Criminal Law

- Branch of public law which defines crimes, treats in its nature and
provides for their punishment
- If it is considered under criminal law, it is entitled to illiberal
interpretation in favor of the accused and strictly against the
government

Whenever a person violates a public law, he commits: (a) an injury against

the State (social injury); and (2) a personal injury against the private
offended party (personal injury)

Crime - an act committed or omitted in violation of public law

Types of Crimes:
1. Quasi Delict/Culpa Aquiliana - fault or negligence causing damage
to another, and there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties
o Ex: while driving a bus hit your car through no fault of your own
then they are liable to pay for damages and if they cannot their
bus liner will be liable to the damages
2. Delict - misdemeanor, an offense, or simply crime

JAMES IENT V. TULLETT PREBON (agawan tauhan)

Facts:

- lent is a British national and the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) of

Tradition Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. While Petitioner Schulze is a
Filipino/German who does Application Support for Tradition Financial
Services Ltd. in London (Tradition London)
- in August 2008 petitioners were tasked with the establishment of a
Philippine subsidiary of Tradition Asia to be known as Tradition Financial
Services Philippines, Inc. (Tradition Philippines)
- On October 15, 2008, Tullett filed a Complaint-Affidavit on October 15,
2008, alleging Villalon and Chuidian sabotage the company by
orchestrating the mass resignation of its brokering staff to join Tradition
Philippines.
- Tullett alleged violations of Corporation Code Sections 31 and 34 by
respondents Villalon and Chuidian, and criminal liability under Section
144 for conspiring with them.
 - February 17, 2009, State Prosecutor Delos Trinos dismissed
criminal complaints against Villalon and Chuidian, stating that
conspiracy charges against Schulze and lent had no basis due to
their non-violent acts.
- Tullett filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. On April
23, 2009, then Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez reversed
and set aside Prosecutor Delos Trinos's resolution
- Ient and Schulze moved for reconsideration which was denied thus
they brought the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition
- In a Decision dated August 12, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the Secretary of Justice's Resolutions. Stating that the accused
directors and officers are probably guilty of breach of bad faith in
directing the affairs of the corporation.
- Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court

Alternatively stated, Sections 31 to 34 were introduced into the Corporation

Code to define what acts are covered, as well as the consequences of such
acts or omissions amounting to a failure to fulfil a director's or corporate
officer's fiduciary duties to the corporation.

Issues:

- Whether or not Ient and Schulze could be criminally liable

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversing the Court of

Appeals decision and setting aside the Secretary of Justice's resolutions
effectively dismissing the criminal charges against petitioners based on
the interpretation of the Corporation Code provisions.
o the Corporation Code is not a penal statute. The penalties
suggested in the code are only administrative.
o Applied rule of lenity as a principle related to liberal
interpretation in favor of the accused in criminal cases

Characteristics of Criminal Law

1. Generality (Persons)
- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn (temporarily
staying) in the Philippines regardless of age, sex, or nationality
Exceptions:

 Provided by Laws of Preferential Application

 Ex: ambassadors, heads of states, ministers, diplomats
 Provided by Treaty Stipulation
 Ex: US military personnel kills another US soldier (RA 75)
HOWEVER if US personnel committed crime against a Filipino
then they can be tried in the Philippines
 Persons who are Exempt Because of Certain Principles of
International Law

KHOSROW MINUCHER, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and

ARTHUR SCALZO, respondents. (Iranian buy bust agent)

Facts:

- Kosrow Minucher, an Iranian national appointed Labor Attaché for

Iranian embassies, was involved in a buy bust operation involving
heroin smuggling, with Arthur Scalzo a US DEA agent as a key witness.
- On 08 January 1988, Presiding Judge Eutropio Migrino of the RTC of
Pasig rendered a decision acquitting the accused.
- Minucher filed Civil Case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for
damages by the trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by
Arthur Scalzo.
- On 27 October 1988, Scalzo filed a special appearance to quash the
summons on the ground that he, not being a resident of the
Philippines and the action being one in personam, was beyond
the processes of the court.
- The Regional Trial Court of Manila ruled in favor of Minucher,
awarding substantial damages for unlawful acts committed by Scalzo
outside the scope of his official duties.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decision, citing Scalzo's diplomatic immunity under the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Issue

- Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic immunity.

Ruling
 - The Court ruled that Arthur Scalzo is entitled to the defense of state
immunity from suit
o Scalzo is not a diplomatic agent but he is a representative of
the US here. Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of State
Immunity, he may invoke immunity form suit.

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent. (Asian bank oral defamation)

Facts:

- Liang, an economist working at the Asian Development Bank (ADB),

was charged with two counts of grave oral defamation (before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City.
- The charges were based on allegations that the petitioner uttered
defamatory words against Joyce Cabal, another ADB worker.
- The MeTC received a communication from the DFA stating that the
petitioner was covered by immunity under Section 45 of the
Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government.
- Relying solely on the DFA's communication, the MeTC dismissed the
criminal cases without notice to the prosecution.
- The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which was opposed
by the DFA. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City later set
aside the MeTC's rulings and ordered the enforcement of the arrest
warrant.

Issue:

- Whether or not Liang is entitled to diplomatic immunity from suit

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court denied the petition and ruled that Jeffrey Liang is
not covered by immunity from legal process for the act of slandering a
person.
o Immunity under Section 45 of the ADB Agreement applies only to
acts performed in the petitioner's official capacity. The alleged
defamation did not fall within the scope of official duties
and thus did not qualify for immunity.
 o The Supreme Court emphasized that immunity clauses cannot
shield individuals from liability for acts outside the scope of their
official functions or done with malice.
- The Supreme Court held that the DFA's communication regarding
immunity from legal process was preliminary and not binding on the
courts. Due process requires that both the prosecution and defense be
given an opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding
immunity claims.
o in outrightly dismissing the two criminal cases without giving
notice to the prosecution, the Judge committed an error

DEL SOCORRO v. VAN WILSEM (Foreign Child support)

Facts:

- Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem married in
Holland on. They divorced, in Holland and had a son named Roderigo
Norjo Van Wilsem, born January 19, 1994.
- After their divorce, Norma alleged that Ernst promised to provide
monthly support for their son, but he failed to do so after they moved
to the Philippines.
- Norma filed a complaint under R.A. No. 9262 against Wilsem for unjust
refusal to support their child.
- The RTC-Cebu initially dismissed the case, stating that as an alien,
Ernst was not subject to Philippine law regarding support obligations.
- Norma filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that R.A. No. 9262
applies to all persons in the Philippines obligated to support their minor
children, regardless of nationality which the RTC denied maintaining its
dismissal.

Issue:

- Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under

R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child under
Philippine law and jurisdiction

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing and setting aside
the RTC-Cebu's Orders
- The court used the doctrine of processual presumption
o the law of the Netherlands is presumed to be the same with
Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of parents to
 support their children and penalizing the non-compliance
therewith
- considering that respondent is currently living in the Philippines, the
Court finds strength in petitioner’s claim that the Territoriality
Principle in criminal law, in relation to Article 14 of the New Civil Code,
applies to the instant case
o since Van Wilsem is here in the Philippines, he is bound to
comply with Philippine penal laws regardless of the fact that he
resides here temporarily or permanently

Gonzales vs. Abaya (Rebellion/ coup d’etat)

Facts:

- On July 27, 2003, more than 300 heavily armed junior officers and
enlisted men of the AFP, led by Navy Lt. (SG) Antonio Trillanes IV, took
over the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments in Makati City. They
made public grievances against the administration of President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo and demanded her resignation. President Arroyo
declared a state of rebellion, and negotiations led to the surrender of
the mutineers. Charges including coup d’etat and violations of military
law were filed against them.
- Petitioners moved to dismiss the violation of Articles of War arguing
that they are absorbed by coup d’etat
- Respondents assert that offenses under R.A. No. 7055, including
conduct unbecoming an officer, are service-connected and must be
tried by court martial.
- The motion was granted by Judge Pimentel

Issue:

- Whether or not the offense of conduct unbecoming an officer and a

gentleman under Article 96 of the Articles of War is service-connected
and triable by court martial or by civilian court
- Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the writ of prohibition
o its proper function being to prevent courts or other tribunals,
officers, or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction with
which they are not vested.
Ruling:

- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition

o prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or reasons from
user Bing or exercising jurisdiction or power with which they
have not been vested bylaw
- the Supreme Court holds that respondents have the authority in
convening a court martial and in charging practitioners with
violation of article 96 of the Articles of war
o held that the offense under Article 96 delineates which offenses
are triable by court martial, and Article 96 falls within this
category. The military tribunal has jurisdiction over such
offenses, notwithstanding contrary rulings by civil courts.
- Doctrine of Absorption of Crimes
o coup d’etat is triable in civil courts because it is penalized under
the RPC, however, the crimes defined by Articles of Warlike
Article 96 can only be tried in a court-martial
o The violation of Articles of War cannot be absorbed by coup
d’etat because the theory of absorption is allowed only if the
crimes are within the jurisdiction of the same civilian court.

2. Territorial (Place)
- Our penal laws shall have force and effect within the Philippine
archipelago including its atmosphere, interior waters, and maritime zone.
Therefore, for every act committed in the Philippine archipelago, our
criminal laws apply. But, for acts committed outside the territory of the
Philippines, that offender cannot be prosecuted before Philippine courts

- applicable only if committed within the Philippine territory

Exceptions: (Article 2 RPC: Extraterritorial Application: Committed

outside the Philippine territory but have Philippine has jurisdiction to trial of
the case)

 Commit an Offense on a Philippine ship/airship (NEEDS to be registered

and in the high seas)
 Philippine ship IF registered in the Philippines (Bureau of
Customs)
 It is not the nationality of the crew or the owner but where it
is registered
  Ex: even if a ship is crewed by all Filipinos and the
captain/owner is Filipino but is registered in Indonesia then
the Philippines have no jurisdiction
 Applies when the ship is in the high seas (no country has
claim/jurisdiction). Once a ship has entered the jurisdiction
then their laws apply.
 Ex: A kills B, both Filipinos while the ship is docked in
Vietnam. Vietnam has jurisdiction (territorial right of that
country GENERAL RULE)
 Forge/Counterfeit any coin or currency note/obligations/securities
issued by the Philippine government (forger or counterfeiter)
 Ex: A and B are both Malaysians that forge our currency in
Malaysia. After becoming rich they went to Manila where they
were arrested. They claim that they cannot be held to trial as
they committed the crime in Malaysia outside the jurisdiction of
the Philippines.
 They are LIABLE
 Offender is liable to the introduction (smuggler) in the Philippines of
the obligations and securities mentioned previously/number
2/preceding (Smuggler/Smuggling counterfeit from outside the
Philippines)
 Ex: A and B are both Malaysians that forge obligations and
securities of our country in Malaysia which they give to C which
then gives it to D a Filipino to smuggle in the Philippines. C is
caught and argues that he is not liable because he did not
commit a crime inside the Philippines.
 C is liable
 When the offender is a Public Officer/Employee abroad shall commit an
offense in the exercise of his function
 Not every crime committed by a Public Officer/Employee can be
tried in the Philippines. They NEED to commit crime IN
CONNECTION to the exercise of their functions.
 Ex: A is a Philippine officer in charge of salaries of employees in
the Philippine embassy, however, he misappropriated the funds.
 A is liable and can be tried under the Philippine courts
 When the offender should commit an offense against the national
securities and the laws of the nations
 Piracy, mutiny, treason, and espionage are examples of crimes
against national securities
  Rebellion is not a crime against national security it is against
public order

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. TULIN (PH to Singapore Pirates)

Facts:

- "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and

Transport Corporation, vessel was suddenly boarded by seven fully
armed pirates including accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante,
Jr.
- The RTC of Manila found the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola,
Andres Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco guilty beyond reasonable
- Accused-appellants assert that the trial court erred in finding that the
prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the
crime of qualified piracy
- He argues that he was convicted for acts done outside
Philippine waters or territory. For the State to have criminal
jurisdiction, the act must have been committed within its
territory.

Issue:

- Whether or not accused-appellant Cheong be convicted as accomplice

when he was not charged as such and when the acts allegedly
committed by him were done or executed outside Philippine waters
and territory?
- Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Hiong
given that part of the crime occurred outside Philippine
waters.
- Whether or not Republic Act No. 7659 supersedes or amends the
provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532.

Ruling:

- The Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court

o The trial court acquired jurisdiction since the initial attack and
seizure occurred in Philippine waters. The subsequent
actions in Singapore were considered part of the act of piracy,
thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Philippines.
- Piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As
such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law.
 - The presumption under Section 4 that anyone aiding pirates knowingly
does so unless proven otherwise was not overcome by Hiong.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. LOL-LO (Moro Pirates)

Facts:

- On June 30, 1920, two boats left matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta,
another Dutch possession in one of the boats was one individual, a
Dutch subject, and in the other boat eleven men, women, and children,
likewise subjects of Holland.
- the second boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the
Dutch East Indies and was surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty-
four Moros all armed which attacked some of the men, and brutally
violated two of the women
- Two of the Moro marauder were Lol-lo and Saraw who later returned to
their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands where
they were arrested and charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu
with the crime of piracy.
- Their defense counsel argued that the Court of First Instance of Sulu
had no jurisdiction and that the facts did not constitute a public offense
under Philippine law.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer, found the defendants guilty,
and sentenced each to life imprisonment

Issue:

- Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Sulu had jurisdiction over
the crime of piracy committed in foreign waters.

Ruling:

- The SC affirmed the decision of the court of first instance of Sulu

o In U.S. vs. Furlong t was ruled that Piracy is a crime not against
any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished
in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may
be found or into which he may be carried
o The jurisdiction of piracy, unlike all other crimes, has no
territorial limits.
- The Court held that the provisions of the Spanish Penal Code on piracy
were still in force in the Philippines. The Penal Code's articles dealing
 with piracy, particularly Articles 153 and 154, were consistent with U.S.
laws and principles of international law, and thus remained applicable.

