People vs. Juliano

People of the Philippines (appellee)

vs.

Lea Sagan Juliano (appellant)

G.R.  No. 134120

January 17, 2005

FACTS: The accused purchased 190 sacks of milled rice from JCT Agro-Development Corporation and in payment she issued a check for a value of P89,000, knowing at the time of issue that she did not have funds with the drawee bank for payment of the said check. When presented for encashment, it was dishonored by the bank for reason of insufficiency of funds. On the following month the accused issued another check that was again dishonored by the drawee bank for the same reason, to the damage and prejudice of JCT Agro-Development Corporation.

The trial court found her guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) and Estafa. Appellant appealed her conviction for estafa to the Court of Appeals, but still found her guilty, with intent to defraud and by means of false pretense, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, committed the offenses.

ISSUE:  Whether the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant for estafa?

RULING: The Court set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court and acquitted Lea Sagan Juliano for the crime of estafa. The accused could not be found guilty of estafa in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused employed deceit constituting false pretenses or any fraudulent act. Nevertheless, appellant’s civil liability to JCT remains, in the amount of P89,000, which is the value of the sack of rice she purchased.

People vs. Enriquez

People of the Philippines (appellee)
vs.
Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. and Emiliano Enriquez (appellants)
G.R. No. 158797
July 29, 2005


FACTS: The abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with the use of firearm (nickel plated revolver), motor vehicle (tricycle) and by simulating public authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, forcibly kidnapped Alexander Pureza y Mendoza by the point of a gun (revolver) and forcibly loaded him to a yellow colored tricycle (Hazel) and brought somewhere else and detained in an undisclosed place for more than five (5) days since the kidnapping took place and up to the present time could not be located, with the aggravating circumstances of the use of a firearm, force, motor vehicle and simulation of public authority.

Appellants were convicted of kidnapping by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City and each was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum. They appealed to the Court of Appeals which not only affirmed their convictions but imposed upon each of the appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUES:(1) Whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
(2) Whether Indeterminate Sentence Law shall apply to their case?

RULING:(1) The Court joined the lower courts in rejecting appellant’s alibi. They have repeatedly ruled that alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and is highly unreliable, more so when corroborated only by relatives and friends. It cannot stand against the positive identification of appellant by a credible witness to the crime.

The Court found that the guilt of appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. All the elements of the crime of kidnapping, to wit: (1) the accused is a private individual; (2) the accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances mentioned in Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code are present, have been proven through the eyewitness account and have not been shown to have any improver motive in testifying the case.

(2) Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act. No. 4103) proscribes that it will not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment. The penalty imposed on the crime which the appellants have committed is punishable at that time by reclusion perpetua, which for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is synonymous to life-imprisonment; hence, latter law will not apply in their case, and so the penalty of reclusion perpetua will be imposed instead.