Case Pool for Crim

Isidro Bernardo V People

Fact: Isidro Bernardo and Cayetano Bernardo were charged with squatting by Ledda Sta. Rosa under the directive of Presidential Decree No. 772, and Ledda previously sent a letter of demand telling them to leave

Ruling: Isidro Bernardo was allowed to keep their land, since Presidential Decree No. 772’s preamble only mentions urban communities having the problem of squatting

Doctrine: Nullum Crimen Sine Lege (No crime without a law), and since the law was construed like this you need to be very exact

Gumabon V Director of the Bureau of Prisons

Facts: Gumabon and 4 other prisoners are charged with Rebellion complexed with murder, kidnapping, and arson. People V Hernandez invalidates this, stating that rebellion cannot be complexed

Ruling: They should be allowed to be free, given they’ve served beyond the maximum sentence of 12 years for rebellion
Doctrine: RPC Art 22, which allows for beneficial retroactivity in cases of a penal statute’s repeal, also applies if a judicial decision invalidates a crime

People V Pimentel

Facts: Antonio Tujan was a member of the Communist Party, and charged with subversion at the RTC of Manila; later charged with Illegal Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition in furtherance of Severance once he was caught

Issues: Is this double jeopardy?

Ruling: No it was not double jeopardy since it was a separate crime AND he had yet to be arraigned and sentenced

; BUT he should not be charged because subversion was repealed, and obviously that means Illegal possession of a firearm in furtherance of serverance isn’t a real crime

Only charged for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, and thus bail is allowable

Pascual V Board of Examiners

Facts:

Arsenio Pascual was asked my a Board of Medical Examiners to testify against himself on charges of alleged morality.

Issue: Does this violate his right against self incrimination? The medical board states he can just refuse incriminating

Ruling: Yes he can refuse to testify. In Cabal V Kapunan we ruled an official charged with corruption doesn’t have to take the witness stand against himself. The hearing, given its penal nature as a result of him possibly losing his license, also counts

Doctrine: The protection against self incrimination includes the right to silence,

Section 1, Clause 18, Art. III, Constitution.

• Protects against self-incrimination