3. Prospective – laws look forward

- Can't make an unpublishable which was not punishable when committed

(Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege = there is no crime if there is no law
punishing it)

- GENERAL RULE: The law does not have retroactive application

Exceptions:

 The new law is favorable to the accused

 Ex: A has been convicted to serve 10 years however a new law
states that the sentence is now reduced to 2 years. A has already
served 3 years and now will be set free.
 EXCEPTION to the EXCEPTION:
 The offender is a habitual offender/delinquent
 The law provides otherwise

Vessels
1. Foreign Warship
 A warship is an extension of the flag it carries
o Ex: A US warship is docked in Palawa where A killed B. We
do not have jurisdiction BECAUSE:
 Philippine US treaty
 It could be argued that a warship is an extension of
the flag it carries therefore it is under American
jurisdiction
2. Foreign Merchant Vessel
 Ex: A cargo ship from HongKong will be passing through the
Philippines in route to Australia. A crime is committed
o If the ship is DOCKED in the Philippines, then the territoriality
rule applies
o If the ship only in TRANSIT in the Philippines in route to
another country, then we can either apply EITHER the English
or French Rule
  English (The Philippines adheres to this)
 General Rule: The host country has jurisdiction to
try the case
o Ex: In transit in the Philippines A killed B
who are both Chinese. The Philippines has
jurisdiction because it involves a breach to
public safety/order
 Exception: except when it involves purely internal
management
 French
 General Rule: the host country has NO jurisdiction
to try the case
 Exception: except when it involves the breach of
public safety/order
o Ex: In transit in the Philippines A killed B
who are both Chinese. The Philippines has
jurisdiction because it involves a breach to
public safety/order

Sources of Criminal Law

- Revised Penal Code - Act 3815 as the Revised Penal Code (Act
revising the penal code and other penal laws)
- Special Penal Laws – Laws that define and penalizes crime not
included in the RPC
 by the legislature, PH Commission, PH Assembly, BP (batasang
Pambansa)
- Presidential Decrees
o Codigo Penal De Espana (Spanish Penal Code)

Constitutional Limitation
- Congress cannot enact a law that violates the provisions of the
constitution
 o All law enacted should confirm to the fundamental law of the
land (constitution)

Rights Guaranteed under the Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 22 of the
constitution)

1. Due Process and Equal Protection

 Right to be heard/Trial

White Light Corp Vs. City of Manila (Motmots/Motels)

Facts

- City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law the Ordinance which enting
out rooms more than twice a day in motels, hotels, and similar
establishments in order to curb illicit activities such as prostitution,
drug use, and similar vices believed to be prevalent in these
establishments
- the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a
complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila stating that the
ordinance is unconstitutional and should become invalid.
- The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the ordinance
unconstitutional. The court found that the ordinance was an arbitrary
intrusion into the private rights of the petitioners and their patrons
- The CA reversed the RTC decision, upholding the constitutionality of
the ordinance. The CA reasoned that the ordinance was a valid
exercise of police power intended to protect public morals and welfare.

Issue:

- Whether or not the city ordinance is a valid exercise of police power.

- Whether or not the city ordinance violates substantive due
process and the rights to privacy and liberty of the petitioners
and their patrons.

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the ordinance

unconstitutional.
 The ordinance is an arbitrary and excessive exercise of police
power that unjustifiably interferes with private rights and
legitimate business practices. It violates substantive due process
and the constitutional rights to privacy and liberty.
  Police power must conform to constitutional limitations, including
due process.
 The ordinance restricts not only illicit activities but also legitimate
uses of motels and hotels, thereby infringing on the patrons' right
to privacy and liberty without sufficient justification.

garcia v Drilon (Constitutionality of VAWC)

Facts:

- On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) filed, for

herself and inbehalf of her minor children, a verified petition before the
RTC of Bacolod City for theissuance of a TPO against her husband,
Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner), pursuant to R.A.9262 claiming to be a
victim of physical abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic
violence
- The RTC of Bacolod City issued a TPO on March 24, 2006, effective for
thirty (30) days inaccordance with the finding that there is reasonable
ground to believe that an imminentdanger of violence against the
private respondent and her children
- petitioner filed a petition before the Court of Appeals, challenging (1)
the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 for being violative of the due
process and the equal protection clauses, and (2) the validity of the
modified TPO issued in the civil case for being "an unwanted product of
an invalid law."
- The CA dismissed the petition for failure of petitioner to raise the
constitutional issue inhis pleadings before the trial court in the civil
case

Issue:

- Whether or not R.A. 9262 violates the equal protection and due process
clause

Ruling:

- The SC denied the petition due to lack of merit

 R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal
protection of the laws.
 Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed.
- The constitutionality of R.A. 9262 is, as it should be, sustained.

2. Freedom of Expression
 ensure that individuals are able to freely utter and publish
whatever one pleases without previous restraint and to be
protected against unwanted interference or disclosure of their
private lives

US VS. Bustos (Criticism of Judge)

Facts:

- citizens of the Province of Pampanga prepared and signed a petition,

charging Roman Punsalan, justice of the peace of Macabebe and
Masantol, Pampanga, with malfeasance in office and asking for his
removal.
- The specific charges against the justice of the peace include the
solicitation of money from persons who have pending cases before the
judge.
- The justice of the peace was notified and denied the charges.
- The judge of first instance ruled that the first count was not proven and
counts 2 and 3 were established, recommending the Governor-General
to remove the respondent from his position.
- Later the justice of the peace filled a motion for a new trial; the judge
of first instance granted the motion and reopened the hearing.
asserting that the justice of the peace was the victim of
prosecution, and that one Agustin Jaime, had instituted the charges
for personal reasons
- the judge of first instance ordered a suppression of the charges against
Punsalan and acquitted him the same
- The trial court found thirty-two of the defendants guilty and sentenced
them to pay , with the exception of Felix Fernandez, Juan S. Alfonso,
Restituto Garcia, and Manuel Mallari, guilty and sentenced each of
them to pay a fine of P10 and one thirty-second part of the costs, or to
suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
 - The defendants appealed the decision, arguing that their statements
were protected by the right to freedom of speech and press, as well as
the right to assemble and petition

Issue:

- Whether or not the accused is entitled to constitutional protection by

virtue of his right to free speech and free press.
- Whether or not the defendants are guilty of libel against the justice of
the peace

Ruling:

- The court found the defendants and appellants entitled to the

protection of the rules concerning qualified privilege, growing out of
constitutional guaranties in our bill of rights.
 appellants/defendants acted in good faith in removing the justice
of the peace from office as it was passed through proper channels
and was only an honest endeavor to improve the public service
- The guaranties of free speech and a free press include the right to
criticize judicial conduct.

Guingguing Vs. People (Talk show Trashtalk/Libel)

Facts:

- Cirse "Choy" Torralba handled two programs for radio stations DYLA
and DYFX, filed a libel case against Lim because Lim published records
of criminal cases filed against complainant as well as photographs of
the Choy being arrested
- Choy states that he had been acquitted and the case/s referred to had
already been settled. Choy sought Lim and petitioner’s conviction for
libel. At the same time, he asked for moral, compensatory and
exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees
- Lim claimed that the complainant was allegedly making scurrilous
attacks against him and his family over the airwaves. Since Lim had no
access to radio time, he opted for paid advertisements via newspaper
to answer the attacks as a measure of self-defense
- The lower court concluded that the publication complained of was
indeed libelous.
- On appeal, the CA modified the penalty imposed but it affirmed the
RTC’s finding of guilt.
Issue:

- Whether or not the petitioner is guilty for the crime libel.

- Whether or not the lower courts’ finding of guilt against him
constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to
freedom of speech and of the press

Ruling:

- The SC granted the petition and reversed the Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals and RTC
 Complainant is a Public Figure. He is a broadcast journalist hosting
two radio programs aired over a large portion of the Visayas and
Mindanao.
 The intention to let the public know the character of their radio
commentator can at best be subsumed under the mantle of
having been done with good motives and for justifiable ends.
The advertisement in question falls squarely within the
bounds of constitutional protected expression under Section
4, Article III.

3. Freedom of Religion
 Article 3 Section 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which
provides that: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Estrada VS. Escritor (Jehovah’s witness)

Facts:

- Alejandro Estrada filed a complaint in the RTC of Las Piñas City against
Soledad S. Escritor, a court interpreter, for living with a man not her
husband and having a child within this arrangement arguing that it was
immoral and tarnished the court's image thus she should not be
allowed to remain employed.
- Escritor admitted to living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. for over twenty
years and having a son with him, even while her husband was still
alive.
- respondent was charged with committing "disgraceful and immoral
conduct" under Book V, Title I, Chapter VI, Sec. 46(b)(5) of the Revised
Administrative Code.
 - She defended her actions by invoking her religious beliefs as a
Jehovah's Witness, which sanctioned her arrangement through a
"Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness." Which allowed her to
abandon her spouse to enter new marital relations
- the Court could not rule definitively on the ultimate issue of whether
respondent was to be held administratively liable thus, in the decision
the court remanded the complaint to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), and ordered the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) to intervene
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Issue:

- Whether or not the respondent should be found guilty of disgraceful

and immoral conduct despite the beliefs of her religion

Ruling:

- The court dismissed the administrative complaint, ruling that her

conjugal arrangement did not constitute disgraceful and immoral
conduct.
- The decision was based on the principle of benevolent
neutrality or accommodation, underlying the religion clauses in
the Philippine Constitution.
 with respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of
religion may be allowed, to allow individuals and groups to
exercise their religion without hindrance.
- The free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that enjoys a
preferred position in the hierarchy of rights.

4. No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman

punishment
 Article I11 provides: Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes
 A fine is “excessive” under the clause if (1) it is too severe
when compared to the offense being punished; or (2) the
fine is so burdensome that a defendant cannot pay for the
necessities of life.
People VS. Echagaray (Rapist father/Constitutionality of the Death Penalty)

Facts:

- On April 1994, Quezon City, Echegaray was accused of raping his ten-
year-old daughter, Rodessa Echegaray.
- The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City found Echegaray guilty and
sentenced him to death on September 7, 1994 and was also ordered to
pay P50,000.00 in damages.
- Rodessa testified that her father raped her multiple times when her
mother was away. She disclosed the incidents to her grandmother, who
then filed the complaint.
- the accused-appellant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration stating
the sinister motive of the victim's grandmother
- accused appellant retained the services of the Anti-Death Penalty Task
Force of the Free Legal Assistance Group of the Philippines (FLAG)
which sent a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration
 (1)pardon by the offended party, (2) lack of a definite allegation
of the date of the commission of the offense, (3) guilt of the
accused was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, (4) the court
erred in finding if the accused-appellant was the father or
stepfather of the complainant
 R.A. [No.] 7659, reimposing the death penalty is
unconstitutional. For crimes where no death results from the
offense, the death penalty is a severe and excessive penalty
in violation of Article III, Sec. 19(1) of the 1987
Constitution.
- during the proceedings of the rape case the defense attempted to
prove that:
 the rape case was motivated by greed,
 the accused is not the real father of the complainant, t
 he size of the penis cannot have possibly penetrated the alleged
victim's private part,
 and the accused was in Parañaque during the time of the alleged
rape

Issue:

- whether or not the death penalty is a cruel, unjust, excessive or

unusual punishment in violation of Article 3, Section 19

Ruling:
 - The Supreme Court DENIED motion for Reconsideration and affirmed
the trial court's decision
- these capital crimes are penalized by reclusion perpetua to
death, are clearly heinous by their very nature.
 "N0. The penalty is neither cruel, unjust nor excessive. In the US
case of Kemmler, it was held that punishments are cruel when
they involve torture or a lingering death. It implies there
something inhuman, barbarous, something more than the
extinguishment of life. It is degrading if it involves public
humiliation. The severity is not sufficient, but must be
disproportionate to the crime committed
- Accused-appellant first claims that the death penalty is per se a cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment as ruled by the United States (U.S.)
Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia.
 Counter: the defense theory in Furman centered not so much on
the nature of the death penalty as a criminal sanction but on the
discrimination against the black accused who is meted out the
death penalty by a white jury that is given the unconditional
discretion to determine whether or not to impose the death
penalty.
 Furman, thus, did not outlaw the death penalty because it was
cruel and unusual per se. it did so because the sentencing juries
was uncontrolled
- accused-appellant asseverates that the death penalty is a cruel
because it does not take life. accused-appellant largely relies on the
ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia.
 Counter: this case has no bearing on Philippine experience and
culture.

