People of the Philippines mere denial, just like alibi, constitutes a self-serving

vs. negative evidence which cannot be accorded

Quiachon, greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of
G.R. No. 170236 August 31, 2006 credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters
On the second issue, No, death is not a
FACTS: Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged proper penalty, in view of the enactment of Republic
with the crime of qualified rape and on or about May Act (R.A.) No. 9346[27] prohibiting the imposition of
12, 2001, in Pasig City, the accused, by means of the death penalty, Section 2 thereof which reads:
force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the
unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse following shall be imposed:
with one Rowena Quiachon y Reyes, his daughter, (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when
8 years old, a deaf-mute minor, against her will and the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of
consent. Key witnesses were presented. They the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the
were Rowel Quiachon, son of appellant; Rowena penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated
Quiachon, the victim; Dr. Miriam Sta. Romana does not make use of the nomenclature of the
Guialani; and SPO2 Noel Y. Venus. penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Rowel recounted that on the night of May 12, The aforequoted provision of R.A. No. 9346
2001, Rowel saw his fatheron top of his sister is applicable in this case pursuant to the principle in
Rowena and they were covered by a blanket or criminal law, favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa
"kumot." His father's buttocks were moving up and restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to
down, and Rowel could hear Rowena crying and accused are given retroactive effect.
because of fear he cant do anything. In the morning, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
together with his aunt, they go to the police and vs
reported it. The appellant denies all the accusations ARMANDO DE LARA Y GALARO,
and argued that they held a grudge against him. But G.R. No. 94953 September 5, 1994
the testimonies of the key witnesses were supported
with the documents during conduction of physical FACTS: On January 9, 1987, the Regional Trial
examination of the victim. Court, Branch 28 of Manila
After consideration of the respective
evidence of the prosecution and defense, the Armando Galaro was accused of unlawfully selling
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City rendered the of prohibited drugs when he sold two (2) foils of
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the flowering tops of marijuana and one (1) plastic bag
crime of qualified rape defined and he is hereby of flowering tops of marijuana to Pfc. Martin Orolfo,
sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH, Jr., the poseur-buyer, during a buy-bust operation.
including its accessory penalties, and to indemnify Galaro then refused to give a written statement until
the offended party. his lawyer has arrived.
Defendant then denied having sold illegal drugs and
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the accused is guilty of
rape claimed that the arresting officers are the ones that
planted marijuana on his person as there have been
Whether or not death is still the proper
penalty considering that Death Penalty was a previous report on a newspaper publication of the
rampant sale of drugs along Garrido and Zamora
abolished.
Street. He also contended that the police had search
HELD: On the first issue, Yes the accused is guilty his house without search warrant and he was
interrogated even though his lawyer was still not
of rape. The trial court observed that Rowel and
Rowena never wavered in their assertion that present. Galaro claimed that he was force to sign his
name on the photocopy of the twenty-peso bill that
accused sexually abused Rowena. Their narration
was said to be paid to him for the drugs.
palpably bears the earmarks of truth and is in accord
with the material points involved. Further, the trial The lower then ruled the defendant guilty beyond
court accorded great evidentiary weight to Rowenas reasonable doubt to which he appealed and
testimony. It justifiably did so as it characterized her questioning the legality of his arrest and seizure in
testimony to be simple, straightforward, unshaken his house.
by a rigid cross-examination, and unflawed by
inconsistency or contradiction. Significantly, their ISSUE: Whether or not there was illegal arrest and
testimonies were corroborated by Dr. Guialanis seizure committed to the defendant?
medico-legal report. And appellants simple denial
of the charge against him must necessarily fail. A
RULING: Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on ISSUE: Whether or not Ministry Circular No. 12
Criminal Procedures dealing with warrantless dated August 8, 1984 declaring the guarantee check
arrests provides: will no longer be considered as a valid defense be
retroactively applied.
Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
A peace officer or a private HELD: NO. Decision of the Court of Appeals and
person may, without a warrant, RTC were set aside. Criminal prosecution against
arrest a person; accused-petitioner was dismissed.

a) When, in his presence, the It would seem that the weight of authority is
person to be arrested has decidedly in favor of the proposition that the Courts
committed, is actually committing, or decision of September 21, 1987 in Que v. People,
is attempting to commit an offense; 154 SCRA 160 (1987) that a check issued merely to
guarantee the performance of an obligation is
b) When an offense has in fact nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22 should not
just been committed and he has be given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the
personal knowledge of facts petitioner and other persons situated, who relied on
indicating that the person to be the official opinion of the Minister of Justice that such
arrested has committed it; a check did not fall within the scope of B.P. Blg. 22.

In the instant case, Galaro was caught in the act of This is after all a criminal action all doubts in which,
selling the drugs thus the arrest was valid. pursuant to familiar, fundamental doctrine, must be
resolved in favor of the accused. Everything
considered, the Court sees no compelling reason
A surveillance operation was also conducted along
why the doctrine of mala prohibita should override
Garrido and Zamora Street even before the release
the principle of prospectivity, and its clear
of the newspaper reporting the rampant sale of
implications as herein above set out and discussed,
drugs. Therefore, the accused was arrested by
negating criminal liability.
result of the surveillance and buy-bust operation.
