Belleros vs.

People
Attempted rape unjust vexation
Unlike the 12 separate Informations in Contreras, the indicting Information for
attempted rape against the petitioner in the instant case contains averments
constituting and thus justifying his conviction for unjust vexation, a form of light
coercion, under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. Here, the Information
reads:
That about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in
Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, by forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece
of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commenced the commission of rape by lying on top of
her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to
perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than
his
own spontaneous desistance, said acts being committed against her will and
consent to her damage and prejudice.
Contention: Petitioner argues, however, that the Information, as quoted above,
does not allege that the complained act of covering the face of the victim
(Malou) with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical caused her annoyance,
irritation, torment, distress and disturbance.
We wish to stress that malice, compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an
Information for unjust vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the element
of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is broad enough to include
any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material
harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person
People vs. Astorga
Actual detention or "locking up" is the primary element of kidnapping. If the
evidence does not adequately prove this element, the accused cannot be held
liable for kidnapping. In the present case, the prosecution merely proved that
appellant forcibly dragged the victim toward a place only he knew. There being
no actual detention or confinement, the appellant may be convicted only of
grave coercion
From the foregoing, it is clear that the appellant and the victim were constantly
on the move. They went to Maco Elementary School and strolled on the school
grounds. When nobody was at the Luponlupon bridge, appellant took the victim
to the highway leading to Tagum, Davao. At that time, Yvonne pleaded with
appellant that she really wanted to go home to Binuangan, but appellant ignored
her pleas and continued walking her toward the wrong direction. Later on, the
group of Witness Arnel Fabila spotted them. Appellant Astorga carried the victim
and ran, but Fabila's group chased and caught up with them.
This narration does not adequately establish actual confinement or restraint of
the victim, which is the primary element of kidnapping. 31 Appellant's apparent
intention was to take Yvonne against her will towards the direction of Tagum.
Appellant's plan did not materialize, however, because Fabila's group chanced

upon them. The evidence does not show that appellant wanted to detain Yvonne;
much less, that he actually detained her. Appellant's forcible dragging of Yvonne
to a place only he knew cannot be said to be an actual confinement or restriction
on the person of Yvonne. There was no "lockup." Accordingly, appellant cannot
be convicted of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
Rather, the felony committed in this case is grave coercion under Article 286 of
the same code. Grave coercion or coaccion grave has three elements: (a) that
any person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law,
or compelled to do something against his or her will, be it right or wrong; (b) that
the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, either by material force or
such a display of it as would produce intimidation and, consequently, control
over the will of the offended party; and (c) that the person who restrains the will
and liberty of another has no right to do so or, in other words, that the restraint
is not made under authority of a law or in the exercise of any lawful right. 32
When appellant forcibly dragged and slapped Yvonne, he took away her right to
go home to Binuangan. Appellant presented no justification for preventing
Yvonne from going home, and we cannot find any.
Elements of Kidnapping
1. That the offender is a private individual.
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter
of his liberty.
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal.
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is
present:
5. That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than five (5) days; or
6. That it committed simulating public authority; or
7. That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are made; or
8. That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
Marzalado vs. People
Not guilty no sufficient proof
trespass to dwelling, the elements are: (1) the offender is a private person; (2)
that he enters the dwelling of another; and (3) such entrance is against the
latter's will.
There was an exigency that had to be addressed to avoid damage to the leased
unit. There is nothing culpable concerning Marzalado, Jr.'s judgment call to enter
the unit and turn off the faucet instead of closing the inlet valve as suggested by
the OSG.
Thus, we find the evidence on record insufficient to hold petitioner guilty of the
offense charged. Palpable doubt exists in our mind as to the guilt of petitioner. In
our view, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court and of the Metropolitan Trial Court when it found petitioner guilty of
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. In a situation of ambiguity, where the act of the
accused permits of two possible signification, one culpable and another innocent,

the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the accused. The evidence in this
case simply fails to convince us of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
People vs Rosauro Reyes
Grave oral oral defamation sangley point
After a careful consideration of the original information, we find that all the
elements of the crime of grave threats as defined in Article 282 1 of the Revised
Penal Code and penalized by its paragraph 2 were alleged therein namely: (1)
that the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of
a wrong; (2) that such wrong amounted to a crime; and (3) that the threat was
not subject to a condition
Militar vs People
Senior Inspector Antonio Militar Putang ina mo pee jay papatayin kita
With regard to the argument of petitioner that the uttered words do not
constitute the crime of Grave Threats,7 [Art. 282. Grave Threat.- Any person who
shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of
the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he
threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding
money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said
offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained
his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos, if the
threat shall have been made subject to a condition.] the same cannot be
sustained. As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, all the elements of
the crime were established by the prosecution. Petitioner threatened
complainant with the infliction of a crime upon his person. The threat was made
without petitioner attaining his purpose. Lastly, the threat was not subject to a
condition