Corpuz VS. People (To high punishment for estafa)

Facts

- Petitioner Lito Corpuz was charged with estafa under Article 315
because he failed to remit the proceeds or return the jewelry entrusted
by Corpuz worth P98,000 or return the jewelry within the agreed 60-
day period.
- The petitioner entered a plea of not guilty stating that the petitioner
and private complainant were collecting agents of Antonio Balajadia,
 who is engaged in the financing business of extending loans to Base
employees. For every collection made, they earn a commission.
- The petitioner denied having transacted any business with... private
complainant. However, he admitted obtaining a loan from Balajadia
sometime in 1989 for which he was made to sign a blank receipt. The
petitioner claims that he did not even see the jewelry
- the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months to
14 years and 8 months.
- The case was elevated to the CA, which denied the appeal of petitioner
and affirmed the decision of the RTC with MODIFICATION to 4 years and
2 months to 8 years, plus an additional year for each P10,000 in excess
of P22,000, totaling 15 years.
- Corpuz filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court

Issue

- Whether or not the penalties imposed by the COA is unconstitutional

due to being excessive

Ruling

- The Supreme Court DENIED Lito Corpuz's petition and affirms the
decision of the COA and RTC
 It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of
proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the
Constitution. The fact that the punishment authorized by the
statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual.
- Petitioner argues that a demand by the offended party on the offender,
was not proved
 Counter: No specific type of proof is required to show that there
was demand. Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal.
Should a written demand be necessary, the law would have
stated so

5. Non-Imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax

Lozano VS. Martinez (Constitutionality of Bouncing check law)

Facts:
 - BP 22 punishes a person "who makes or draws and issues any check
on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit. The penalty prescribed for the
offense is imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than one
year or a fine or not less than the amount of the check nor more than
double said amount, but in no case to exceed P200,000.00, or both
such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court
- These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses
under the statute. The defendants in those cases moved seasonably to
quash the information on the ground that the acts charged did not
constitute an offense, the statute being unconstitutional.
- The motions were denied by the respondent trial courts, except
in one case, which is the subject of G. R. No. 75789, wherein the trial
court declared the law unconstitutional
- Those who question the constitutionality of BP 22 insist that: (1) it
offends the constitutional provision for bidding imprisonment for
debt; (2) it impairs freedom of contract; (3) it contravenes the equal
protection clause; (4) it unduly delegates legislative and executive
powers; and (5) its enactment is flawed in that during its passage the
Interim Batasan violated the constitutional provision prohibiting
amendments to a bill on Third Reading.

Issue:

- Whether or not BP 22 violate the constitutional provision on non-

imprisonment due to debt?

Ruling:

- The court holds that BP 22 does not conflict with the constitutional
inhibition against imprisonment for debt.
 The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of BP 22, ruling it
a valid exercise of the state's police power aimed at preventing
harm caused by the circulation of worthless checks.
- The court finds the enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of the police
power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against
imprisonment for debt.
 BP 22 does not violate the constitutional prohibition against
imprisonment for debt, as it punishes the act of issuing a
worthless check.
 The gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making
and issuing a worthless check, not the non-payment of debt.
 6. Bill of Attainder
 a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial
 were employed to suppress unpopular causes and political
minorities

People VS. Ferrer (Communist party exclusion)

Facts:

- a criminal complaint for violation of section 4 of the Anti-Subversion

Act was filed against the respondent Feliciano Co as he feloniously
became an officer and/or ranking leader of the Communist Party of the
Philippines by being an instructor in the Mao Tse Tung University, the
training school of recruits of the New People's Army
- Co moved to quash on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Act is a
bill of attainder.
- On May 25, 1970, another criminal complaint was filed against Nilo
Tayag and five others for subversion.
- Tayag moved to quash, impugning the validity of the statute on the
grounds that (1) it is a bill of attainder; (2) it is vague; (3) it embraces
more than one subject not expressed in the title thereof; and (4) it
denied him the equal protection of the laws.
- the trial court, in its resolution declared the statute void on the
grounds that it is a bill of attainder and that it is vague and
overboard and dismissed the information against the two accused.
- the Anti-Subversion Act was condemned by the court as a bill of
attainder because it "tars and feathers" the Communist Party of the
Philippines as a "continuing menace to the freedom and security of the
country

Issue:

- Whether or not the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion

Act.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of
attainder.
  The Court explained that a bill of attainder is a legislative act that
inflicts punishment without trial, and the Act did not fit this
definition.
 The act does not target individuals bur rather the action
 The Act did not specify individuals for punishment but
rather declared the Communist Party of the Philippines as
an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the
government.
- The Court held that the Act does not violate the due process clause.
- The Court found that the Act does not infringe on the guarantee of free
expression

7. ex post facto law

 makes an action illegal or increases the penalties for an action after
it has already been done
 changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the
law annexed to the crime when committed;
 Every law that makes an action, done before the passage of the law,
and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such
action

US VS. Dias Conde (utang was done before the implementation of Act
2655) (high interest utang)

Facts:

- 6th day of May, 1921, a complaint was presented in the Court of First
Instance charging the defendants with a violation of the Usury Law (Act
No. 2655). they were each arrested, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty
- judge, found that the defendants were guilty and sentenced each of
them to pay a fine of P120 and, in case of insolvency, to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the law.
- The appellants now contend: (a) That the contract upon which the
alleged usurious interest was collected was executed before Act No.
2655 was adopted; (b) that at the time said contract was made
(December 30, 1915), there was no usury law in force in the Philippine
Islands; (c) that said Act No. 2655 did not become effective until the
1st day of May, 1916, or four months and a half after the contract in
question was executed; (d) that said law could have no retroactive
effect or operation, and (e) that said law impairs the obligation of a
 contract, and that for all of said reasons the judgment imposed by the
lower court should be revoked
- The lower court, in the course of its opinion the defendants had
collected a usurious rate of interest after the adoption of the Usury Law
in the Philippine Islands, they were guilty of a violation of that law and
should be punished in accordance with its provisions.
 Laws adopted after the execution of a contract, changing or
altering the rate of interest, cannot be made to apply to such
contract without violating the provisions of the constitution which
prohibit the adoption of a law "impairing the obligation of
contract."
- Act No. 2655 made an act which had been done before the law was
adopted, a criminal act, and to make said Act applicable to the act
complained of would be to give it an ex post facto operation.

Issue:

- Whether or not the usury law applies to the case given that the
contract enter by the parties was done on December 30, 1915 and the
usury law took effect on May 1, 1916

Ruling:

- The Court revoked the sentence of the lower court and ruled that the
defendants be discharged from the custody of the law
 the acts complained of by the defendants did not constitute a
crime at the time they were committed, and therefore the
sentence of the lower court should be, and is hereby, revoked

Construction and Interpretation

1. Liberally in Favor of the accused

 Doctrine of Equipoise – when the evidence of the prosecution
and of the defense is equally balanced, the scale should be tilted
in favor of the accused in obedience to the constitutional
presumption of innocence.
 Pro Reo Doctrine – Whenever a penal law is to be construed or
applied and the law admits of two interpretations - one lenient to
the offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation
which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.
  Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and presumption of
innocence of the accused
 The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against
the State may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and
there is doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is clear and
unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the rule.

2. Spanish Text of the RPC Prevails over the English Text

 In the construction or interpretation of the provision of the RPC,
the Spanish text is controlling, because it was approved by the
Philippine Legislature in its Spanish

People VS. Abilong (bawal sa Manila)

Facts:

- on or about the 17th day of September, 1947, in the City of Manila

Florentino Abilong was sentenced and ordered to serve two (2) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of destierro during which he should
not enter any place within the radius of 100 kilometers from the City of
Manila
- Florentino Abilong was charged with evasion of service of sentence
because he entered a restricted area within a 100-kilometer radius of
Manila and committed vagrancy.
- Abilong appealed the decision stating that the lower court erred
because article 157 does not cover evasion of service of "destierro."
 A convict who shall evade the service of his sentence, by leaving
the penal institution where he shall have been confined
- The Solicitor General in his brief says that had the original text of the
Revised Penal Code been in the English language, then the theory of
the appellant could be uphold. However, it is the Spanish text that
is controlling in case of doubt

Issue:

- Whether or not the lower court erred in imposing a penalty on the

accused under article 157of the Revised Penal Code, which does not
cover evasion of service of "destierro."

Ruling:
 - The court found and hold that the appellant is guilty of evasion of
service of sentence under article 157 of the Revised Penal Code
(Spanish text)
 It is the Spanish text that is controlling in case of doubt for the
Revised Penal Code because it was originally approved and
enacted in Spanish, the Spanish text governs
 the word "imprisonment" used in the English text is a wrong or
erroneous translation of the phrase "sufriendo privacion de
libertad" used in the Spanish text.
 the appellant by his sentence of destierro was deprived of
the liberty to enter the City of Manila

3. Retroactive Application when Favorable to the Accused

Hernan V. Sandiganbayan (Cashier Kupit)

Facts:

- Petitioner Ophelia Hernan joined the DOTC in Baguio City wherein she
served as an accounting clerk and was subsequently promoted to
Supervising Fiscal Clerk by virtue of which she was designated as
cashier, disbursement and collection officer
- As such, petitioner received cash and other collections from customers
which were deposited at the bank account of the DOTC
- On December 17, 1996, COA auditor Maria Imelda Lopez discovered
discrepancies in deposit slips dated September 19, 1996, and
November 29, 1996, amounting to P11,300.00 and P81,348.20,
respectively, which lacked a stamp of receipt by the LBP nor was it
machine validated
- upon checking with the teller's blotter, Nadelline Orallo, the resident
auditor of LBP, found that no deposits were made by petitioner for the
amount of ₱11,300.00 and November 29, 1996 for the amount of
₱81,340.20
- After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of malversation of public funds and sentenced her to suffer
imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱11,300.00.
- petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed her
conviction but modified the penalty imposed.
 however, the CA set aside its decision on the finding that it has no
appellate jurisdiction over the case. Instead, it is the
 Sandiganbayan which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
petitioner
- the Sandiganbayan affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction but
modified the penalty imposed
 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 11 years, 6
months, and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum,
- Hernan filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing
that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in
denying her motion to reopen the case and admit additional evidence.

Issue:

- Whether or not the case should be reopened in order to lower the

imposable penalty?

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court ruled that it is necessary to reopen the case of

Hernan and to recall the entry of judgment made by the
Sandiganbayan.
 not for the purpose of further receiving evidence or for further
reception of evidence. It is only in order to modify the
penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan.
 Hernan remains convicted of malversation. However, the case
was only reopened in order to modify the penalty by lowering it
from prision mayor to prision correccional.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming Sandiganbayan’s
decision with

4. Prescribed but Undeserved Penalties

People VS. Formigones (selos na simpleton)

Facts:

- defendant Abelardo Formigones was living with his family in the house
of his half-brother, Zacarias Formigones.
- The accused, without any previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever,
took his bolo from the wall of the house and stabbed his wife, Julia, in
the back
 - he admitted to killing his wife because of jealousy as he often saw her
in the company of his brother Zacarias; that he suspected that the two
were maintaining illicit relations
- During the preliminary investigation the accused pleaded guilty. At the
trial of the case in the Court of First Instance, the defendant entered a
plea of not guilty
- His counsel presented the theory that the appellant is an imbecile and
therefore exempt from criminal liability under article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code
- The trial court rejected this same theory. Dr. Francisco Gomez, who
examined him, it was his opinion that Abelardo was suffering only from
feeble-mindedness and not imbecility and that he could distinguish
right from wrong.
 In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile: must be
deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the
will at the time of committing the crime
- The appellant has all the sympathies of the Court. He seems to be one
of those unfortunate beings, simple, and even feebleminded, whose
faculties have not been fully developed
 action in picking up the body of his wife
- Mitigating circumstances
 he made no effort to flee and compel the police to hunt him down
and arrest him.
 the fact that the accused is feebleminded warrants the finding in
his favor of the mitigating circumstance provided for in either
paragraph 8 or paragraph 9 of article 13 of the Revised Penal
Code
 that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
have produced passion or obfuscation. The accused evidently
killed his wife in a fit of jealousy.

Issue:

- Whether or not Abelardo is an imbecile and thus exempt from criminal

liability.

Ruling:

- The court finds the appellant guilty of parricide and we hereby affirm
the judgment of the lower court
 not exempt from criminal liability under Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code as he is not an imbecile.
 - Abelardo, though feebleminded, was not completely deprived of reason
or discernment. His ability to feel jealousy and act on it indicated some
level of understanding and control.
- Feeblemindedness and acting in a fit of jealousy warranted a lighter
penalty.

5. Suppletory Application of RPC to Special Penal Laws

Landonga VS. People (spouse cheque)

Facts:

- Petitioner Evangeline and her husband Adronico Ladonga knowing fully

well that they did not have sufficient funds unlawfully, and feloniously,
draw and issue UCPB Check in the amount of ₱9,075.55 payable to
Alfredo Oculam
 UCPB Check in the amount of ₱12,730.00
 UCPB Check in the amount of ₱8,496.55
- The cases were consolidated and jointly tried and the 2 accused
pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged alleging that the checks were
issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that
Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature
- the RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses
guilty of violating B.P.
- Blg. 22 Adronico applied for probation which was granted while,
Evangeline brought the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing
that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her
husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22
which is a special law

Issue:

- Whether or not the petitioner is guilty as her husband's conspirator

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decisions of the Court of
Appeals and the RTC.
 Pursuant to Art 10 of the RPC which reads that “Offenses not
subject of the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in
the future may be punished under special laws are no tsubject to
 the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to
such laws
 B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory
application of the provisions of theRPC. Thus, in the absence of
contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the
RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be
applied suppletory
- Evangeline Ladonga was acquitted of the charges
 The prosecution failed to establish that Evangeline performed any
overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
 Alfredo Oculam, the lone prosecution witness, only testified to
Evangeline's presence when her husband signed one of the
checks, which was insufficient to prove conspiracy

People VS. Simon

Facts:

- on July 29, 1994, Martin Simon y Sunga was charged with violating
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972. Wherein he sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) poseur-buyer in consideration of the sum of
P40.00
- after his rearrest he pleaded not guilty. He voluntarily waived his right
to a pre-trial conference
- appellant tendered an antipodal version of the attendant facts,
claiming that on the day in question
 frame-up
- the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty
thousand pesos

Issue:

- Whether or not the appellant is guilty of selling prohibited drugs and

having possession

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision but with the
MODIFICATION that he is sentenced to serve an indeterminate penalty
 of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to six (6) years of
prision correccional, as the maximum thereof.
 The Court found the prosecution's evidence, including the positive
and corroborated testimonies of the arresting officers, more
credible than Simon's uncorroborated claims of frame-up and
maltreatment.
 The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties and the lack of ill motive on the part
of the arresting officers.