In the matter of the Petition for the Declaration
The seizure of the prohibited drugs is also valid as of the Petitioners Rights and Duties
it was the result of the defendants arrest in his Under Sec .8 of RA No. 6132
house. KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, INC
GR. No. L-32485 October 22, 1970
ALBINO S. CO FACTS: This petition for declaratory relief was filed
vs. by Kay Villegas Kami, Inc claiming to be a duly
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE recognized and existing non-stock and non-profit
PHILIPPINES corporation created under the laws of the land and
G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993 praying for the determination of the validity of sec. 8
No. 6132 and a declaration of petitioners rights and
duties thereunder. In paragraph 7 of its petition,
FACTS: A criminal complaint for violation of Batas petitioner avers that it has printed materials
Pambansa Bilang 22 was filed by the salvage designed to propagate its ideology and program of
company against petitioner with the Regional Trial government, which materials include Annex B; and
Court. The case eventuated in petitioners conviction that in paragraph 11 of said petition, petitioner
of the crime charged on the basis that a check intends to pursue its purposes by supporting
issued merely to guarantee the performance of an delegates to the constitutional convention who will
obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22. propagate its ideology. Petitioner, in paragraph 7 of
Pending litigation, Ministry of Justice Circular No. 4 its petition, actually impugns because it quoted only
(which excludes guarantee check from application of the first paragraph of Sec 8 on the ground that it
B.P. Blg. 22) was subsequently reversed by Ministry violates the due process clause, right of association,
Circular No. 12 which ruled that a check issued and freedom of expression ant that it is an ex post
merely to guarantee the performance of an facto law.
obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. There ISSUE/S: Whether or not Paragraph 1 of section 8
he sought exoneration upon the theory that it was of R.A 6132 is an ex post facto law.
reversible error for the Regional Trial Court but the
Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
HELD: No, Paragraph 1 of section 8 of R.A 6132 is search found the eight cans of opium hidden in the
not an ex post facto law. ashes below the boiler of the steamer's engine. The
The claim of petitioner that the challenged defendant confessed that he was the owner of this
provision constitutes an ex post facto law is likewise opium, and that he had purchased it in Saigon. He
untenable. did not confess, however, as to his purpose in buying
An ex post facto law is one which: (1) Makes the opium. He did not say that it was his intention to
criminal an act done before the passage of the law import the prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands.
and which was innocent when done, and punishes No other evidence direct or indirect, to show that the
such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it intention of the accused was to import illegally this
greater than it was, when committed;(3) changes the opium into the Philippine Islands.
punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant is guilty of
Alters the legal rules of evidence and authorizes violation of section 4 of Act No. 2381 (the Opium
conviction upon less or different testimony than the Law)?
law required at the time of the commission of the
offense;(5) Assuming to regulate civil rights and HELD: Yes, the defendant is guilty of violation of
remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or section 4 of Act. No. 2381. As applied to the Opium
deprivation of a right for something which when done Law, any person unlawfully imports or brings any
was lawful; and (6) deprives a persons accused of a prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands, when the
crime of some lawful protection to which he has prohibited drug is found under this person's control
become entitled, such as the protection of a former on a vessel which has come direct from a foreign
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. country and is within the jurisdictional limits of the
From the aforesaid definition as well as Philippine Islands. Applied to the facts, it would be
classification of ex post facto laws, the constitutional absurd to think that the accused was merely carrying
inhibition refers only to criminal laws which are given opium back and forth between Saigon and Cebu for
retroactive effect. the mere pleasure of so doing. It would likewise be
While it is true that Sec. 18 penalizes a impossible to conceive that the accused needed that
violation of any provision of R.A No. 6132 including large amount of opium for his personal use. No
Sec 8 thereof, the penalty is imposed only for acts better explanation being possible, the logical
committed after the approval of the law and not deduction is that the defendant intended this opium
those perpetrated prior thereto. There is nothing in to be brought into the Philippine Islands.
the law that remotely insinuates that Secs. 8 and 18,
or any other provision thereof, shall apply the acts
carried out prior to its approval. On the contrary, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
Sec.23 directs that the entire law shall be effective vs
upon its approval. It was approved on August 24, DONATO BINDOY
1970. G.R. No. L-34665 August 28, 1931
Wherefore, the prayer of the petition is hereby
denied and paragraph 1 of Sec.8 of R.A 6132 is not FACTS: On the 6th of May, 1930, Tibay, upon
unconstitutional. Without costs. refusing the tuba offered by Donato Bindoy, was
threatened by the latter to harm her. Defending his
wife, Faustino Pacas interfered and tried to take
THE UNITED STATES Bindoys bolo. The commotion lured Emigido
vs. Omamdam and left his house to see what was
AH SING happening. During the struggle, Bindoy, unaware of
G.R. No. L-13005 October 10, 1917 Omamdams presence behind him, finally strained
the bolo from Pacass grasp, forcefully that the point
FACTS: of the bolo stroke Omamdams chest and caused his
The Ah Sing a subject of China employed as death. The trial court found Bindoy guilty of
a fireman on the steamship Shun Chang. The Shun homicide. Bindoy appealed, alleging that he did not
Chang is a foreign steamer which arrived at the port have any malicious intent to kill Omamdam for he did
of Cebu on April 25, 1917, after a voyage direct from not see the latter arrive and pass behind him during
the port of Saigon. The defendant bought eight cans the time he was defending his possession of the bolo
of opium in Saigon, brought them on board, and had from Pacas.
them in his possession during the trip from Saigon to
Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the port of ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal of the accused
Cebu on April 25, 1917, the authorities on making a be granted.
