UPDATES OF JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES
Posted by legalhawk on December 4, 2007
Former Provincial Prosecutor ROGELIO C. HIPOL continues to help his fellow Prosecutors by providing them researched materials from the internet. The Office of the Regional State Prosecutor distributes to Prosecutors within Region 1 these materials through emails. Here are some of his latest materials.
1) For an accused to be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, “the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7610.” (citing Amployo v. People, G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 282, 291).
The foregoing is among the doctrines enunciated by the Supreme Court, through its Second Division, in the case of Cabila v, People, promulgated November 23, 2007.
2) In general, a trust receipt transaction imposes upon the entrustee the obligation to deliver to the entruster the price of the sale, or if the merchandise is not sold, to return the same to the entruster. There are thus two obligations in a trust receipt transaction: the first, refers to money received under the obligation involving the duty to turn it over (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sold [People v. Cuevo, 191 Phil. 622, 630 (1981)], while the second refers to merchandise received under the obligation to “return” it (devolvera) to the owner (ibid). A violation of any of these undertakings constitutes estafa defined under Art. 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as provided by Sec. 13 of Presidential Decree 115 [Gonzalez vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 164904, October 19, 2007]
3) Section 4 (Amendment of complaint or information) and Section 5 (Effect of sustaining the motion to quash) of Rule 117 were tackled by the Supreme Court in Gonzales vs. Salvador, et al., G.R. No. 168340, December 5, 2006