Theories of Criminal Law

1. Classical (What the Philippine law adheres to)

- Man has freedom. He is responsible for exercising that freedom and in

exercising that freedom he committed a crime then he must be responsible.

- There is a specific punishment for the crime and the specific purpose of the
punishment is for retribution.

2. Positivist (some laws adhere to this EX: mitigating circumstances)

- Man is overpowered by a strange morbid phenomenon which compels him

to do something against his own volition.

- Punishment is for reformation.

3. Mixed

- Combination of the classical and positivist theories.

Felonies (Article 3 RPC)

- Acts and Omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as
provided for under Art. 3, RPC
- Committed not only means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa)
  Deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there
is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill
 Fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight, or lack of skill
 Ex: You hit someone while driving you have the duty to aid.
If you do not then

Kinds of Felonies

1. Intentional Felonies
 committed by means of deliberate intent.
 Elements:
1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender
2. Freedom of action in doing the act
3. Intelligence of the offender
2. Culpable Felonies
 the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill
 Elements:
1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender
2. Freedom of action in doing the ac
3. intelligence of the offender

Note: Both intentional felony and culpable felony are voluntary acts, for
without voluntariness, there is neither an intentional felony nor a culpable
felony.

Elements of Criminal Liability

Art. 4. Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act

done be different from that which he intended
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means

1. Physical Element (Actus Reus)

Act
Omission

People VS. Sylvestre and Atienza (Arson revenge)

Facts:

- Martin Atienza (principal) and Romana (direct participation) appeal the

judgement of Court of First Instance of Bulacan convicting them arson
 Alleging that the lower court erred in erring Silvestre as
accomplice upon the ground of insufficient evidence, or at the
least, of reasonable doubt
- Romona who’s married to Domingo Joaquin cohabited with Martin
Atienza in the barrio of Masocol, municipality of Paombong, Province of
Bulacan
- Domingo Joaquin, filed a sworn complaint for adultery which lead to the
accused being arrested but was subsequently released on bail, each
giving a personal bond of P6,000
- The case was initially dismissed after the accused promised to cease
their relationship and leave the barrio where Martin Atienza voluntarily
signed the promise
- The accused then left the barrio of Masocol and went to live in that of
Santo Niño
- the accused Romana Silvestre met her son by her former marriage and
followed him home to the village of Masocol, while Martin Atienza
followed and lived in the home of Nicolas de la Cruz
- On November 25, 1930 while Nicolas de la Cruz and his wife, Antonia
de la Cruz, were gathered together with the appellants, Martin armed
with a pistol told the couple to take their furniture outside because he
was going to burn their house as revenge on the people of Masocol.
 no one dared say anything to him, not even Romana Silvestre,
who was about a meter away from her codefendant
- the couple left the house to communicate with the barrio lieutenant
when they saw their house engulfed with fire
 The fire destroyed about 48 houses

Issue

- Whether or not the lower court erred in convincing Romana Silvestre as

an accomplice

Ruling:
 - The court affirmed the sentence of Martin Atienza, and reversed the
ruling on Romana Silvestre who was then acquitted
- Article 14 of the Penal Code defines an accomplice to be one who
does not take a direct part in the commission of the act, who does not
force or induce other to commit it, nor cooperates in the commission of
the act by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of the act by previous
or simultaneous actions.
 Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere
silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation
required by article 14 of the Penal Code

People VS. Talingdan (Killer Kabit Police)

Facts:

- Teresa Domogma appeals her conviction of murder and life

imprisonment for the violent death of Bernardo Bagabag by the Court
of First Instance of Abra
- Teresa Domogma had an illicit relationship with Nemesis Talingdan
- two (2) days before he was gunned down, Bernardo and Teresa had a
violent quarrel, the latter went down the house and sought the help of
the police, and shortly accused Talingdan came to the vicinity of
Bernardo's house and called him to come down; but Bernardo ignored
him, for accused Talingdan was a policeman at the time and was
armed, so the latter left the place, but not without warning Bernardo
that someday he would kin him
- ernardo's daughter, Corazon saw her mother meeting with Talingdan
and their co-appellants Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras and Pedro
Bides. AS she approached them, she heard one of them say "Could he
elude a bullet"; and when accused Teresa Domogma noticed the
presence of her daughter, she shoved her away saying "You tell your
father that we will kill him"
- On June 24, 1967 the four male accused, armed with long guns, shot
Bernardo from below the "batalan" of his house. Talingdan and Tobias
climbed the stairs and seeing Bernardo was still alived fired additional
shots.
 - Teresa emerged from her "silid" after the shooting and warned Corazon
not to reveal the identities of the assailants, threatening to kill her if
she did.
- Corazon who was afraid of her own mother, was somehow able to
reveal the circumstances surrounding his killing to her grandmother
and uncle
- Teresa alleged defense is that she and her husband, never fought, she
never cheated, and that her in laws we’re out against her and that they
had forced Corazon to testify against her. She further declared that her
late husband, Bernardo, had enemies during his lifetime, as he had
quarrels with some people over the land they work on
- Furthermore, Talingdan was not in Sallapadan, Tobias was one of the
persons who was called upon by the chief of police of the place to
accompany him in answer to the call for help of the wife of the victim,
the other 2 (Bides and Berras) were sleeping
- The trial court found all the accused guilty of murder qualified
by treachery and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
 2 aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation and that it
was committed in the dwelling of the victim.)

Issue

- Whether or not Teresa is an accessory to the murder of Bernardo

Ruling:

- The SC affirmed the judgment of the trial court

 The SC found appellants Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan Tobias,
Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and each hereby sentenced to DEATH
- The SC found appellant Teresa Domogma guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as accessory and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of five (5) years of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8)
years of prision mayor as maximum
 She became active in her cooperation with her co-appellants after
the fact that Bernardo was killed. These acts constitute
“concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the
crime” which makes her liable as an accessory after the fact
under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code

2. Mental Elements (Mens Rea)

Deliberate Intent (Dolo)

Manuel VS. People (Dalawa asawa patay na daw yung una)

Facts:

- EDUARDO P. MANUEL appeals the decision of Court of Appeals

affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City
charging him of bigamy because he married TINA GANDALERA-MANUEL
while still being legally married to RUBYLUS [GAÑA]
- Eduardo met Tina a GRO at the time in Baguio and married her shortly
after, falsely declaring himself as "single" in the marriage contract.
- Their marriage initially thrived but deteriorated by 1999, with Eduardo
abandoning Tina in January 2001 because he alleged that Tina
cheated.
- Tina discovered Eduardo's prior marriage to Rubylus from the National
Statistics Office and filed a complaint.
- Eduardo claimed he believed his first marriage was invalid and that he
had not heard from Rubylus for over 20 years stating that she is
presumed dead
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City found Eduardo guilty of
bigamy.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision

Issue

- Whether or not EDUARDO P. MANUEL is guilty of bigamy

Ruling:

- The SC denied the petition and affirm the decision of the Court of
Appeals
 the prosecution proved that the petitioner was married to Gaña in
1975, and such marriage was not judicially declared a nullity;
hence, the marriage is presumed to subsist.
- The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and
ensure the juridical tie of marriage established by law.
- According to Retired Supreme Court Justice Florenz D. Regalado, , in
some cases where an absentee spouse is believed to be dead, there
must be a judicial declaration of presumptive death, which could then
be made only in the proceedings for the settlement of his estate.
Before such declaration, it was held that the remarriage of the other
spouse is bigamous even if done in good faith
 - The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil
intent when he married the private complainant.
 As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a
valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense
negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law
is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law.

Elements of Dolo

General and Specific Intent

People VS. Puno (Driver robber not kidnapper)

Facts:

- Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento was told by Isabelo Puno

(husband’s driver) that her regular driver was unavailable due to family
emergency and that he will be her driver temporarily.
- While driving Sarmiento home, Enrique Amurao (Nephew of Puno)
boarded the car and threatened her with a gun.
- The accused demanded money initially getting 7,000 in cash but
demanded more. Sarmiento issued 3 checks totaling 100K (30, 30, 40)
- Sarmiento jumped outside the moving vehicle, flagged a fish vendor
van, and reported the incident to CAPCOM (capital regional command)
- The trial court found the accused guilty of robbery with extortion
committed on a highway under Presidential Decree No. 532 and
sentenced them to reclusion perpetua
- The lower court, in support of its theory, offers this ratiocination
 The accused admitted that the robbery was carried on from
Araneta Avenue up to the North Superhighway. They likewise
admitted that along the way they intimidated Ma. Socorro to
produce more money that she had with her at the time for which
reason Ma. Socorro, not having more cash, drew out three checks

Issue

- whether or not the accused-appellants committed the felony of

kidnapping for ransom, or violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 Anti-
Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974, or offense of simple
robbery

Ruling:
 - The court convicted the accused of robbery
 The primary motive/Specific intent of the accused appellants
was monetary gain rather than the deprivation of the victim's
liberty.
 kidnapping requires clear proof that the intent was to deprive the
victim of liberty
 The amounts taken from the victim were not considered ransom
but were obtained through intimidation during the robbery

People VS. Delim (Killer brothers)

Facts:

- Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are accused of the murder of their
Igorot adopted brother, Modesto Delim
- On January 23, 1999 Marlon, Robert and Ronald armed with suddenly
barged into the house of Modesto armed with short handguns where
Randy (son), Rita (wife), and their 2 young grandchildren were
preparing to have their supper.
- Marlon threatened Modesto with a gun; Robert and Ronald hog-tied
and gagged him with a piece of cloth while Leon and Manuel, who were
also armed stayed put by the door to the house
- Robert and Ronald herded Modesto out of the house
- After Leon and Manuel left Randy went to his uncle who advised him to
tell the police but Randy opt to look for his father first with the help of
their family
- they found Modesto under thick bushes in a grassy area. He was
already dead
- Rita and Randy divulged to the police investigators the names and
addresses of Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Leon and Manuel, whom they
claimed were responsible for the death of Modesto
- Marlon, Ronald and Leon interposed denial and alibi
 Ronald claimed were in their house at Asan Norte, Sison,
Pangasinan
 Leon averred was in the house of his sister Laoag City, Ilocos
Norte which his sister collaborated with his alibi
 Marlon asserted that he was on vacation in Dumaguete City
- The trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellants guilty of
murder sentencing them to death and ordering them to pay damages.
  appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance and of taking
advantage of superior strength, nighttime and use of unlicensed
firearms as separate of aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the crime

Issue

- Whether or not the court gravely erred in finding the accused-

appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
- Whether the crime committed is murder or kidnapping

Ruling:

- The SC the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION

Accused-appellants are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the felony of Homicide
- What is evident from the acts done by the accused was their intent to
kill the said victim. There was no intent to detain the said victim.
Since there was no intent to detain the said victim, it cannot be
kidnapping it SHOULD be murder
 If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill
the victim, the incidental deprivation of the victim's liberty does
not constitute the felony of kidnapping but is merely a
preparatory act to the killing, and hence, is merged into, or
absorbed by, the killing of the victim

Intent distinguished from motive

Mistake of Fact

US VS. Ah Chong (roommate)

Facts:

- Ahh chong and Pascual Gualberto were roommates where the door of
their dorm was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock, and
occupants, and were in the habit of reinforcing this by placing against
it a chair. In the room there was but one small window, which, like the
door, opened on the porch. Aside from the door and window, there
were no other openings of any kind in the room.
 - On the night of August 14, 1908 the defendant was suddenly
awakened by some trying to force open the door of the roomHe asked
who it was, but no one answered. Fearing that the intruder was a thief
considering that several robberies already occurred in the area, Ah
Chong remarked that he would kill the intruder if he entered the room.
- Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the
defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned
out, was his roommate, Pascual and subsequently, the latter died.
- No reasonable explanation of the remarkable conduct on the part of
Pascuals suggests itself, unless it be that the boy in a spirit of mischief
was playing a trick on his Chinese roommate
- The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination, tried,
and found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide with
extenuating circumstances
- At the trial in the court below the defendant admitted that he killed his
roommate, , but insisted that he struck the fatal blow in the exercise of
his lawful right of self-defense.

Issue

- Whether or not by reason of mistake of facts can ah chong be held

criminally liable

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and sentence by the trial
court and ruled that Ah Chong is not criminally liable for the death of
his roommate
- Based on the elements of mistake of fact:
 Ah Chong thought the victim was an intruder
 Ah Chong’s intent was lawful to protect his life, his property
 Ah Chong called out number of times to ask who was the one
entering, but the said roommate failed to reply. Thus, it was
enough for Ah Chong to believe he is an intruder
- Ah Chong acted in good faith and without malice while in the mistaken
belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of
self-defense considering that he thought that his life was in danger.
- Moreover, he is not guilty of negligence in adopting the means he used
to defend himself from an imminent danger which he believes would
threaten his life
People VS. Oanis (Tulog binaril ng Pulis)

Facts:

- Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta were after due trial, found guilty
by the lower court of homicide of Serapio Tecson
- December 24, 1938. Captain Godofredo Monsod received from Major
Guido an order to arrest Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in
Cabanatuan, a notorious criminal, and escapee to get him dead or
alive
- Captain Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and asked that
he be given four men. Defendant corporal Alberto Galanta, and
privates Nicomedes Oralo, Venancio Serna and D. Fernandez and if
overpowered follow the instruction contained in the telegram (dead or
alive)
- When the group arrived at Irene's house, Oanis approached Brigida
Mallare and asked where Irene’s room was which Mallare pointed out
then subsequently went away.
- Defendants, Oanis and Galanta, went to the room of Irene, and upon
seeing aman sleeping with his back towards the door simultaneously or
successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers.
- it turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious
criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named
Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour.
- when asked as to who killed the deceased. Galanta, referring to himself
and to Oanis, answered: "We two, sir."
- The lower court found them guilty of homicide through reckless
imprudence

Issue

- Whether or not the defendants can be exempted from criminal liability

in raising the defense of honest of mistake

Ruling:

- The SC ruled that the defendants were criminally liable for the death of
Serapio Tecson, and they cannot be exempted from criminal liability in
raising their defense of honest mistake of fact in the murder of Tecson
  The defendants relied on the case of U.S. vs. Ah Chongto support
their theory of non-liability HOWEVER it only applies when the
mistake is committed without fault or carelessness
- The Supreme Court modified the lower court's decision, ruling that the
crime committed was murder, not merely reckless imprudence, but
recognized a mitigating circumstance.
 mitigating circumstance = a person incurs no criminal liability
when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office
 Their duty was to arrest Balagtas or to get him dead or alive if
resistance is offered by him and they are overpowered. But
through impatience or over-anxiety or in their desire to take no
chances, they have exceeded in the fulfillment of such duty by
killing the person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any
resistance from him and without making any previous inquiry as
to his identity.