HELD: Yes, the accused was acquitted on the basis presented by the defendant to the information that
of the Article 8, which says that one must have initiated this case.
motives that would have tempted him to do the
crime. In this case, no evidence was shown that ISSUE: Whether or not the courts of the Philippines
Bindoy intentionally killed Omamdam. have jurisdiction over the crime

The United States HELD: Yes, the courts of the Philippines have
vs. jurisdiction over the crime. We apply the
H.N. Bull fundamental rule to which we follow in connection
GR L-5270 January 15, 1910 with international law. The English rule, based on the
territorial principle and followed in the United States,
FACTS: On the 2nd day of December, 1908, H. N. according to which, crimes perpetrated under such
Bull, commanding the Standard steamship vessel circumstances are in general triable in the courts of
which was carrying 677 heads of cattles from the country within territory they were committed.
Amieng, Formosa, docked in the port of the Manila, This rule obtains jurisdiction, because at present
Philippines. The said vessel failed to provide the jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this
proper shelter and security for the animals which matter are authority in the Philippines which was at
were cruelly hurt and resulted to the death of some that time a territory of the United States.
while being transported. As a violation of Sect. 1 of In United States vs. Bull, the court held: . . . No court
Act No. 515 and Sect. 1 of Act No. 275 of the of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an
Philippine Constitution, H.N. Bull was convicted in offense or crime committed on the high seas or
the Court of First Instance. He appealed that the within the territorial waters of any other country, but
cases could not be filed because it was not stated when she came within three miles of a line drawn
that the court wherein the animals were from the headlands, which embrace the entrance to
disembarked would take jurisdiction, nor did it say Manila Bay, she was within territorial waters, and a
that ships not licensed under the Philippine laws new set of principles became applicable.
were subject to the Philippine jurisdiction. The mere possession of opium aboard a
foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not
ISSUE: Whether or not, H. N. Bull is subject to the triable by our courts. Without being used in our
Philippine court for an offense committed on board territory, it does not bring about in the said territory
of the foreign ship while inside the territorial waters those effects that our Opium Law contemplates
of the Philippines. avoiding. But to smoke opium within our territorial
HELD: Yes, foreign ships or vessels in the ports or limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship,
territorial waters of the Philippines are subject to the is certainly a breach of the public order. It seriously
jurisdiction of the state according to Article 2 of the contravenes the purpose to which our repressive
Revised Penal Code. The violation, coming from statute was enacted, because it causes such drug to
Formosa, a place where the Philippines has no produce its pernicious effects within our territory.
jurisdiction over, continued and reached the Therefore with the contentions at hand, an
Philippine territory. The accused was hereby found order appealed from is revoked and the cause
guilty and was sentenced to pay the indemnity. ordered remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings in accordance with law.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
vs
WONG CHENG (alias WONG CHUN) The People of the Philippine Islands
G.R. No. L-18924 October 19, 1922 vs.
Lol-lo and Saraw
FACTS: The appellee is accused of having illegally G.R. No. 17958. February 27, 1922
smoked opium, aboard the merchant vessel
Changsa of English nationality while said vessel was Facts: This is a case during the twentieth century,
anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles from the time when Spain ceded the Philippines to United
the shores of the city. States of America.
Due to alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part On June 30, 1920, two boats of Dutch
of the lower court, the case was so held and possession left Matuta wherein the second boat
dismissed. The Attorney-General then filed an arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in
appeal urging the revocation of the order of the Court the Dutch East Indies after days of navigation.
of First Instance of Manila to sustain the demurrer There, the boat was surrounded by vintas manned
by 24 Moros all armed. The Moros asked for food
but eventually took all the cargo, attacked some Jacks and Milliron, chief of the department of the port
men, and violated two women. After which, the of Cebu and internal-revenue agent of Cebu,
Moros made holes on the Dutch boat with the belief respectively, went abroad the steamship Erroll to
that it will submerge together with the people except
inspect and search its cargo, and found, first in a
for the two women. The Moros then arrived at
Maruro, a Dutch possession where the two women cabin one sack (Exhibit A) which contained 49 cans
were able to escape. Lol-lo, who raped one of the of opium and afterwards in the hold, another sack
women and Saraw were among the Moro marauder. (Exhibit B), which also contained several cans of the
They later returned to their home in South Ubian, same substance. The hold, in which the sack
Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippines islands where both of mentioned in Exhibit B was found, was under the
them were arrested and charged in the Court of First defendant's control and that, as his hold had already
Instance (CFI) of Sulu with the crime of piracy.
been searched several times for opium, he ordered
Interposed by a counsel de officio, they defended
that the offense was not within the CFI jurisdiction two other Chinamen to keep the sack. All evidences
and do not constitute public offense under the laws properly constitute the corpus delicti.
