Digested Criminal Law Cases on Murder and Vagrancy

VAGRANCY

G.R. No. L-7529            November 19, 1912

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.VALERIANO MOLINA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

The appellant in this case was convicted of the crime of vagrancy as defined and penalized in Act No. 519 of the Philippine Commission, and was sentenced to imprisonment for two months and the payment of the costs of the trial.
The evidence of record discloses that the defendant was discharged from Bilibid Prison some time during the month of March, 1910, after serving a short sentence for a violation of the Opium Law; that from that time until the date of his prosecution on this charge of vagrancy, he had been engaged in no legal occupation, and was without any apparent means of support other than that supplied him by his mother; that he is an able-bodied man of 33 years of age; that he habitually neglected to apply himself to any lawful calling, and that he spent his time in loitering about the streets and frequenting cockpits and places where games of various kinds were conducted and where gambling was carried on; that he had been once convicted of a violation of the provisions of the Opium Law, and that he had been twice convicted on a charge of playing monte (a prohibited gambling game) toward the latter part of the year 1910.
The accused, on his own behalf, testified that he was supported by his other, with whom he lived, and that he worked on her property. The evidence in this connection is not very satisfactory, but it seems clear that his mother is a woman of very small means, and that if she has any property at all, it is so small as to be wholly inadequate to furnish even a pretense of work for an able- bodied man. The accused, in explaining where he got the money to be at the cockpits, claimed that on various occasions his mother gave him small sums for that purpose, and that when he won he brought her the proceeds. These statements of the accused merely serve to confirm us in our opinion that the defendant was an idle, shiftless and worthless man who made no attempt to follow any legal calling, and whose habits of life were those of an immoral and dissolute good for nothing.
In the case of Gavin vs. The State (96 Miss., 377), the court said that:

In vagrancy, the offense consists in general worthlessness; that is to say, in being idle, and though able to work, refusing to do so, and living without labor, or on the charity of others.

This definition of the offense substantially corresponds with the definition of that class of vagrancy set forth in the first part of section 1 of the Philippine Vagrancy Act(Act No. 519), which provides that:

Every person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work, and who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling . . . is a vagrant.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal to reverse conviction of the accued should be granted?

HELD: NO.  The Supreme Court did not find that the claim by this able-bodied man, 33 years of age, that he was living on the charity of his mother, can be said to rebut the other evidence in the record which tended to disclose that he had no apparent means of support. He had no legal or moral claim upon his mother for support, and indeed, from the indications in the record as to the scanty means possessed by the mother, it would appear that it was his final duty to aid her rather than to call upon her for aid.
The judgment of conviction and the sentenced imposed by the trial court was affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Murder

G.R. No. 182310               December 9, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JAN MICHAEL TAN and ARCHIE

FACTS:

After investigation of the prosecution, the above respondents became suspects in the the commission of parricide and two murders; their father, their step-mother and step sister.
Respondents Archie and Jan-Jan’s defense is alibi. They claimed that they were away when the crimes took place at the house. Based on Dr. Lebaquin’s forensic computation, however, the victims probably died at about midnight, more or less. The two were still at home when the killings happened.
 RTC issued an order, directing the City Prosecutor’s Office to submit additional evidence in the case but the latter office asked for more time to comply.²⁸ Meanwhile, the DOJ issued a resolution dismissing respondents Archie and Jan-Jan’s petition for review.²⁹
After a new presiding judge, Judge Globert Justalero, took over the RTC, he issued an order on March 30, 2007 granting the prosecution’s request for additional time within which to comply with the court’s order of January 12, 2007.³⁰ On April 2, 2007 the prosecutor’s office filed its compliance and submitted its amended resolution in the case.³¹ The petitioners assailed this amended resolution and pointed out that the public prosecutor did not submit any additional evidence.Probable cause was found  against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan this time and ordered the issuance of warrants for their arrest. The CA granted accused’s petition for certiorari and reversed all RTC’s decisions.  After being denied the motion for consideration, the Public Prosecutor filed this instant petition.  Here, admittedly, the evidence against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan is merely circumstantial. The prosecution evidence shows that they had motive in that they had been at odds with their father and stepmother. They had opportunity in that they were still probably home when the crime took place. Archie took two pairs of new gloves from his car late that evening. Cindy was apparently executed inside Archie’s room. The separate rooms of the two accused had, quite curiously, been wiped clean even of their own fingerprints. A trial, unlike preliminary investigations, could yield more evidence favorable to either side after the interrogations of the witnesses either on direct examination or on cross-examination. What is important is that there is some rational basis for going ahead with judicial inquiry into the case. This Court does not subscribe to the CA’s position that the prosecution had nothing to go on with.

The Issues Presented

ISSUE: Respondents Archie and Jan-Jan present the following issues for resolution by this Court:

a) Whether or not the CA erred in finding  Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion reversing his predecessor’s finding of no probable cause to the existence of probable cause

this is not the actual persons murdered in the case

HELD:

There was no grave abuse of the Trial Judge.The prosecution filed its compliance together with its amended resolution in the case. The judge considered the following factors: first, the DOJ’s denial of the appeal of the two accused and its finding that probable cause existed against them and, two, the local prosecutor’s submittal, if not of some new evidence, of additional arguments respecting the issue of probable cause. Grave abuse of discretion implies an irrational behavior. The reexamination was proper considering the said developments and the pending interlocutory orders. In finding of probable cause, it requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his arrest.

In this case, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision dated December 19, 2007 and resolution dated March 25, 2008; reinstating and affirming the dection of the trial court.