Malum Prohibitum as Exception to the Requirement of Mens Rea

Padilla VS. Dizon (Judgement error ni Judge)

Facts:

- then Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla filled an

administrative case against respondent Baltazar R. Dizon, RTC Judge
for rendering erroneous decision due to gross incompetence and gross
ignorance of the law for acquitting defendants in four cases of illegal
possession of firearms.
- Judge Dizon answered the complaint stating that his decision is based
on "fundamental principles and the foundation of rights and justice"
and that if there are mistakes or errors in the questioned decision, they
are committed in good faith
- The case in question:
 decision of acquittal involved a tourist, Lo Chi Fai, who was caught
while attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign
exchange instruments out of the country amounting to US$
355,349.57 without any authority as provided by law
 filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC for violation of Sec.6, Central
Bank Circular No. 960
  At the trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a
businessman from Hong Kong, that he had come to the
Philippines 9 to 10 times to invest in business in the country with
his business associates, and that he and his business associates
namely Wakita Noboyuki, Kobayashi Nabuo, Lee Shiang Pin, Lee
Chin and Cze Kai Kwan declared all the money they brought in
and all declarations were handed to and kept by him
 Because of the revolution taking place in Manila during that time,
Lo Chi Fai was urged by his business associates to come to Manila
to bring the money out of the Philippines.
 The judge acquitted the case stating the evidence tended to show
that the accused had no willful intention to violate the law
- Although lack of malice or willful intent is not a valid defense in a case
for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, the respondent
nonetheless chose to exonerate the accused
- He not only acquitted the accused Lo Chi Fai, but directed in his
decision the release to the accused of at least the amount of
US$3,000.00

Issue

- whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross incompetence or

gross ignorance of the law in rendering the decision in question
 A judge cannot be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly or
administratively, for an erroneous decision rendered by him in
good faith

Ruling:

- the Court finds the respondent guilty of gross incompetence, gross

ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct affecting his
integrity and efficiency, and consistent with the responsibility of this
Court for the just and proper administration of justice and for the
attainment of the objective of maintaining the people's faith in the
judiciary
 Judge Dizon ignored the fact that the foreign currency and foreign
currency instruments found in the possession of Lo Chi Fai when
he was apprehended at the airport and the amounts of such
foreign exchange did not correspond to the foreign currency
declarations presented by Lo Chi Fai at the trial
 In releasing $3,000.00 to Lo Chi Fai, Baltazar R. Dizon again
diplayed gross incompetence andgross ignorance of law. There is
 nothing in the Central Bank Circular which could be takenas
authority for the trial court to release the said amount of US
Currency to Lo Chi Fai
- CB circular is malum prohibitum. Therefore, criminal intent does not
matter. The mere act of bringing the foreign currency in violation of
the same renders the person or offender criminally liable.

Magno VS. CA (warranty deposit scam)

Facts:

- Oriel Magno wanted to put up a car repair shop, however, lacked funds
to purchase equipment to make it operational
- Magno approached Corazon Teng, VP of Mancor Industries for financial
help, which referred Magno to Joey Gomez, who is the VP of LS Finance
and Management Corporation
- Mancor would be able to supply the equipment if LF finance provided
him credit
- LS finance required Magno to put up a warranty deposit equivalent to
30% of the total value of the equipment amounting to 29,790
- Magno could not come up with the amount so he asked Joey Gomez to
find a 3rd party that could
- Unknown to Magno, Teng advanced the deposit as a short-term loan at
3% interest
- Petitioner Magno issued a postdated check to Gomez after delivering
the equipment, and Gomez delivered the check to Teng, but Magno
requested not to deposit the said check because he was no longer
banking with Pacific Bank
- To replace the check, the petitioner issued 6 postdated checks, 2 of
which were cleared and the remaining 4 became the subject of the
charges against the petitioner in violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
as they were not covered by sufficient funds.
- The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City convicted Magno of violating BP
Blg. 22,

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC

Issue
 - Whether or not petitioner Magno should be punished for the refund of a
warranty deposit

Ruling:

- The SC appealed the decisions of the RTC and COA and acquitted Oriel
Magno
 petitioner never hid the fact that he did not have the funds with
which to put up the warranty
- The Supreme Court said, the actual or potential wrongdoer is not
Magno, rather it is Mrs. Teng. Therefore, to penalize Magno is to poster
materialism and opportunism.
 Scheme whereby Mrs. Teng as the supplier of the equipment in
the name of her corporation, Mancor, would be able to "sell or
lease" its goods as in this case, and at the same time, privately
financing those who desperately need petty accommodations as
this one. This modus operandi has in so many instances
victimized unsuspecting businessmen, who likewise need
protection from the law, by availing of the deceptively called
"warranty deposit"

Garcia VS. CA (Voting Counting)

Doctrine:

- Mala in se and mala prohibita

Facts:

- Aquilino [Link], Jr filed a case before the Regional Trial Court

ofAlaminos against Herminio [Link], Renato R. Viray, Rachel Palisoc
and Francisca de Vera, and Arsenia Garcia for violation of RA 6646
- allegedly, the accused who are members of the Municipal Board of
canvassers helped each other, to unlawfully decrease the votes
received by senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. from 6,998
votes, to 1,921
- the RTC acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of evidence,
except Arsenia Garcia
- Petitioner appealed before the Court of Appeals which affirmed
with modification the RTC Decision increasing the minimum penalty
imposed by the trial court from six (6) months to one (1) year
- The Court of Appeals likewise denied the motion for reconsideration
 - Petitioner contends that there is an erroneous judgment considering
that there is lack of substantial evidence against her and that she has
no motive on her part to reduce votes of the complainant
- Respondent on the other hand contends that good faith is not a
defense in the violation of an election law
- The act of decreasing a political candidate’s vote is malum in se. it is
inherently wrong. If it is malum in se, how come Garcia was convicted
when she argued that she was so tired then?

Issue

- Whether or not a violation of Section 27(b) of [Link] No. 6646,

classified under mala in se or mala prohibita?
 "mala in se", the acts constituting the crimes are inherently
evil, bad. or wrong,
 "mala prohibita", the acts constituting the crimes are not
inherently bad, evil or wrong but prohibited and made
punishable only for public good.
- Whether or not good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses
for violation of RA 6646?

Ruling:

- The SC denied the petition and sustaining petitioner’s conviction

 Violation of Sec 27 (b) of RA 6646 is mala in se because the acts
complained of are inherently immoral.
 Violation of Sec 27 (b) of RA 6646 is mala in se. However, when
the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed
mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law
- Even if she acted without criminal intent, there was negligence on her
part. Her duty of being the head of the BOC requires that she exercise
extraordinary due diligence in the canvassing of a political candidate’s
vote
- Good faith and lack of criminal intent is a valid defense for violations of
RA 6646 however the burden of proof rests in the person invoking it.
 Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who
executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall
appear. Thus, whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the
burden of proving its existence. In the case at bar, Petitioner
admitted that she was the one who prepared the COC (Exhibit “A-
7”), though it was not her duty. The court believed that preparing
 the COC even if it was not her task, manifests an intention to
perpetuate the erroneous entry in the COC

Constructive Intent (Culpa)

Elements:

Imprudence or Lack of Skill

Negligence or lack of Foresight

People VS. Pugay (retard burned)

Facts:

- In Rosario Cavite Fernando Pugay and Benjamin Samson assisting one

another and evident premeditation and with the decided purpose to
kill, poured gasoline to the body of Bayani Miranda and with the use of
fire burn the whole body of said Bayani Miranda which caused his
subsequent death
- both accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. After trial, the
trial court rendered a decision finding both accused guilty on the
crime of murder
- On the evening of May 19, 1982, a town fiesta was held in the public
plaza of Rosario Cavite. Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and
Samson with several companions arrived appearing drunk, and they
started making fun of Bayani by tickling him with a piece of wood
making him dance. Pugay after making fun of Bayani, took a can of
gasoline under the Ferris wheel and poured its contents on Bayani,
Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not to do the deed. Then Samson
set Miranda on fire, making a human torch out of him.
- The accused appealed the decision, citing
 their statements to the police were extracted by force.
 prosecution suppressed the testimonies of other eyewitnesses
 attack the credibility of the eyewitness Gabion
-

Issue
 - Whether or not conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder
can be the crime and what are the criminal responsibilities of the
accused?

Ruling:

- The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court with

modifications and the judgement of murder beyond reasonable doubt
- held that both parties are guilty but separate
- PUGAY:
 he failed to exercise diligence to avoid the undesirable
consequence of setting the deceased on fire.- GUILTY OF
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE
- SAMSON:
 act of setting the deceased on fire was part of their fun-making
and not premeditated. And granted the mitigating circumstance
that he never INTENDED to commit so grave a wrong. - GUILTY OF
HOMICIDE
 He was credited with the mitigating circumstance of no intention
to commit so grave a wrong.

Ivler VS. San Pedro (double jeopardy)

Facts:

- On August 2004 Petitioner Jason Ivler was involved in a vehicular

collision
- Two charges were filed against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Pasig City
 Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries, filed by
Evangeline L. Ponce.
 Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property, concerning the death of Nestor C. Ponce and damage to
their vehicle.
- Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries and was penalized with public
censure.
- Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the Information in
Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.
 - The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two
cases
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City,Branch 157 (RTC), in a petition for certiorari
- the RTC petition was dismissed on procedural grounds due to his non-
appearance at the arraignment for the second charge.
-

Issue

- Whether or not petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief in S.C.A.

2803 when the MeTC ordered his arrest following his non-appearance
at the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366
- Whether or not petitioner’s constitutional right under the
Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in Criminal
Case No. 82366

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court grants the petition and reverse the orders of the
RTC of Pasig
 The court ruled that the petitioner’s non-appearance at the
arraignment did not divest him of personality to maintain the
petition in S.C.A. 2803
 Dismissals of appeals based on the appellant's escape or bail
violation apply to post-trial appeals of convictions, not to pre-trial
relief actions like Ivler's petition.
- The supreme Court Dismiss the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366
pending with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig on the grounds of
double jeopardy
 Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime, its Consequences on
Persons and Property are Material Only to Determine the Penalty
The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts,
were prosecuted under the same provision of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended
 Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused cannot be prosecuted again for the
same act, regardless of the resulting consequences.

Transferred Intent
Aberratio Ictus

- “transferred intent" or "transferred malice"

- a situation in criminal law where a defendant intends to harm one
person, but inadvertently harms another person instead

People VS. Guillen (failed assassination)

Doctrine:

- Aberratio Ictus

Facts:

- Court of First Instance of Manila found Julio C. Guillen guilty of the

crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder and is sentenced to
the penalty of death, to indemnify the of the deceased Simeon Valera
(or Barrela) in the sum of P2,000 and to pay the costs.
- Julio C. Guillen is not insane but is an individual with a personality
defect which in Psychiatry is termed, Constitutional Psychopathic
Inferiority.
- Julio Guillen y Corpus, the respondent, planned to assassinate
President Manuel Roxas at the night of March 10, 1947, the Liberal
Party convened a meeting at Plaza de Miranda Quiapo,Manila because
he became disappointed in President Roxas f or not fulfilling campaign
promises and supporting the "parity" measure
- When he reached Plaza de Miranda, Guillen was carrying two hand
grenades concealed in a paper bag. He buried one of the hand
grenades in a potted plant located beside the platform and then, he
stood on a chair and throw the other grenade at the President who was
about to leave the platform.
- General Castaneda saw the smoking, hissing, grenade immediately
deflected the grenade away from the platform towards an open space
where he thought it would inflict less harm
- The fragments of the grenade seriously injured Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio,
Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang and Simeon Varela (or Barella) who
later died the following the day
- Angel Garcia who witnessed someone hurl and object to the platform
pursued but after some resistance Guillen escaped and Garcia was
mistaken as the suspect and was arrested
- a certain Manuel Robles came forward and told that the person Angel
Garcia had wrestled with was named Julio Guillen who he was
 acquainted with for 10 years and had seen each other at the plaza few
moments before the explosion
- After interrogating Garcia and Robles, Guillen was found in his home at
1724 Juan Luna Street, Manila and was brought to the Police station
wherein he readily admitted his responsibility and even the place
where he had hidden his so-called last will and where he had buried
the other grenade

Issue

- Whether or not, Julio Guillen is properly convicted by the trial court

 on charges of
 murder, and multiple frustrated murder, in the application
of section 1 of article 49 of the Revised Penal Code in
determining the penalty, and considering the concurrence
of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and of
contempt of public authorities in the commission of crime

Ruling:

- The SC affirmed the decision of the trial court

 Guillen, testifying stated his purpose was to kill the President, but
that it did not make any difference to him if there were some
people around the President when he hurled that bomb, because
the killing of those who surrounded the President was tantamount
to killing the President
 In throwing hand grenade at the President with the intention of
killing him, the appellant acted with malice. He is therefore
liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act
 committed two grave felonies, namely: (1) murder, of which
Simeon Varela was the victim; and (2) multiple attempted
murder, of which President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio,
Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang were the injured parties.
 Under article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is
incurred even if the wrongful act done is different from that which
was intended.
 He aimed to kill the president but killed another then that
still counts
 The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the
victims could not defend themselves against the attack.
People VS. Adriano (Car rental shooting)

Doctrine:

- Aberratio Ictus

Facts:

- Rolly Adriano y Santos willfully shot with assorted firearms Ofelia

Bulanan and Danilo Cabiedes killing them
- While PO1 Garabiles and P02 Santos were riding a motorcycle on their
way to Camp Olivas they witnessed a blue corolla with 4 men overtook
them and shoot the driver (Cabiedes) of a maroon CRV, and
accidentally hitting a bystander (Bulanan) both dying because of it
- The authorities discovered that the Corolla was registered under the
name of Antonio River in his car rental business which he leased to
Adriano
- When Adriano arrived at Rivera's shop with the Corolla, he was
identified by P02 Santos and PO 1 Garabiles as one of the four
assailants and was immediately arrested and brought to the Provincial
Special Operations Group (PSOG) headquarters in Cabanatuan City.
- Adriano provided an alibi collaborated with his witnesses: Lucita Tapnio
(Tapnio), Mallari, Sunga, and Dizon corroborated Adriano's testimony
- After trial, the RTC convicted Adriano
 Adriano's alibi cannot prevail over the testimonies of credible
witnesses, who positively identified Adriano
 RTC sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordered to indemnify the heirs of Danilo Cabiedes in the amount
of Php 50,000.00 and to pay the sum of Php 222,482.00 as actual
damages.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Adriano alleged that the R TC erred
w

Issue

- Whether or not the RTC erred in rejecting Adriano's alibi defense and
the testimonies of his witnesses.