of the Philippine Islands. Overruled by the trial judge, It was established that the steamship Erroll
a judgment was rendered finding the two defendants was of English nationality, that it came from
guilty sentencing them to life imprisonment and to Hongkong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the
return the thirty-nine sacks of copras, or indemnify in call ports of Manila and Cebu. The defense moved
the amount of 924 rupees and pay part of the
for a dismissal of the case, on the grounds that the
costs. Hence, this petition.
court had no jurisdiction to try the same and the facts
Issue/s: Whether or not respondents are guilty of concerned therein did not constitute a crime. The
piracy fiscal, at the conclusion of his argument, asked that
the maximum penalty of the law be imposed upon
Held: Yes, the respondents are guilty of piracy. The the defendant, in view of the considerable amount of
crime falls under Article 153 (1) of the Penal Code in
opium seized. The court ruled that it did not lack
relation to Article 154 where two circumstances on
the crime of piracy are present, the offense against jurisdiction, inasmuch as the crime had been
chastity and the abandonment of persons without committed within its district, on the wharf of Cebu.
apparent means of saving themselves. Also, three ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine court has
aggravating circumstances are present: wrong done jurisdiction over the case.
was deliberately augmented by causing other
wrongs not necessary for commission of the crime, HELD: The appeal having been heard, together with
advantage was taken of superior strength, and that the allegations made therein by the parties, it is
means were employed which added ignominy to the found: That, although the mere possession of a thing
natural effects of the act. of prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign
In US vs Furlong [1820], 5 Wheat., 184,
Piracy is against all mankind which can be punished vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a
in the competent tribunal of any country where the general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts
offender may be found or into which he may be of this country, on account of such vessel being
carried. considered as an extension of its own nationality, the
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court to same rule does not apply when the article, whose
Saraw and indemnification is affirmed and reversed use is prohibited within the Philippine Islands, in the
as to Lol-lo, who is found guilty of the crime of piracy
present case a can of opium, is landed from the
and is sentenced to be hung until dead.
vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open
violation of the laws of the land, with respect to
THE UNITED STATES which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at
vs the place of the commission of the crime, only the
LOOK CHAW (alias LUK CHIU) court established in that said place itself had
G.R. No. L-5887 December 16, 1910 competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an
agreement under an international treaty.
FACTS: On August 19, 1909, between 11 and 12 It is also found: That, even admitting that the
o'clock a. m, several persons, among them Messrs. quantity of the drug seized, the subject matter of the
present case, was considerable, it does not appear navigable waters of the Philippine Archipelago, on
that, on such account, the two penalties fixed by the board a ship or water craft of any kind registered or
law on the subject, should be imposed in the licensed in the Philippine Islands in accordance with
maximum degree. Therefore, reducing the the laws thereof."
imprisonment and the fine imposed to six months In the instant case, transport Lawton was not
and P1,000, respectively, we affirm in all other a vessel of this class, therefore Philippine courts has
respects the judgment appealed from, with the costs no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a crime
of this instance against the appellant. committed on board the same.

THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

V vs.
WILLIAM FOWLER, ET AL FAUSTA GONZALES, AUGUSTO GONZALES,
G.R. No. L-496&9 December 31, 1902 CUSTODIO GONZALES, SR., CUSTODIO
GONZALES, JR., NERIO GONZALES and
FACTS: On August 12, 1902 Fowler and company ROGELIO LANIDA
was accused of theft of sixteen bottles of GR No. 80762
champagne aboard the transport Lawton while
navigating the high seas with the intent to gain and FACT: Augusto Gonzales surrendered his wife to
appropriate the same. the authorities saying that she killed, Lloyd
The counsel of the defendants alleged that Penacerrada, who attempted to rape his wife Fausta
the Court of First Instance was without jurisdiction to which led to be hacking and stabbing of the latter.
try the crime committed in the high seas and not Sufficient evidence from the crime scene as well as
within the Philippine territory; and asked for the case through autopsy of the cadaver were gathered
dismissal. This was opposed by the prosecuting before the criminal case was filed by the Provincial
attorney who argued that the court has original Fiscal against accused Fausta which latter included
jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the penalty his husband Augusto who voluntarily surrendered
exceeds six month's imprisonment, or a fine of over himself for having been involved in the killing of
$100; that, in accordance with the orders of the Penacerrada. When arraigned, spouses Gonzales
Military Governor and the Civil Commission plea not guilty but before the trial, Jose Huntoria,
admiralty jurisdiction over all crimes committed on who claimed to have witnessed the killing, named
board vessel flying the flag of the United States has additional suspects: CUSTODIO GONZALES, SR.,
been vested in the Court of First Instance of the city CUSTODIO GONZALES, JR., NERIO GONZALES
of Manila. and ROGELIO LANIDA, who subsequently pleaded
It was then ruled by the lower court that the not guilty of the crime except for Lanida. The trial
court was without jurisdiction and ordered the court disregarded the arguments of the defense and
discharge of the defendants, with the costs to the believed in the testimony of Huntoria, therefore
Government. The prosecuting attorney then rendering the judgment convicting the accused of
appealed before the Supreme Court. the crime of murder as defined Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code. Accused-appellant
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of First Instance CUSTODIO GONZALES, SR contented in the Court
has jurisdiction over the crime committed on the high of Appeals that the trial court makes a mistake in
seas? convicting them merely in the testimony of Huntoria
but the appellate court rejected Gonzaless defense
HELD: No, the court has no jurisdiction over the of alibi and assailed Huntorias credibility is beyond
crime committed on the high seas. question. However, the appellate court, found the
Act No. 400 defines that the Court of First sentence imposed by the trial cour was erroneous
Instance has jurisdiction over: Of all crimes and the decision is modified.
