People vs. Calixtro

G.R.No. L-32794

Facts: Juanito Calixtro, Apolinario Martinez, Petronilo Mercado, Alberto Katigbak and Juan Mercado with Pio Cuevas and Alberto Obrador who had since dies because of the resistance put up by a security guard of the Rural Bank, all armed with assorted unlicensed firearms, conspiring and confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually aiding one another, with intent to gain and against the consent of the owner, by means of violence against and intimidation of persons, at gunpoint, took, robbed and carried away cash money in total of P150 belonging to the rural bank and on the same occasion feloniously attacked, assault and hit with the firearms Pio Cuevas and Julian Agojo, inflicting several gunshot wounds which resulted in death and upon the latter injuries that required medical attendance.Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is robbery in band with homicide.Ruling: Yes. The trial court correctly held that the appellants committed robbery in band with homicide aggravated by craft and use of motor vehicle.Ratio: as per Art. 294, it is enough that homicide would result be reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The High Tribunal speaking of the accessory character of the circumstances leading to the homicide, has also held that it is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident, provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration.People vs. JaranillaG.R.No. L-28547

Facts: Gorriceta was driving a Ford pickup truck when he was hailed by Ricardo Suyo, Elias Jaranilla, and Franco Brillantes to take them to Mandurrio. There, they alighted and made him to wait. After 10-20mins, they returned running and carrying two fighting cocks. When they were stopped by policeman on the road, Jaranilla shot Patrolman Jabatan who approached their truck. They fled from the scene. Gorriceta surrendered to the police the following day and recounted the incident to a police investigator. Jabatan died later. Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robo con homicide with aggravating circumstances of use of a motor vehicle, nocturnity, band, contempt of or with insult to the public authorities and recidivism. The fiscal utilized Gorriceta as a state witness and dismissed the case as to him.Issue: whether or not the crime committed is robbery with homicideRuling: No. the crime is theft. Jaranilla committed theft and homicide.Ratio: the chicken coop where the six roosters were taken cannot be considered a building within the meaning of Art. 302. Not being a building, it cannot be said that the accused entered the same in order to commit robbery by means of any of the five circumstances enumerated in Art. 302. The taking of the six roosters from the coop should be chracterised as theft and not robbery. The conduct of the accused reveals that they conspired to steal the roosters. The taking is punishable as a single offense of theft. With respect to the killing of Patrolman Jabatan, it has already been noted that the evidence for the prosecution points to Jaranilla as the malefactor who shot that unfortunate peace officer. The killing was homicide because it was made on the spur of the moment.People vs. Ong

204 SCRA 942 (1991)Facts:

Accused Dick Ong, one of the depositors of the Home Savings Bank and Trust Company (HSBTC) opened a savings account with HSBTC with an initial deposit of P22.14 in cash and P10,000.00 in check.

Ong was allowed to withdraw from his savings account with the Bank the sum of P5,000.00, without his check undergoing the usual and reglementary clearance. The withdrawal slip was signed and approved by Lino Morfe, then the Branch Manager, and accused Lucila Talabis, the Branch Cashier.

Subsequently, Ong deposited eleven checks in his savings account with the Bank and against which he made withdrawals against its amount. Again, the withdrawal of the amount by Ong was made before said checks were cleared and the Bank had collected their amounts and with the approval of Talabis.

However, when the Bank presented the eleven checks issued, deposited and against which Ong made withdrawals against its amounts, to their respective drawee banks for payment, they were all dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds. Because of this, the Bank filed a criminal action for Estafa against Ong, and the Banks officer in charge Villaran and Talabis.

Talabis testified that the approval of the withdrawals of Ong against his uncleared checks was in accordance with the instruction of their then bank manager and that it is a kind of accommodation given to Ong and also a common practice of the Bank. RTC ruled Ong as guilty for the crime of estafa but acquitted Villarin and Talabis as their guilt were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. CA affirmed RTCs decisions.

Issue:

WON Ong is guilty of Estafa.

Ruling: No.Ratio: The elements of this kind of estafa are the following: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.

In this case, the fact was established that Ong either issued or indorsed the subject checks. However, it must be remembered that the reason for the conviction of an accused of the crime of estafa is his guilty knowledge of the fact that he had no funds in the bank when he negotiated the spurious check.In the present case, however, the prosecution failed to prove that Ong had knowledge with respect to the checks he indorsed. Moreover, it has also been proven that it was the Bank which granted him a drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD) privilege without need of any pretensions on his part. The privilege was not only for the subject checks, but for other past transactions. If ever, he, indeed acted fraudulently, he could not have done so without the active cooperation of the Banks employees. Since Talabis and Villaran were declared innocent of the crimes charged against them, the same should be said for the Ong.

Thus, Ong cannot be held criminally liable against the Bank. He can only be held civilly liable as the Bank incurred damages.