Ruling:

- The Court of Appeals rejected Adriano's attempt

  the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of Adriano
cannot be overcome by minor inconsistencies in their testimony
- Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC but increased the
amount from 50k to 75k as civil indemnity to the heirs of Danilo
Cabiedes and pay the heirs of Danilo Cabiedes the amount of 75KPesos
as moral damages; and the heirs of Ofelia Bulanan the amount of
50KPesos as moral damages.
- One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the
consequences which may naturally or logically result therefrom,
whether foreseen or intended or not. The rationale of the rule is found
in the doctrine, 'el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado
', or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused
 Although Adriano only intended to shoot Cabiedes he is also guilty
of the stray bullet killing Bulanan

Error in Personae

People VS. Sabalones

Facts:

- Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga assaulted and shot GLENN

TIEMPO and ALFREDO NARDO who were riding [i]n a jeep and who
gave no provocation killing them
- Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga assaulted and shot REY
BOLO, ROGELIO PRESORES, and NELSON TIEMPO who were riding in a
car and who gave no provocation injuring them
- The accused, Rolusape Sabalones alias "Roling," Artemio Timoteo
Beronga, Teodulo Alegarbes, and Eufemio Cabanero, were charged with
two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder.
 Alegarbes died in the course of trial
 Cabanero remained at large
- The cases against Sabalones and Beronga were jointly tried.
- the lower court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes charged
 sentenced them to reclusion temporal for murder and prision
mayor for frustrated murder
- The CA affirmed their conviction but sentenced them to reclusion
perpetua

Issue:
 - Whether or not the accused by reason of Mistake of Identity or Error in
Personae is criminally liable.
- Whether the allegation of the accused-appellant that the trial court is
engaging in conjecture for the ruling that there was a Abberatio Ictus
or Mistake of Blow in this case is meritorious

Ruling:

- The SC denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts decisions
- The conclusion of thetrial court and the Court of Appeals that the
appellants killed the wrong persons was based onthe extrajudicial
statement of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer Binghoy.
 sufficiently show that appellants believed that they were
suspected of having killed the recently slain Nabing Velez, and
that they expected his group to retaliate against them. Hence,
upon the arrival of the victims' vehicles which they mistook to be
carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants opened
fire.

The observation of the solicitor general on this point is well-taken. The case
is better characterized as error personae or mistake in the identity of the
victims, rather than aberratio ictus which means mistake in the blow,
characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the
blow.

- As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Sabalones, error

in persona (mistake in the identity) is not an absolutory cause, it is
not an exempting circumstance. Therefore, error in persona (mistake in
the identity) will not absolve a person from any criminal liability. It can
only be mitigating if there is a variance. However, in this case, there
was no variance between the intended felony and the felony actually
committed. Therefore, X shall be criminally liable for serious physical
injuries although it was done from a different victim

Praeter Intentionem

People VS. Alburquerque (paralyzed pen knife)

Facts:
 - Gines Alburquerque a widower of fifty-five years of age and father of
nine living children, has been suffering from partial paralysis for some
time with the exception of a daughter who was married and a nun was
living with Maria upon whom they depend for support
- One of his daughters (pilar) had intimate relations with the deceased
(Osma) resulting in a child which was only known by the appellant
when they returned with the child
- Th appellant wrote several letters to the deceased asking the
deceased to legitimize his union with Pilar by marrying her, or at least,
to support her and his child
- One day the appellant presented himself at the office where the
deceased worked and both went downstairs
- the appellant again he proposed to said deceased to marry his
daughter, but the latter refused to do so, he whipped out his penknife
and said stabbed him but due to the lack of control of the movement of
his arm, the weapon landed on the base of the neck of the
deceased
- the appellant only wanted to inflict a wound to scar the face of the
deceased or put him in a hospital and never intended to kill him
because then the deceased could no longer marry/support his
daughter
 stabbing the deceased in the neck was due to the appellant not
having control of his right arm on account of paralysis
- Alburquerque was found guilty of homicide, sentenced to eight years
and one day of prision mayor, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased with P1,000.
- The trial court found that the appellant did not intend to cause so
grave injury as the death of the deceased

Issue

- Whether or not the principle of Praeter Intentionem can act as a

mitigating circumstance in the case at hand

Ruling:

- The court rejected the appellant’s defense of self defense and

 He provoked and commenced the aggression by whipping out and
brandishing his penknife
- The court held that Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code was not
applicable
  has been interpreted as applicable only in cases where the crime
befalls a different person

Concurrence

Resulting Harm

Causation

Bataclan VS. Medina (overturned bus negligence)

Facts:

- On September 13, 1952, after midnight, a bus from Medina

Transportation, driven by Conrado Saylo
- There were about 18 passengers, including the driver and conductor,
including Juan Bataclan, Felipe Lara, visaya, and Natalia Villanueva
- about 2:00am in Imus, Cavite, one of the front tires burst and the
vehicle began to zig-zag and overturn
- Some passengers escaped, others had to be helped, but Bataclán,
Lara, the visayan, and Natalia Villanueva, could not get out of the
overturned bus and shouted for help
- After half an hour 10 men came with lighted torch to help but their
torch ignited the leaking gasoline, setting the bus on fire and killing the
trapped passengers.
- Salud Villanueva the widow of Bataclan brought the present suit
against Medina for P87,150 in compensatory, moral, and exemplary
damages.
- the Court of First Instance of Cavite awarded P1,000 to the plaintiffs
plus P600 as attorney's fee, plus P100, the value of the merchandise
- The trial court was of the opinion that the proximate cause of the death
of Bataclan was not the overturning of the bus, but rather, the fire that
burned the bus so damages were awarded, not for his death, but for
the physical injuries suffered by him
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed the decision to the
Court of Appeals, but the latter court endorsed the appeal to the SC

Issue

- Whether or not Medina Transportation is liable for the death of Juan

Bataclán
Ruling:

- The Supreme Court held that the proximate cause of Bataclan's death
was the overturning of the bus.
 The Court held that the proximate cause was the overturning of
the bus because when the vehicle turned not only on its side but
completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank
was not unnatural or unexpected
- The driver and conductor were negligent
 the driver nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or
taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too
near the bus

People VS. Iligan (Bolo at kotse)

Facts:

- on or about 3:00 a.m., August 4, 1980, Fernando Iligan with his nephew
Edmundo Asis armed with a bolo gang up and hacked Esmeraldo
Quiñones, Jr., on his face causing him to die
- Fernando Iligan and Edmundo Asis pleaded not guilty to the crime
- Esmeraldo Quiñones, Jr, Zaldy Asis and Felix Lukban, were walking
home from barangay Sto. Domingo, Vinzons, Camarines Norte after
attending a barrio fiesta dance
- they met the accused Fernando Iligan, his nephew, Edmundo Asis, and
Juan Macandog. Edmundo Asis pushed them aside thereby prompting
Zaldy Asis to box him.
- Felix Lukban quickly told the group of the accused that they had no
desire to fight. Fernando Iligan, upon seeing his nephew fall, drew from
his back a bolo and hacked Zaldy Asis but missed. Terrified, the trio ran
pursued by the three accused.
- After escaping Quiñones, Jr. invited the two to accompany him to his
house so that he could change to his working clothes and report for
work as a bus conductor
- While the trio were walking towards the house of Quiñones, Jr., the
three accused suddenly emerged on the roadside and without a word,
Fernando Iligan hacked Quiñones, Jr. with his bolo hitting him on the
forehead and causing him to fall down. Horrified, Felix Lukban and
Zaldy Asis fled to a distance of 200 meters, but returned walking after
they heard shouts of people
 - Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte convicted them of the crime
of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Esmeraldo Quiñones, Jr. in the
amounts of P30,000 for the latter’s death and P256,960 representing
the victim’s unrealized income.
- The body of Quiñones, Jr. was autopsied by Dr. Marcelito E. Abas and
the postmortem examination report reveal that Quiñones, Jr. died of
shock and massive cerebral hemorrhages due to a vehicular accident

Issue

- Whether or not Fernando Iligan Edmundo Asis should be held liable for
the murder of Quiñones

Ruling:

- The court ruled that Fernando Iligan y Jamito is hereby convicted of the
crime of homicide
 Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall
be incurred "by any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended."
 The intentional felony committed was the hacking of the head of
Quiñones, the assault was meant not only to immobilize the
victim but to do away with him as it was directed at a vital and
delicate part of the body
 while Iligan’s hacking of Quiñones, Jr.’s head might not have been
the direct cause, it was the proximate cause of the latter’s death.
- The court ruled that Edmundo Asis is acquitted of the crime charged
against him
 Asis did not take any active part in the infliction of the wound on
the head of Quiñones, Jr.
 his mere presence at the scene of the crime did not make him a
co-conspirator, a co-principal or an accomplice to the assault
perpetrated by Iligan

Urbano VS. Intermediate Appellate Court (Tetanus)

Facts:

- October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano found the place where
he stores his palay flooded with water from the irrigation canal thus he
 went to the elevated portion of the canal to see what happened and
there he saw Marcelino Javier and Emilio Erfe cutting grass.
- He asked who opened the irrigation canal and Javier said he did.
Urbano and Javier got into an argument, where petitioner demanded
that Javier pay for his soaked palay
- Urbano unsheathed his bolo and hacked Javier hitting him on the right
palm and on the left leg. Javier was then brough to his house
- Urbano and Javier agreed to settle their differences and Urbano
promised to pay for Javier's medical expenses Urbano advanced
P400.00 to Javier and on November 3, 1980, an additional P300.00 was
given to Javier.
- On November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the hospital in a serious
condition, suffering from lockjaw and muscle spasms. He was
diagnosed with tetanus and died the following day.
- the lower courts ruled that Javier's death was the natural and logical
consequence of Urbano's unlawful act. Hence, he was declared
responsible for Javier's death
- The petitioner states that the proximate cause of the death of Marcelo
Javier was due to his own negligence because after two weeks he
returned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with his bare hands
exposing the wound to harmful elements like tetanus germs.

Issue

- Whether or not Urbano’s action was the proximate cause of the death
of Javier.

Ruling:

- The court granted the petition and reversed the decision allowing
Urbano to be acquitted
 The incubation period of mild tetanus infection is 14 days. In the
case at bar, it was only after 22 days that Javier suffered the
symptoms of tetanus. It can be concluded that he was inflicted
with a mild tetanus infection.

Impossible Crimes

Intod VS. CA (Empty room shooting)

Facts:

- Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with
Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to
be killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya
should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed.
- On the evening of February 4, 1979, Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian,
Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's
house and fired at Palangpangan’s room, which was pointed by
Manday however, Palangpangan was in another City and no one was in
the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun
fire
- The Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder.
The court (RTC), as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, held that
Petitioner was guilty of attempted murder.
- The petitioner contends that Palangpangan's absence from her room
on the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the
crime inherently impossible.

Issue

- Whether or not the crime the petitioner is guilty of is an impossible

crime?

Ruling:

- The SC granted the petition and modified the ruling of the RTC and CA
changing it from attempted murder to being guilty of an impossible
crime
 The crime of murder was not consummated, not because of
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, as stated in Art.
4(2) of the RPC, but due to a cause or accident other than
petitioner's and his co-accused's own spontaneous desistance
 Palangpangan did not sleep at her house at that time. Had it not
been for this fact, the crime is possible, not impossible
- The case is an example of a factual impossibility
- two kinds of inherent impossibility:
 Legal Impossibility - There is legal impossibility when all the
intended acts, even if accomplished, will not produce a crime.
 Physical or factual impossibility - When extraneous circumstances
unknown to the offender, extraneous circumstances beyond the
control of the offender, prevented the consummation of the crime
People VS. Saladino (Police “escaped” killing)

Facts:

- In the night of June 23, 1948, Saladino and Alejo was resting in a house
in Abucay, Paoay, Ilocos Norte with policemen Melchor Quevedo,
Wilfredo Osman, and GeorgePlan.
- They were awakened by Felix Pasion who reported that he had been
robbed, one of the robbers being Luis Bernabe.
- The next morning Saladino and Alejo brought Barnabe for questioning
to the residence of Felix Pasion
- To extract a confession, Saladino punched, kicked, clubbed with a piece
of wood, two inched thick and one yard long, cudgeled while tied to the
ceiling while Alejo reluctantly whipped Bernabe four times with the
branch of a tree
- Plan intervened and said that it would be better to bring Bernabe to
their headquarters for questioning, but Saladino ignored it. Osman
noticed that Bernabe seems to be dead, but Saladino believed it to be
a pretend
- Realizing his predicament, Saladino ordered two civilians to carry
Bernabe down and told Alejo: “shoot him now and we will say that he
ran away”. Complying with the corporal’s order Alejo shot Bernabe four
times
- June 24, Saladino swore before the fiscal an affidavit stating that the
death of Bernabe was because the latter attempted to escape which
was corroborated by the three policemen.
- However, after a days, Quevedo was interviewed and gave a different
story Quevedo, Osman and Plan agreed that that Bernabe was already
dead even before Alejo was told to shoot Bernabe.