offenses committed on the high seas or beyond the
jurisdiction of any country, or within any of the
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals ruled correctly the room. He sat up in bed called out twice, who is
in convicting the accused with the crime of murder there but there was no answer. Fearing that the
without authority and merely on the basis of the lone intruder was a robber or a thief, he leaped to his feet
eyewitness who have not proven his absolute and called out. if you enter the room, I will kill you.
credibility. At that moment he was struck by the edge of the
chair which had been placed against the door,
HELD:The decision of the Court of Appeals was believing that the blow had been inflicted by the
reversed and set aside and the appellant as bulgar he seized a kitchen knife and struck out wildly
acquitted on the following grounds: at the intruder and wounded him fatally who,
1. Huntoria failed to impute a definite and afterwards turned out to be his roommate.
specific act committed or contributed by the
appellant in the killing of Penacerrada which ISSUE/S: Whether or not Ah Chong is criminally
would have inflicted any harm to the body of liable for the death of the victim by reason of a
the victim that produced his death with mistake of fact.
respect to Article 3 of the Revised Penal
Code HELD: No, Ah Chong is not criminally liable for the
2. There is nothing in the findings of the trial death of the victim by reason of a mistake of fact.
court and the Court of Appeals which would The defendant struck the fatal blow without any
categorize the criminal liability of the intent to do a wrongful act, in the exercise of his
appellant as a principal by the direct lawful right of self- defense.
participation under Article 17 of the Revised Article 8 of the Penal Code Provides that-
Penal Code The following are not delinquent and are
3. There is nothing in the evidence for the therefore exempt from criminal liability: He who acts
prosecution that inculpates he accused in defense of his person or rights, provided there are
appellant by inducement under Article 17 (2) the following attendant circumstances: (1) Illegal
of the Revised Penal Code aggression;(2) Reasonable necessity of the means
Moreover the elements which would produce employed to prevent or repeal it.(3) Lack of sufficient
felony were insufficient Huntorias credibility as a provocation on the part of the person defending
witness was likewise tarnished by the fact that only himself.
came out to testify after eight months since the The defendant Chinaman struck the fatal blow
allegedly saw the killing. alleged in the information in the firm belief that the
intruder who forced to open the door was a thief,
The United States from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of
vs. his life and his property and of the property
Ah Chong committed to his charge. That the defendant at that
Gr. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910 time acted in good faith, without malice or criminal
intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than
FACTS: The defendant Ah Chong was employed as exercising his legitimate right of self-defense; that
a cook at officers quarters No. 27 fort Mc Kinley, had the facts been as he believed them to be he
Rizal Province and at the same place Pascual would have been wholly exempt from criminal
Gualberto the deceased was employed as a house liability on account of his act; and that he cannot be
boy or muchacho. Officers quarter No. 27 was said to have been guilty of negligence or
solely occupied as an officers mess or club. No one recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his
slept in the house except the two servants, who mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by
jointly occupied a small room. On the night of August him to defend himself from eminent danger which he
14, 1908 before going to bed the defendant locked believe threatened his person or his property and the
the door by placing a chair against it, at about 10 property under his charge.
oclock while he was in the middle of his sleep was The judgement of conviction and the sentence
awakened by some trying to force open the door of imposed by the trial court should be reversed, and
the defendant acquitted of the crime with which he is and the "Cyclix" motor generator have been found in
charged and his bail bond exonerated with cost of the house and in the possession of the appellant
both instances de officio. after having repeatedly denied any knowledge of the
equipment and accessories of the Cine and declined
FEDERICO SORIANO any responsibility for their loss.
vs. With regard to taking, appellant contends
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES that he did not execute this element of theft because
G.R. No. L-3008 March 19, 1951 being an attorney-in-fact of the heirs of Saenz, he
acted for his principals, and for all intents and
FACTS: Federico Soriano was charged on August purposes of the power conferred upon him, he was
22, 1945, with the crime of theft of one electric motor the principal himself and, naturally, he could not
marked "Cyclix," with Western Electric Company steal something belonging to him under the principle
cable, and one lantern slide projector, with their that "Rei nostrae furtum facera non pos sumus". The
corresponding accessories, for the operation of power of attorney clearly empowered the appellant
motion pictures, valued at P6,000, belonging to the "to ask, demand, sue for, recover, collect and receipt
eagle Cinema Co., Inc. After trial he was convicted for any and all sums of money . . . and other things
by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and sentenced of value of whatever nature or kind," and gave him
to suffer and indeterminate penalty of from six (6) "full power to do anything requisite and necessary to
months of arresto mayor to two (2) years, eleven be done in the premises as fully as I (Emilia Saenz)
(11) months and eleven (11) days of prision could if personally present, hereby ratifying and
correccional, with the accessory penalties of the law, confirming all that my said attorney and substitute
and to pay the costs. The defendant filed in CA, attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by
which modified the above judgment and sentenced virtue hereof." But appellant fails to take two
him to three (3) months of arresto mayor, as important factors into consideration, to writ: firstly,
minimum, to one (1) year, eight (8) months and that when he took, as he finally admitted to have
twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, as taken, the lanterns like projector and the "Cyclix"
maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law, motor generator from the Eagle-Theater, he did not
and to pay the costs, ordering the lantern slide really act in behalf and representation of this
projector and the "Cyclix" motor generator be principals, for otherwise he would not have
returned to the owner, the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc. repeatedly denied having taken said properties and
The defendant again filed a petition for insinuated that they had been taken by the
certiorari against CA. Japanese; and secondly, that even his principals
could not have taken and appropriated said
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the accused properties for themselves without previous and
constitute theft? proper action in court, because no mortgage creditor
can foreclose the property mortgage to him without
HELD: Yes, the act of the petitioner constitute theft. judicial proceedings.
