Scribd
Upload
153 views

Digest

Gary Alinao was found guilty of murdering his brother-in-law Antonio Ardet. Alinao set Ardet's house on fire and shot him seven times when he emerged from the burning building. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's award of exemplary damages, finding that Alinao's crime was premeditated as it was carefully planned in advance. Carlos Tanenggee was found guilty of five counts of estafa through falsifying commercial documents while working as a bank manager. He forged loan documents using a client's signature to obtain funds, which he then misappropriated. The Supreme Court modified the penalties imposed by the trial court, finding the minimum term of eight years

Uploaded by

Regina Mueller
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
153 views

Digest

Gary Alinao was found guilty of murdering his brother-in-law Antonio Ardet. Alinao set Ardet's house on fire and shot him seven times when he emerged from the burning building. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's award of exemplary damages, finding that Alinao's crime was premeditated as it was carefully planned in advance. Carlos Tanenggee was found guilty of five counts of estafa through falsifying commercial documents while working as a bank manager. He forged loan documents using a client's signature to obtain funds, which he then misappropriated. The Supreme Court modified the penalties imposed by the trial court, finding the minimum term of eight years

Uploaded by

Regina Mueller
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

People vs.

Alinao
706 SCRA 116, Sept. 18, 2013
Exemplary Damages

Facts:
Gary Alinao and his son, Jocel Alinao (at large), was found guilty of murder, with the use of
illegally possessed firearm. Alinao set on fire the house of the victim Artonio Ardet, who was his
brother in law, and then shot him seven times at the face when he came out from the burning
house which caused the victims instant death.
Nestor Ardet, half-brother of the victim Antonio Ardet, testified that on February 27, 2006 at
around 11:00 p.m., he was inside his house, which was eight meters away from the house of the
deceased Antonio Ardet. He was awakened by the barking of dogs. He stood and slowly opened
his window, and saw Antonio Ardets house burning. Gary Alinao was pointing his gun at the
door of Antonio Ardet, with Jocel Alinao behind him.
Antonio Ardet tried to get out of his house, but Gary Alinao shot him and fell inside the burning
house.
Gary Alinao is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay the aggrieved party the
sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) by way of civil indemnity for the death of
Antonio Ardet, plus moral damages in the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS(P120,000.00) and actual and exemplary damages in the amount of SEVENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) and THIRTYTHOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00)
respectively. On appeal, CA modified the amount of damages to be paid to the victims heir as
follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00
as temperate damages.The award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages was deleted on the
ground the no aggravating circumstance was established in evidence.
Ruling of the Supreme Court on Exemplary Damages:
Supreme Court ruled that an award of exemplary damages is justified if an aggravating
circumstance, either qualifying or generic, accompanies the crime. In the case at bar, the
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was duly alleged in the Information and proved
during the trial. Therefore, in line with current jurisprudence, SC reinstate the trial court's award
of the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to heirs of the victim.
Alinao, in razing Antonio Ardets house in order to drive him out and shooting him the moment
he appears at his front door, clearly had a previously and carefully crafted plan to kill his victim.
The court was convinced that the time it took accused-appellant and his son to device their plan,
plot where the gasoline should be poured, and procure the gasoline and the firearms, as well as
the time it took to go to Antonio Ardets house, and even the time when they waited for Antonio
Ardet to come out of the house, all afforded accused-appellant sufficient opportunity to reflect
upon the consequences of his act to kill his brother-in-law and his determination to commit the
cold-blooded deed from the time of its conception until it was carried out.

Tanenggee vs People
Estafa Through Falsification of Commercial Documents/ Penalties
Facts:
Carlos L. Tanenggee was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of estafa through
falsification of commercial documents. The prosecution alleged that on different occasions,
appellant caused to be prepared promissory notes and cashiers checks in the name of Romeo
Tan, a valued client of the bank since he has substantial deposits in his account, in connection
with the purported loans obtained by the latter from the bank. Appellant approved and signed the
cashiers check as branch manager of Metrobank Commercio Branch. Appellant affixed, forged
or caused to be signed the signature of Tan as endorser and payee of the proceeds of the checks at
the back of the same to show that the latter had indeed endorsed the same for payment. He
handed the checks to the Loans clerk, Maria Dolores Miranda, for encashment. Once said
documents were forged and falsified, appellant released and obtained from Metrobank the
proceeds of the alleged loan and misappropriated the same to his use and benefit. After the
discovery of the irregular loans, an internal audit was conducted and an administrative
investigation was held in the Head Office of Metrobank, during which appellant signed a written
statement (marked as Exhibit N) in the form of questions and answers.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
After the joint trial, the RTC rendered the following sentence in each count of estafa:
1. In Criminal Case No. 98-163806[,] to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum including the accessory penalties provided by law.
2. In Criminal Case No. 98-163807[,] to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum including the accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify Metrobank the
sum of P16 Million with interest [at] 18% per annum counted from 27 November 1997 until
fully paid.
3. In Criminal Case No. 98-163808[,] to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum including the accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify Metrobank the
sum of P6 Million with interest [at] 18% per annum counted from 27 October 1997 until fully
paid.
4. In Criminal Case No. 98-163809[,] to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum including the accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify Metrobank the
sum of P2 Million with interest [at] 18% per annum counted from 22 December 1997 until fully
paid.

5. In Criminal Case No. 98-163810[,] to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment


from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum including the accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify Metrobank the
sum of P3 Million with interest [at] 18% per annum [counted] from 12 November 1997 until
fully paid.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The penalty for falsification of a commercial document under Article 172 of the RPC is prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000.00.
The penalty in estafa cases, on the other hand, as provided under paragraph 1, Article 315 of the
RPC is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period39 if
the amount defrauded is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. If the amount
involved exceeds the latter sum, the same paragraph provides the imposition of the penalty in its
maximum period with an incremental penalty of one year imprisonment for every P10,000.00
but in no case shall the total penalty exceed 20 years of imprisonment.
Petitioner in this case is found liable for the commission of the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of commercial document. The crime of falsification was established to be a
necessary means to commit estafa. Pursuant to Article 48 of the Code, the penalty to be imposed
in such case should be that corresponding to the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its
maximum period. The applicable penalty therefore is for the crime of estafa, being the more
serious offense than falsification.
The amounts involved in this case range from P2 million to P16 million. Said amounts being in
excess of P22,000.00, the penalty imposable should be within the maximum term of six (6)
years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years of prision mayor, adding one
(1) year for each additional P10,000.00. Considering the amounts involved, the additional
penalty of one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 would surely exceed the maximum
limitation provided under Article 315, which is twenty (20) years. Thus, the RTC correctly
imposed the maximum term of twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal.
There is need, however, to modify the penalties imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the CA
in each case respecting the minimum term of imprisonment. The trial court imposed the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum which
is beyond the lawful range. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the
penalty should be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law for the
offense. Since the penalty prescribed for the estafa charge against petitioner is prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods which has a duration of six (6) months and one
(1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. Thus, the Court sets the minimum term of the

indeterminate penalty at four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional. Petitioner is
therefore sentenced in each case to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum.

You might also like