Issue

- Whether or not Saladino and Alejo shall incur criminal liability for the
death of Bernabe

Ruling:

- The court revoked the appeal and Saladino and Alejo shall incur
criminal liability.
 Bernabe having died as a consequence of the violent mauling by
Saladino, the latter must be declared guilty of assassination.
 - Alejo is guilty as accessory
 having performed acts tending to conceal Saladino's crime by
making it appear that Bernabe had run away
 Alejo is sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years
of prison correctional nor more than six years and two months of
prison mayor;

Jacinto VS. People

Facts:

- July 1997, Gemma T. Jacinto, Anita Busog de Valencia y Rivera, and

Jacqueline Capitle all employees of MEGA FOAM INTERNATIONAL INC
take, steal and deposited in their own account the sum of 10K
- Petitioner, Gemma Jacinto was an employee of Megafoam International
as a collector, received a check from Isabelita Aquino Milabo, also
known as Baby Aquino for the payment of the latter’s purchases from
Megafoam.
- The checks were deposited in Land Bank on Generoso Capitle’s
account, the husband of Jacinto’s sister.
- Later on, one employee of Megafoam received a call asking if she could
issue a check in the name of Megafoam instead of issuing them
payable to cash.
- The employee also received a call from Land Bank stating that the
check deposited in Generoso’s account was dishonored. This scheme
was then reported to the owner of Megafoam.
- Upon investigation, it was found that Jacinto never remitted the subject
check to Megafoam. However, Aquino said that she had already paid
Megafoam in cash as replacement for the dishonored check.
- Meanwhile, Dyhengco filed a Complaint with the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and worked out an entrapment operation with its
agents. Ten pieces of P1,000.00 bills provided by Dyhengco were
marked and dusted with fluorescent powder by the NBI.
- on August 21, 2007 Ricablanca again went to petitioner's house, where
she met petitioner and Jacqueline Capitle who all went to the house of
Anita Valencia;
- Ricablanca entered Baby Aquino's premises, pretending to receive
cash, but actually brought P10,000.00 marked money from Dyhengco.
She divided the money, giving P5,000 each to Valencia and petitioner,
who were arrested by NBI agents.
 - The Regional Trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft But the Court of Appeals
Modified the ruling of the RTC to the following.
 The sentence against accused Gemma Jacinto stands.
 the sentence against accused Anita Valencia is reduced to 4
months arresto mayor medium.
 The accused Jacqueline Capitle is acquitted

Issue

- Whether or not the petitioner is correctly convicted of the crime

Qualified Theft

Ruling:

- The SC granted the petition, modified the decision of the CA, and
modified the decision ruling that Gemma T. Jacinto is found GUILTY of
an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
- As may be gleaned from Art. 308 in relation to Art. 310, the personal
property subject of the theft must have some value as the intention of
the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. In this case, Jacinto
unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Megafoam. However,
the checks were without value, as it was subsequently dishonored
 it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check
being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that
prevented the crime from being produced.
 as of the time that petitioner took possession of the check meant
for Mega Foam, she had performed all the acts to consummate
the crime of theft, had it not been impossible of accomplishment
in this case.

Westfall vs. Locsin

Doctrine:

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Aguinaldo IV vs. People (Motion for lower sentencing)

Doctrine:

- doctrine of immutability of judgment

Facts:

- Court of Appeals found petitioner Emilio J. Aguinaldo IV guilty of Estafa

wherein he was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from four years
and two months of prision correccional as minimum, to twenty years of
reclusion temporal as maximum but deleted the awards of actual
damages and interest due to petitioner's payment of P2,050,000 which
was duly acknowledged by the private complainant
- Aguinaldo's motion for reconsideration was denied, but despite this he
filed an Omnibus Motion seeking leave to file a second motion for
reconsideration insisting his innocence
 first motion Pleading innocence
 second motion prays that petitioner's sentence be readjusted in
accordance with Republic Act No. (RA) 10951.

Issue:

- Whether or not the doctrine of immutability of judgment is applicable

to the present case

Ruling:

- The SC denied the first motion for lack of merit but granted the second
motion
- the doctrine of immutability of judgment, has a two-fold purpose,
namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and (b) to put
an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which
is precisely why courts exist
 Exceptions to this doctrine exist, such as matters of life, liberty,
honor, or property, and compelling circumstances.
- First motion pleading innocence
 there is no cogent reason to warrant an application of any of the
exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of judgment in order to
reverse petitioner's conviction for Estafa because the issues
raised therein are but mere reiterations
- the second motion merely asks that the Court readjust petitioner's
prison sentence
 RA 10951 which was enacted in 2017 adjusts the value of the
property and the amount of damages on which various penalties
 are based, taking into consideration the present value of money,
as opposed to its archaic values when the RPC was enacted in
1932
 provides for retroactive effect if it is favorable to the accuse
 the Court deems it proper to lift the Entry of Judgment dated
January 14, 2019 in order to modify the penalty imposed on
petitioner
 the proper penalty to be imposed on petitioner should be
four (4) months and twenty (20) days of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and ten
(10) days of prision correccional, as maximum.

People vs. Dalaguet (No insertion no rape)

Doctrine:

- Rape and lascivious conduct

Facts:

- Benny Dalaguet charged with two counts of the rape of AAA a 15-year-
old girl
 December 2009, while she was pasturing the carabao
 March 2010, alone at her house
 Caught by EEE her grandfather which maltreated her out of
anger
 AAA also heard Dalaguet uttering a threat to kill EEE and
was about to do so, if not for the timely arrival and
intervention of their neighbor, FFF
- AAA maintains that Dalaguet had sexual intercourse with her on both
occasions but insisted that his penis didn’t penetrate
- Dr. Andaya physically examined AAA and found that there were healed
lacerations at 1:00 and 5:00 o'clock portion of AAA's genitalia
- EEE likewise took the witness stand to corroborate AAA's testimony
and personally identified Dalaguet, who was inside the court room
- Dalaguet denied and claimed that he went to AAA's house to get his
cellphone from AAA, EEE only arrived at the house of AAA when he was
no longer there, and that EEE only heard AAA shouting when he was
already at work and denied he incident that allegedly occurred
sometime in December 2009 for having no knowledge of the same
claiming that he was inside his house the whole day
 - RTC issued a Decision, convicting Dalaguet with two (2) counts of rape
- The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but changed the crime to two
counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 7610
 Failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of rape
through sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1a) of the Revised
Penal Code
 a) the man had carnal knowledge of a woman
 (b) he accomplished this act through force, threat or
intimidation.

Issue:

- Whether or not the CA erred in convicting Dalaguet of lascivious

conduct

Ruling:

- The SC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the CA

- Accused-appellant cannot be found guilty of two counts of rape
through sexual intercourse
 Carnal knowledge of a female is an essential element of rape
through sexual intercourse because AAA states Dalaguet was
not able to penetrate his penis into her vagina
- The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the
elements of lascivious conduct
 The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct
 The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to sexual abuse
 The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age

People vs. Pineda

Doctrine:

- Complex Crimes pursuant to article 48

Facts:

- On the night of July 29, 1965, Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo, and
Rufino Borres opened fired from outside the Mendoza family's house,
killing Teofilo Mendoza then destroyed the door of the house, entered
 let loose several shots killing minors, Neceforo Mendoza Epifania, and
Marcelo Mendoza, while wounding Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza.
- The City Fiscal filed five separate information based on these
incidents
- Judge Hernando Pineda ordered the consolidation into one
information for multiple murders as the acts complained of "stemmed
out of a series of continuing acts on the part of the accused, not by
different and separate sets of shots

Issue:

- Whether or not there be one information, either for the complex crime
of murder and frustrated murder or for the complex crime of robbery
with multiple homicide and frustrated homicide?

Ruling:

- The SC granted the writ of certiorari and set aside the orders of
respondent Judge
- City Fiscal of Iligan City correctly presented the five separates
informations — four for murder and one for frustrated murder.
- Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from
separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.
- Article 48 provides for two classes of crimes where a single penalty is
to be imposed
 a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
(delito compuesto
 Ex: one shot from a gun results in the death of two or more
persons
 when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other
(delito complejo)

People vs. Arellano (Shabu set up)

Doctrine:

- hornbook doctrine (two or more explanations, one of which is

consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction)

Facts:
 - On April 18, 2013, a confidential informant gave a tip regarding the
illegal drug activities of appellant claiming that he and appellant made
arrangement for the sale of ₱1,000 worth of shabu and to meet at
Brgy. Buyon, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte but was later changed to Room 11 of
Farmside Hotel located at 49-B, Raraburan, Laoag City
- There, the confidential informant with PO3 Dalere claimed that he was
a friend who’s going to buy the shabu worth ₱1,000
- PO3 Dalere gave the ₱1000 bill which the latter put in his right pocket
and pulled out (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
on top of the bed and handed it to PO3 Dalere
- PO3 Dalere gave the signal which was miss call to PO2 Salacup, which
entered the room with PO2 Agtang, PO3 John Dacauang, PO1 Salacup,
and PO1 Sarandi, and arrested and conducted a body search on
appellant
- They recovered the ₱1000 buy-bust money, (3) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing shabu, (4) open transparent
plastic sachets containing white residues, (2) folded aluminum foils, a
drug paraphernalia, Appellant was then brought to PAIDSOTG office
- Forensic Chemist Navarro found that that all the sachets were positive
as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu
- appellant's defense was that he was abused and the items found were
planted
 with a female companion in a hotel room when police officers
forcibly entered and arrested him.
 confiscated drug paraphernalia tested negative for dangerous
drugs, proving they were not intended for drug use
- the RTC rendered judgment finding the accused-appellant guilty as
charged
- CA affirmed the conviction

Issue:

- Whether or not the CA erred in finding Arellano guilty

Ruling:

- The SC granted the appeal, set aside the decision of CA, and acquitted
Michael Ryan Arellano y Navarro
- Clearly, the police officers were inconsistent in their testimonies.
 The presence of the accused-appellant's female companion inside
a small room was a detail that could simply be overlooked or
ignored.
 - presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by
itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof
beyond reasonable doubt.

Arriola vs. People (Fake agent Tagaytay)

Doctrine:

- equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and

circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty, arid does not suffice to produce a conviction

Facts:

- In 2001, Luis T. Arriola defraud one Ingeborg De Venecia Del Rosario by

claiming he was the authorized real estate broker of one Pasencia G.
Candelaria, thus, had the authority to sell and [receive] payments in
selling a parcel of land located in Tagaytay City owned by Pasencia G.
Candelaria
- Ingeborg De Venecia Del Rosario delivered to said accused the total
amount of P437,000.00 representing full payment for the land but was
only given photocopies of the Deed and the Transfer Certificate of Title
- Del Rosario asked Arriola to return the money if he could not give her
the copy of the TCT of Candelaria's lot which Arriola replied to and
promised Del Rosario that he would return the total amount of
P437,000.00 on January 7, 2002, plus interest at 16% per annum from
July 1, 2001.
- Arriola issued Del Rosario a check which was dishonored for having
been drawn from a closed account, Arriola issued Del Rosario another
check which was again was dishonored, this time due to insufficient
funds
- The RTC convicted Arriola of Estafa under Section 315, Paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
- The CA denied Arriola's appeal. It found that the RTC correctly
found that the elements of Estafa by means of deceit were all present

Issue:

- Whether or not accused is guilty of estafa

 - Whether or not petitioner’s defense under the equipoise doctrine is
meritorious

Ruling:

- The SC held Arriola criminally liable for Estafa but modified the penalty
imposed
- There being a conflict between the versions of the prosecution and the
defense, Arriola insists that the courts should have favored that of the
latter, citing the equipoise rule
 Conviction rests not on the frailty of the defense but on the
strength and sufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution
 His guilt was finely established with the required quantum of
proof, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as
an implied admission of guilt
 Arriola's initial attempts to reimburse Del Rosario through checks,
coupled with the actual return of the latter's money after the RTC
issued its judgment of conviction, may all be considered as
unequivocal gestures to compromise and which can be measured
against Arriola as his implied admission of guilt

Penalosa vs. Ocampo, Jr. (FB trashtalk)

Doctrine:

- In criminal cases, the interest of the private complainant is limited to

the civil liability, and only the Office of the Solicitor General may
represent the People of the Philippines in appeals of criminal cases.
- Retroactivity of laws if in favor to the accused

Facts:

- annece C. Peñalosa (Peñalosa) composed, prepared, and post for

circulation and dissemination in her facebook account with intent to
impute upon the person of Jose A. Ocampo Jr. vices or defects, whether
real or imaginary convey that he is brainless disrespectful of his
deceased father, lazy, a vagabond, a coward, uncircumcised a beggar
and an envious person, thereby exposing him to public ridicule, casting
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon his person, to his damage and
prejudice
 - Peñalosa filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the
Office of the City Prosecutor
- the Department of Justice granted Peñalosa's Petition for Review and
ordered the City of Prosecutor to withdraw the information filed before
the trial court because at the time when Peñalosa made the Facebook
post complained of in 2011, there was still no law penalizing "Internet
Libel.
- Court of Appeals granted the Petition for Certiorari and annulled the
January 26, 2015 Order of the Regional Trial Court
 Peñalosa's act of maligning Ocampo, Jr.'s reputation through a
Facebook post was punishable under the libel provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, specifically, Article 355, which states that
libel shall be punishable "by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means."

