sic itur ad astra

Criminal Law |  What Civil Liability Includes Spouses Llonillo entered into a “sangla-tira” arrangement with Pedro Joel Caspillo, who lent them ₱300,000 in exchange for temporary rights to collect rent from Unit H of their property. They assured Caspillo that the unit was free of encumbrances, but it was later discovered that the unit was mortgaged and had been offered to other parties under similar arrangements. Caspillo failed to collect rent and was not repaid the loan, prompting him to file a criminal complaint for estafa ( Other Deceits under Article 318, RPC). The trial courts convicted the spouses, but the Supreme Court later acquitted them, ruling that the elements of deceit were not sufficiently proven. Whether civil liability may still be imposed on the accused despite their acquittal in the criminal case . The Supreme Court ruled that although the spouses were acquitted of criminal liability, they are still civilly liable to Caspillo for the unpaid ₱300,000 loa n. Civi...

Criminal Law | Prescription Benjamin Pangan was convicted of simple seduction and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor. His conviction was affirmed on appeal in 1988. He failed to appear for the promulgation of judgment in 1991 and remained at large. He was arrested only in 2000—almost nine years later. Pangan filed a petition for habeas corpus , arguing that his penalty had prescribed under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, which sets a 5-year prescriptive period for arresto mayor. When does the prescriptive period for penalties begin under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code? Specifically, does it apply to a convict who was never arrested or imprisoned ? The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty had not prescribed . Article 93 states that prescription begins when the convict “ evades the service of sentence .” Based on jurisprudence (Infante, Tanega, Del Castillo), evasion means escaping during actual service of sentence—i.e., while in custody. Since Pangan w...

Criminal Law | Prescription In 1992, Rodrigo Cawili borrowed ₱1.9M from petitioner Luis Panaguiton. On January 8, 1993, Cawili and Ramon Tongson issued three checks as payment. On March 18, 1993 , the checks were dishonored. In 1995, Panaguiton made demands, but payment was not made. On August 24, 1995 , Panaguiton filed a complaint for violation of B.P. 22 against Cawili and Tongson before the QC Prosecutor. The case against Tongson was dismissed, then reinstated on appeal, then again dismissed by the prosecutor for having prescribed. Whether the filing of a complaint for violation of B.P. 22 before the prosecutor’s office interrupt the running of the 4-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326.  (YES) The filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescriptive period . DOJ wrongly relied on Zaldivia v. Reyes (ordinance violation) which held that prescription is tolled only upon filing of the information in court. Correct precedent is Ingco v. Sandigan...

Criminal Law | Prescription On June 12, 1999 , Clemente Bautista allegedly committed slight physical injuries against Felipe Goyena Jr. The complaint was filed with the barangay, but no settlement was reached.  On August 11, 1999, a certification to file action was issued. On August 16, 1999, the complainant filed a case with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP). On November 8, 1999, the prosecutor recommended filing an information. On June 20, 2000, the actual filing in court occurred. Bautista moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the 60-day prescriptive period for slight physical injuries had lapsed. MeTC: Denied motion to dismiss (case not yet prescribed). RTC: Affirmed MeTC. CA: Reversed RTC, dismissed case, held that prescription resumed upon prosecutor’s approval, and since the filing was delayed until June 2000, offense had prescribed. Whether the prescriptive period for slight physical injuries resume after the prosecutor’s recommendation to file an information ...

Criminal Law | Juvenile Justice Richard Sarcia was charged with rape committed in 1996 against a 5-year-old girl, AAA. The case was filed in 2000. RTC (2003) : Convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. CA (2005): Modified the penalty to death. Sarcia was approximately 18 years old at the time of the offense, and 24 when convicted. While his appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, Republic Act No. 9344 ( Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 ) took effect. Whether Sarcia, who was below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, is entitled to the benefits of R.A. No. 9344, particularly the automatic suspension of sentence and appropriate disposition measures . R.A. No. 9344 applies retroactively to Sarcia, who was a minor when the crime was committed . However, since Sarcia was already 31 years old at the time of the decision, the automatic suspension of sentence under Section 38 was no longer applicable. Instead, the Court ordered the case remanded for app...