The petitioner is the attorney-in-fact of the heirs of With regard to the element of taking, there is
Saenz and in charge of collecting the rents and of no doubt that it existed, notwithstanding that the
transmitting them to Emilia Saenz, and the appellant petitioner had been entrusted with the keys of the
was their representative and duly appointed building where they were kept. As to the element of
substitute administrator. And because of the intent, it is clear that when the petitioner carried
disturbance caused by the war, the Eagle Cinema away and concealed from the owner and the police
Co., Inc., was indebted to the Saenz and the authorities the above-mentioned articles, he acted
appellant in the exercise of the powers conferred with intent of gain. Intent is a mental state, the
upon him could have sued said debtor to foreclose existence of which is shown by the overt acts of a
the mortgage. It is no longer disputed that the person, which in the present case unmistakably
properties of the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc., in the point to that intent.
building were lost, and that the lantern slide projector
 The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied, After conduct a preliminary investigation, the
with costs against the petitioner. examining Fiscal freed petitioner due to his age and
because the unfortunate incidence appeared to be
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS an accident. The victim's parents appealed to the
vs Ministry of Justice, which ordered the Fiscal to file a
DONATO BINDOY case against petitioner for Homicide through
G.R. No. L-34665 August 28, 1931 reckless Imprudence.
On 25 October 1985, petitioner moved to
FACTS: On the 6th of May, 1930, Tibay, upon quash the said information on one of the grounds
refusing the tuba offered by Donato Bindoy, was that the facts charged do not constitute offense.
threatened by the latter to harm her. Defending his
wife, Faustino Pacas interfered and tried to take ISSUE: Whether or not an Eleven (11) year old boy
Bindoys bolo. The commotion lured Emigido could be charged with the crime of Homicide tru
Omamdam and left his house to see what was reckless imprudence
happening. During the struggle, Bindoy, unaware of
Omamdams presence behind him, finally strained HELD: No, minor between the ages of 9 and 15
the bolo from Pacass grasp, forcefully that the point cannot be convicted of a quasi-offense
of the bolo stroke Omamdams chest and caused his The terms "intent" and "discernment" convey
death. The trial court found Bindoy guilty of two distinct thoughts. While both are products of the
homicide. Bindoy appealed, alleging that he did not mental processes within a person, the former refers
have any malicious intent to kill Omamdam for he did to the desire of one's act while the latter relates to
not see the latter arrive and pass behind him during the moral significance that person attributes to the
the time he was defending his possession of the bolo said act. Hence a person may not intend to shoot
from Pacas. another but may be aware of the consequences of
his negligent act which may cause injury to the same
ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal of the accused be person in negligently handling an air rifle.
granted It is not correct, to argue, as petitioner does,
that since a minor above nine years of age but below
HELD: Yes, the accused was acquitted on the basis fifteen acted with discernment, then he intended
of the Article 8, which says that one must have such act to be done. He may negligently shoot his
motives that would have tempted him to do the friend, thus did not intend to shoot him, and at the
crime. In this case, no evidence was shown that same time recognize the undesirable result of his
Bindoy intentionally killed Omamdam. negligence.
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code; On
JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA expounding on intelligence as the second element of
vs dolus,
HONORABLE IGNACIO ALMODOVAR The second element of dolus is intelligence; without
G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989 this power, necessary to determine the morality of
human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no
FACTS: Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, then 11 crime can exist, and because ... the infant 3(has) no
years old, was playing with his best friend Teodoro intelligence, the law exempts him from criminal
Almine, Jr. and three other children in their backyard liability
in the morning of 29 October 1984. They were Intelligence remains as an essential element
target- shooting a bottle cap (tansan) placed around in evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa,
fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters away with an air hence, it is necessary that a minor above nine but
rifle borrowed from a neighbor. In the course of their below fifteen years of age be possessed with
game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar intelligence in committing a negligent act which
bone which caused his unfortunate death. results in a quasi-offense. For him to be criminally
liable, he must discern the rightness or wrongness feloniously permit anyone to convert it. He was
of the effects of his negligent act. acting in good faith when he ruled for the plaintiff
Wherefore considering the premises of the within the meaning of the Act No. 1740 penalizing
case, the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of malversation of public funds.
merit and the Temporary Restraining Order effective Also, the act does not constitute a crime so
17 September 1986 was LIFTED. no presumption of criminal intent arises. It was only
an erroneous exercise of judicial function. It was a
The United States mistake not a crime.
