Case Digest - Ivan

7/25/2019 Case Digest - Ivan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-digest-ivan 1/3

ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 148560, 19 November 2001

Facts:

Petitioner Joseph Estrada prosecuted for RA 7080 otherwise known as “An Act Defining and

Penalizing the Crime of Plunder , as amended ! RA 7"#$ An Act to %m&ose the Death Penalt!

on Certain 'einous Crimes() He stated to the court that the assailed law is defectively

fashioned. The petitioner argues that the law abolishes the element of mens rea (the intention or

knowledge of wrongdoing in crimes already punishable under the !evised Penal "ode# and by

itself, a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of

the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

%ssue:

$hether or not the crime of plunder as defined in !% &'' is a malum &rohiitum (unlawful act

as declared by the virtue of state.

'eld:

)o. The *upreme "ourt held that plunder is malum in se which re+uires proof of criminal intent.

oreover, the legislative declaration in !.%. )o. &-/ that plunder is a heinous offense implies

that it is a malum in se. The predicate crimes in the case of plunder involve acts which are

inherently immoral or inherently wrong, and are committed 0willfully, unlawfully and criminally1 by

the offender, alleging his guilty knowledge. Thus, the crime of plunder is a malum in se.

VALENZELA VS. !E"!LE1

G.R. No. #160188, 21 $%&e 200'

Facts:

The accused, %ristotel 2alen3uela, wearing an 45 with the mark 0!eceiving 5ispatching 6nit

(!561 was sighted by a security guard outside a supermarket hauling a pushcart with cases of

detergents. %fterwards, these cases of detergents were loaded in a ta7i and the accused

directed the driver to go the parking space where Jovy "alderon was waiting. The act was done

repeatedly. 8ater, the security guard, 8oren3o 8ago, suspicious of the acts of 2alen3uela and"alderon proceeded to stop the ta7i to ask the accused for a receipt for the merchandise loaded

in the ta7i. The accused by fleeing on foot. %pparently, because of the shot fired by the guard

which alerted other guards in the area, they were apprehended and the stolen merchandise

were recovered.

1 For full understanding of the case, see pages 117-188 of the Revised Penal Code

by Luis B Reyes



%ssue:

$hether or not 2alen3uela should be guilty of consummated theft.

'eld:

The accused with intent to gain, he ac+uired physical possession of the merchandise of the

stolen cases of detergent for a considerable period of time, because the act was performed

repeatedly and for a considerable period of time he was able to drop the merchandise off at a

spot in the parking lot, and the time was long enough to these into a ta7i.

!E"!LE VS. AL(AZAN

G.R. No. 1)894)*44, 1' Se+ember 2001

Facts:

2icente adriaga and a certain %llan were playing chess, and their spectators were 2icente9s

son )oli, who was carrying his :; year old daughter, 2icente9s grandson )oel, and a neighbor

named %ngel *oliva. $hile the game was underway, Henry %lma3an une7pectedly arrived and

brandished a .< caliber revolver in front of the group. %lma3an9s fighting cocks had =ust been

stolen and he suspected %ngel, one of the spectators, to be the culprit. He aimed his gun at

%ngel and pulled the trigger. 4t did not fire. He tried again, but again it failed. 2icente adriaga

stood up and tried to calm down Henry, but the latter refused. %ngel ran away and Henry aimedhis gun instead at )oli and shot him at the left side of his stomach sending him immediately to

the ground. Henry then turned on )oel and shot him on the left thigh. )oel managed to walk

lamely but only to eventually fall to the ground. Thereafter, 2icente adriaga called on his

neighbors who brought )oli and )oel to the hospital. )oli however died before reaching the

hospital, while )oel survived his in=uries. The trial court declared accused;appellant Henry

%lma3an guilty of murder and frustrated murder.

%ssue:

$hether or not %lma3an was guilty of frustrated murder.

'eld:

The Joint 5ecision of the trial court finding accused;appellant Henry %lma3an guilty of urder is

affirmed. However, his conviction for frustrated murder is changed by lowering the crime to

attempted murder.

>or the charge of frustrated murder to flourish, the victim should sustain a fatal wound that

could have caused his death were it not for timely medical assistance. This is not the case

before us. The court a *uo anchored its ruling on the statement of 5r. Ticman on cross;



e7amination that the wound of )oel could catch infection or lead to his death if not timely and

properly treated. However, in his direct testimony, 5r. Ticman declared that the wound was a

mere minor in=ury for which )oel, after undergoing treatment, was immediately advised to go

home. He even referred to the wound as a slight physical in=ury that would heal within a week

and for which the victim was in no danger of dying. "lear as the statement is, coupled with the

fact that )oel was indeed immediately advised to go home as he was not in any danger of death, we have no reason to doubt the meaning and implications of 5r. Ticman9s statement. His

statement that )oel could catch infection was based on pure speculation rather than on the

actual nature of the wound which was a mere minor in=ury, hence, not fatal. %ccording to

=urisprudence, if the victim was wounded with an in=ury that was not fatal, and could not cause

his death, the crime would only be attempted. The observation that the conviction should be for

slight physical in=uries only is likewise improper as the accused;appellant was motivated by the

same impetus and intent, i.e., to e7act vengeance and even kill, if necessary, when he shot )oel

adriaga. The fact that the wound was merely a minor in=ury which could heal in a week

becomes inconse+uential.

Documents

Case Digest - Ivan