law as in the case at
bar there will be no double jeopardy because what
the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to
identity of elements in the two (2) offenses.
Otherwise stated prosecution for the same act is not
prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the
same offense. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2)
sets of information does not itself give rise to double
jeopardy . In the instant petition, certiorari is not the
proper remedy. We have held in Acharon v.
Purisima, et al. (13 SCRA 309) that "when a motion
to quash a criminal case is denied, remedy is not
certiorari but to go to court without prejudice to
reiterating special defenses invoked in the motion,
and if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is
rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner
authorized by law," invoking the rule laid down in
People v. Magdaluyo(1 SCRA 990). If the petitioner
cannot appeal at this state of the proceeding, it is
because there is still a necessity for the trial on the
merits wherein the parties may present proofs in
support of their contentions and not because the
remedy of appeal is unavailing. WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition for certiorari is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.