vs. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is
Rafael B. Catolico reversed and the defendant ordered discharged
G. R. No. L-6486. March 2, 1911 from the custody therewith.

Facts: On October 2, 1909, defendant, justice of THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

peace of Baggao Province of Cagayan had before vs.
him sixteen different cases commenced by Juan LORETO RENEGADO y SENORA,
Canillas resulting from a breach of contract where he
ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Each of the defendants G.R. No. L-27031 May 31, 1974
in said cases appealed the decision and deposited
the bond required by law. On the 12th of same month,
the plaintiff of the case alleged that the bonds were FACTS:
insolvent. Catolico then ordered the cancellation of Mamerto de Lira was a public teacher in Tiburcio
the bond and required each of the appellants to file Tancinco Memorial Vocational School which is run
another bond within 15 days but none of them by the national government in the City of Calbayog
presented new bonds. Canillas then applied to while the accused-appellant, Loreto Renegado, was
defendant Catolico for an order declaring the final a clerk in the same institution.
judgment, command its execution and ask for the Friday, August 26, 1966, while appellant Renegado
sums deposited by the defendants and be delivered was in the school canteen, Lira approached him
to him which was acceded by Catolico and at the requesting him to type the stencil of his test
same time requiring of the plaintiff a bond of P50 for questions for the examination set for September 2
each attachment. but the accused refused. Lira had an argument with
Defendants in the said sixteen cases the appellant which made the appellant mad.
presented a complaint against the Catolico to the Renegado told his his co-workers about his intention
Court of First Instance of Cagayan wherein the court on killing Lira but he was pacified and advised by
ordered Juan Canillas to deliver the sums deposited them that he must think of his family.
by the defendants. Defendant Catolico, was August 29, 1966, past 9:00 o'clock, while Lira
convicted of the crime of malversation of public was on the school canteen having snacks, the
funds and sentenced to two months imprisonment, accused entered the canteen and seeing Lira with
to perpetual disqualification to hold public office or his back towards him, he immediately and without
public employment of any kind and to the payment warning stabbed Lira with a knife hitting the latter on
of the costs. Hence, this appeal. the right lumbar region. When he was about to stab
Lira again, he was stopped and blocked by Mrs. Tan,
Issue/s: Whether or not defendant Catolico is guilty his co-worker. Because of the intervention of Mrs.
of the crime of malversation of public funds Tan and the screaming of the girls inside the
canteen, Renegado desisted from continuing with
Held: No, defendant is not guilty of the crime of his attack and left the canteen. Lira was brought to
malversation of public funds. The essential elements the hospital later on died.
required by law to constitute the crime are not The accused and counsel-de-oficio, Atty.
present. The accused did not convert the money for Roberto C. Alip, brief pleads for an acquittal with the
his own use or of any person neither did he argument that accused should be exempt from
criminal liability because at the precise time that the Upon entering the room, Oanis and Gallanta saw a
prosecution claims de Lira was stabbed, accused man sleeping with his back towards them and
lost his senses and he simply did not know what he assuming it was Balagtas, fired at the man killing
was doing. They claimed that he has mental disorder him. It is later revealed that the man was not
due to the head-injury he had before. Balagtas but Serapio Tecson.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused be exempt from The defendants separate testimonies were
criminal liability on ground of insanity refused by the trial court as they are materially
HELD: No. In the eyes of the law, insanity exists contradictory with each other. The facts found by the
when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence court were instead supported by the evidence
in committing act, that is, the accused is deprived of particularly by the testimony of Irene Requinea.
reason, he acts without the least discernment It is contended that appellants acted in
because there is a complete absence of the power mistake of fact in the honest performance of their
to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of official duties, both of them believing that Tecson
freedom of the will, mere abnormality of the mental was Balagtas, they incur no criminal liability. The
faculties will not exclude imputability. The onus lower court held and so declared them guilty of the
probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an crime of homicide through reckless imprudence.
exempting circumstance and he must prove it by
clear and positive evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not defendants incur criminal
Being able to remember everything that has liability?
happened, he was not a diseased mind, for there is
no evidence whatsoever, expert or otherwise, to HELD: Yes, defendants are incur criminal liability
show that he is suffering from insanity or from any upon the death of Tecson.
other mental sickness which impaired his memory or On the case of U.S. v. Ah Chong, there is an
his will. At most such testimony shows that appellant innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault
Renegado is a man of violent temper who can be or carelessness because the accused, having no
easily provoked to violence for no valid reason at all. time or opportunity to make a further inquiry, and
Thus in People vs. Cruz, this Court held that being pressed by circumstances to act immediately,
breaking glasses and smashing dishes are simply had no alternative but to take the facts as they then
demonstrations of an explosive temper and do not appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of
constitute clear and satisfactory proof of insanity; killing.
they are indications of the passionate nature of the In the instant case, defendants are found in
accused. a circumstance where they were press to immediate
Therefore, the court affirms the conviction of action with Tecson being then asleep. They had time
appellant Loreto Renegado for murder with assault and opportunity to confirm his identity without hazard
on a person in authority. to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless
arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ANTONIO made, as the victim was unarmed, according to Irene
Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, Requinea. Furthermore they were ordered to arrest
G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943 Balagtas with killing him as a form of last resort if
resistance or aggression is offered by him.
FACTS: On December 24, 1938, Antonio Z. Oanis The new Rules of Court also states: "No
and Alberto Galanta was ordered to arrest the unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in
escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not
and Irene in Cabanatuan dead or alive. Defendant be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary
proceeded to the house where Irene was said to be for his detention." And a peace officer cannot claim
living which was confirmed by Brigida Mallare, living exemption from criminal liability if he uses
on a room near the one Irene was occupying. unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.
Mallare also informed them that Irene was there with Notoriety rightly supplies a basis for redoubled
her paramour.
official alertness and vigilance; it never can justify municipal policeman Fernando de Fernando,
precipitate action at the cost of human life. Paciencia Delgado daughter of Remigio Delgado
Although Anselmo Balagtas was a notorious told him that her father wished to see him Remigio
criminal, it does not constitute justification for killing Delgado informed him that the 3 suspicious persons
him when during the arrest he offers no resistance in blue were lurking in his house. About 7pm: De
or in fact no resistance can be offered, as when he Fernando seated on a bench near the window
is asleep. talking to Paciencia when about 4 meters from the
In criminal negligence, the injury caused to stairs was a person in dark clothes with 3 bolos tied
another should be unintentional, it being simply the together calling out Nong Miong without answering
incident of another act performed without malice. the inquiry of De Fernando. De Fernando took out
The crime committed in the instant case, the killing his revolver and fired a shot in the air but the person
was intentional and not accidental. A deliberate still continued to go up the stairs so he shot him at
intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent the base of the neck at the right side. The shot
with the idea of reckless imprudence and where person turned out to be Buenventura Paulino,
such unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the nephew of Remigio, who ran to their neighbor Leon
identity of the intended victim cannot be considered Torres house, placing the bolo on the table, fell on
as reckless imprudence to support a plea of the floor and died De Fernando called the police
mitigated liability. As the deceased was killed while chief to relay what happened CFI of Zamboanga
asleep, the crime committed is murder. guilty of the crime of murder.
According to the Revised Penal Code, a
person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the ISSUE: Whether or not Fernando De Fernando is
fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right guilty of negligence
or office. There are two requisites in order that the
circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: (a) HELD: Yes, reversing the appealed judgment, guilty
that the offender acted in the performance of a duty of the crime of homicide through reckless
or in the lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the negligence, De Fernando failed to use the ordinary
injury or offense committed be the necessary precaution that he should have used before taking
consequence of the due performance of such duty such fatal action. The calling of Nong Miong
or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In the indicated that the owner of the house might be an
instance case, defendants have acted in the older relative of the one calling, or an intimate friend
performance of a duty. De Fernando failed to ask Paciencia Delgado who
The court therefore ruled the defendants was it was that was calling her father with such
guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance familiarity, But no malicious intent because he
above mentioned, and accordingly sentenced to an though at the time that he was justified in acting as
indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of prision he did homicide through reckless negligence under
correctional to fifteen (15) years of reclusion article 568, in relation with article 404, of the Penal
temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to pay Code.
the heirs of the deceased Serapio Tecson jointly and
severally an indemnity of P2,000, with costs. The People of the Philippine Islands
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Cornelio Bayona
vs. Gr. No. L-42288 February 16, 1935
FERNANDO DE FERNANDO
G.R. No. L-24978 March 27, 1926 FACTS:
At around 11 oclock in the morning of June
FACTS: Before the day of crime: Moro prisoners had 5, 1934, the general election was on going in
escaped from the Penal Colony of San Ramon, electoral precinct No. 4 situated in Barrio de
Zamboanga, 3 suspicious looking persons who were Aranguel, Municipality of Pilar Province of Capiz.
prowling around the place alarmed the residents. As The defendant Cornelio Bayona was driving his
automobile on a road in front of the electoral precinct
No. 4 when his friend Jose Benliro called him, he got
out of his automobile and approached him to know
what he wanted. He brought with him his revolver
because in the fear of the risk that he might lose it
because there were so many people in the polling
place and he was alone. Jose Desiderio a
representative of the Department of Interior and
Major Agdamag of the Philippine Constabulary who
had been designated to supervise the elections in
said the place was within the area when they saw
the defendant within the fence surrounding the
polling place, Desiderio then took possession of the
revolver the defendant was carrying.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of a
violation of section 416 of the election law.

HELD:
Yes, the defendant is guilty of a violation of
section 416 of the election law.

The law which the defendant violated is a

statutory provision, and the intent with which he
violated it is immaterial. It may be conceded that the
defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or
to violate the law in any other way, but when he got
out of his automobile and carried his revolver inside
of the fence surrounding the polling place, he
committed the act complained of, and he committed
it willfully. The act prohibited by the Election Law was
complete. The intention to intimidate the voters or to
interfere otherwise with the election is not made an
essential element of the offense.
The rule is that in acts mala in se there must
be a criminal intent, but those mala prohibita it is
sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done.
Care must be exercised in distinguishing the
difference between the intent to commit the crime
and the intent to perpetrate the act.
As to the severity of the minimum penalty
provided by law for a violation of the provision in
question, that is a matter for the chief executive of
the legislature.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision
appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the
appellant.