Issue:

- whether or not respondent Jose A. Ocampo, Jr. had the legal personality
and authority to assail and file the petition against the withdrawal of
the Information against petitioner Jannece C. Peñalosa
- Whether or not an allegedly libelous FB post in 2011, i.e. before the
enactment of the CybercrimePrevention Act of 2012, is punishable
under the Revised Penal Code

Ruling:

- The SC granted the petition, reversed and set aside the ruling of the
CA, and reinstated the decision of the RTC
-
- Ocampo, Jr had no legal personality to file the petition for certiorari
against the grant of the motion to withdraw information.
 petitioner should have filed an appeal instead of a petition
 appeal is a form of a court order in which one party in a
lawsuit asks the courts to review a previous verdict while
- It is doctrine that "in criminal cases where the offended party is the
State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended
party is limited to the civil liability" and that "the complainant's role is
limited to that of a witness for the prosecution."
- To make cyber libel punishable under Article 355 of the RPC is to make
a penal law effective retroactively but unfavorably to the accused,
contrary to Article22 of the RPC
  Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege — there is no crime when
there is no law punishing it

Valenzona vs. People (Liability of president of company)

Doctrine:

Facts:

- - The President of ALSGRO Industrial and Development Corporation,

Felix G. Valenzona, sold lots 17 and 19 at the Bayfair of Margana
Subdivision in Putatan, Muntinlupa City for P600,000 each. However,
the transaction was not registered with the Register of Deeds as
required by Section 17 of P.D. 957
- Porteo was able to pay P499,000.00 for the subject lots until
September 2003, when he had a business reverse. He alerted ALSGRO
that he could no longer pay the monthly installments and demanded a
refund, which was denied.
- On July 6, 2004, Porteo discovered that the relevant contracts were
unregistered and the parcels had already been sold to other buyers.
- On January 20, 2006, Porteo sent a letter to ALSGRO demanding the
refund of P500,000 which was denied again prompting him to file a
criminal complaint against Valenzona as president of ALSGRO for
violation of P.D. 957.
- Valenzona defended himself by stating that as president of ALSGRO, he
does not register papers related to the organization's operations since
this is handled by a separate department.
- RTC found Valenzona guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Section 17, P.O. 957
 ALSGRO failed to register the subject contracts within 180 days
from execution, in violation of Section 17 of P.D. 957, in relation to
Section 25 and although Porteo defaulted in the payment of his
monthly installments it does not excuse the non registration of
the subject lots because the subject contracts were required to be
registered until September 20, 2003, or 180 days after their
execution on March 24, 2003.
- the CA denied the appeal. As for the compromise agreement which
states that he and Porteo had agreed to amicably settle the
controversy between them for the amount of P400,000.00
 notwithstanding the execution of such documents between the parties,
the court could still resolve the appeal on the merits
-

Issue:

- whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision finding

Valenzona guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 17 of
P.D. 957.

Ruling:

- The SC granted the petition, acquits the petitioner, reversed and set
aside the decisions of the RTC and CA
- For crimes committed by a corporation, the responsible officers thereof
would personally bear the criminal liability since a corporation, as an
artificial being created by fiction of law, can only act through its
officers and agents pursuant to Section 39 of P.D. 957
- The Court has already recognized that a violation of P.D. 957 is
regarded as malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited)
 P.D. 957 is a special law. Malice or criminal intent is immaterial in
such crime
- it must be established that Valenzona had the volition or intent
to not register or cause the non-registration of the subject
contracts.
- Valenzona was correct to cite the case of ABS-CBN V Gozon wherein
the Court pronounced that Corporations have separate and
distinct personalities from their officers or directors. This court
has ruled that corporate officers and/or agents may be held
individually liable for a crime committed under the Intellectual
Property Code
 Mere membership in the Board or being President per se does not
mean knowledge, approval, and participation in the act alleged as
criminal. There must be a showing of active participation, not
simply a constructive one.

Loney vs. People

Doctrine:

- Duplicity of charges - a single complaint or information charges more

than one offense
Facts:

- Petitioners John Eric Loney (president), Steven Paul Reid (Chief

Executive Officer), and Pedro B. Hernandez (Resident Manager for
Mining Operations) of Marcopper Mining Corporation ("Marcopper"), a
corporation engaged in mining in the province of Marinduque
- Marcopper had been storing tailings from its operations in a
pit in Mt. Tapian,Marinduque. At the base of the pit ran a drainage
tunnel leading to the Boac and Makalupnitrivers. It appears that
Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the tunnel’s end which
causedthe tailings to gushed out of or near the tunnel’s end. In a few
days, the Mt. Tapian pit haddischarged millions of tons of tailings into
the Boac and Makalupnit rivers
- The DOJ separately charged petitioners with violation of Water Code of
the Philippines(PD 1067), National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (PD
984), Philippine Mining Act of 1995(RA 7942), and Article 365 of
the RPC for reckless imprudence resulting in damage
toproperty.
- Petitioners moved to quash the Information because they were
"duplicitous" as the DOJ charged more than one offense for a single
act.
- The MTC initially deferred ruling but later quashed the Informations
 as far as the three (3) aforesaid laws are concerned, only the
Information for violation of Philippine Mining Act should be
maintained quash the others
- RTC reinstated the quashed Informations and affirmed the MTC's
decision to maintain the other charges.
 there can be no absorption by one offense of the three other
offenses, as [the] acts penalized by these laws are separate and
distinct from each other.

Issue:

- Whether or not all the charges filed against petitioners except one
(violation of Philippine Mining Act) should be quashed for duplicity

Ruling:

- The SC denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the court of
appeals
- Under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure,
duplicity of offenses in a single piece of information is a ground to
 quash the Information. The Rules prohibit the filing of such Information
to avoid confusing the accused in preparing his defense.
 HOWEVER, the prosecution charged each petitioner with four
offenses, with each Information charging only one offense. Thus,
petitioners erroneously invoke duplicity of charges as a ground to
quash the Informations. On this score alone, the petition deserves
outright denial.
- Can’t be considered doble jeopardy because two (or more) offenses
arising from the same act are not "the same"
- Each offense has a different element
 In P.D. 1067 (Philippines Water Code), the additional element is
dumping without a permit
 In P.D. 984 (Anti-Pollution Law), the additional fact that must be
proved is the existence of actual pollution
 In R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), the additional fact that must
be established is the willful violation and gross neglect to abide
by the terms and conditions of the Environmental Compliance
Certificate
 Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code is the lack of necessary or
adequate precaution, negligence, recklessness and imprudence
on the part of the accused to prevent damage to property.

Rivera vs. People (hollow block attempt)

Doctrine:

- Intent being an element of murder/homicide

Facts:

- Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo, all surnamed Rivera with intent to kill
and evident premeditation attack, assault and hit with a piece of
hollow block, one RUBEN RODIL
- At noon of May 2, 1998, Ruben went to a nearby store to buy food.
Edgardo mocked him for being jobless and dependent on his wife for
support leading to a heated exchange.
 Ruben stopped working as taxi driver after a would-be rapist
threatened his life
- The next day the Rivera brothers attacked Ruben with fist blows while
he was walking with his three-year-old daughter to buy food causing
him to fall
 - Edgardo then hit Ruben 3 times on the head with a hollow block but
managed to escape when the police arrived.
- Ruben was brought to the hospital. His attending physician, Dr.
Lamberto Cagingin, Jr., signed a medical certificate in which he
declared that Ruben sustained lacerated wounds, cerebral concussion,
and other injuries
- The RTC of Cavite found the Rivera brothers guilty of frustrated
murder and sentenced them to six years and one day to eight years of
imprisonment of prision mayor
- The CA modified the conviction to attempted murder and adjusted the
sentence to an indeterminate penalty of two years of prision
correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as
maximum.

Issue:

- Whether or not the petitioners (Rivera brothers) had intent to kill

Ruling:

- The SC denied the petition and afiirmed the decision of the CA with
modification
 two (2) years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as
minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor
in its medium period,
- stated by Dr. Cagingin, appellants could have killed the victim had the
hollow block directly hit his head,
 When a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill is
evident, the crime is attempted
- An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their
consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the
offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously
with the infliction of injuries
- That the head wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial
and could not have produced his death does not negate petitioners’
criminal liability for attempted murder. Even if Edgardo did not hit the
victim squarely on the head, petitioners are still criminally liable for
attempted murder.

Yapyucu vs. Sandiganbayan (Shoot first palusot later)

Doctrine:

- "Shoot first, think later" disposition occupies no decent place in a

civilized society. Never has homicide or murder been a function of law
enforcement.

Facts:

- in the evening of April 5, 1988, Villanueva, Flores, Calma, De Vera,

Panlican and Licup were at the residence of Salangsang as guests at
the barrio fiesta they decided to leave at around 7:30 p.m.
- As they were all inebriated, Salangsang reminded Villanueva, who was
on the wheel, to drive carefully and watch out for potholes. Villanuev
allegedly proceeded at 5-10 kph with headlights dimmed. Suddenly, as
they were approaching a curve on the road, they met a burst of gunfire
and instantly, Villanueva and Licup were both wounded and bleeding
profusely.
- Both Flores and Villanueva, contrary to what the defense would claim,
allegedly did not see any one on the road flag them down
- Salangsang affirmed the presence of his companions at his residence
on the subject date and time, and corroborated Villanueva’s and Flores’
narration of the events immediately preceding the shooting
- Daisy Dabor, forensic chemist at the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory in Camp Olivas, affirmed that she had previously examined
the firearms and found them positive for gunpowder residu
- Yapyuco took the stand for the defense he narrated in the afternoon of
April 5, 1988, he and his men were investigating a physical injuries
case when a summon for police assistance concerning a reported
presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan
- He decided to respond and instructed his men to put on their uniforms
and bring their M-16 rifles with them.
- he said, his group which responded to the scene were twelve (12) in all
were armed
- He denied that they had committed an ambuscade because otherwise,
all the occupants of the Tamaraw jeepney would have been killed
- the shots which directly hit the passenger door of the jeepney came
from Cafgu members assembled in the residence of Naron, inasmuch
as said shots were fired only when the jeepney had gone past the spot
on the road where they were assembled.
- Yapyuco recalled that one of the occupants of the jeepney were San
Miguel Corporation employees. Holding their fire, Yapyuco and his men
 then immediately searched the vehicle but found no firearms but
instead, two injured passengers whom they loaded into his jeepney
and delivered to nearby St. Francis Hospital
- The Sandiganbayan declared that the shootout which caused injuries
to Villanueva, and which brought the eventual death of Licup has been
committed by petitioners herein willfully under the guise of
maintaining peace and order
- the fact they had by collective action deliberately and consciously
intended to inflict harm and injury and had voluntarily performed those
acts negates their defense of lawful performance of official duty
 there was insufficient or total absence of factual basis to assume
that the occupants of the jeepney were members of the NPA or
criminals for that matte
- The Sandiganbayan found that the qualifying circumstance of
treachery has not been proved
 it was not shown how the aggression commenced and how the
acts causing injury to Villanueva and Licup began and developed
 circumstance must be supported by proof of a deliberate and
conscious adoption of the mode of attack

Issue:

- Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove intent to kill on the
part of the accused
- whether or not the accused had acted in the regular and lawful
performance of their duties in the maintenance of peace and order

Ruling:

- The SC denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the

Sandiganbayan
- The Sandiganbayan correctly found that petitioners are guilty as co-
principals in the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide only,
respectively for the death of Licup and for the non-fatal injuries
sustained by Villanueva, and that they deserve an acquittal together
with the other accused, of the charge of attempted murder with
respect to the unharmed victims
 allegation of evident premeditation has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt because the evidence is consistent with the fact
that the urge to kill had materialized in the minds of petitioners
as instantaneously as they perceived their suspects to be
attempting flight and evading are
 - their collective action and preparation demonstrated a clear intent to
kill the victim.
- The rules of engagement do not require that he should immediately
draw or fire his weapon if the person to be accosted does not heed his
call.
- The right to kill an offender is not absolute, and may be used only as a
last resort, and under circumstances indicating that the offender
cannot otherwise be taken without bloodshed

People vs. Gervero

Doctrine:

- Mistake of Fact

Facts:

- 6:30 p.m. of 25 November 1991, at Barangay Milan, Lemery, Iloilo,

Roda was at the house of Barangay Civilian Volunteer Organization
(CVO) Commander Hernando
- Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) officers Bañes,
Castigador, and their two companions, who were carrying firearms,
approached Hernando and asked him for money.
- Hernando gave them P20.00, Bañes remarked, "Is that the only
amount you can give when you just received money from your wife?"
Castigador took the money and said, "You just watch out."
- At eight o'clock, Delia heard gunfire from Hernando, Jose, and Benito,
who were walking. Delia heard someone shout, "This is Hernando, a
CVO!" and someone replied, "Birahi na!" ("Shoot now!"). Delia saw
Hernando attempting to turn back but was shot down. The armed men
approached the three CVOs.
- Isaac recognized some of the gunmen to be his friends and positively
identified the accused as the armed men he saw
- Pilar Basulgan summoned Isaac, Delia, and Ronnie to Brgy. Capt.
Balinas' house, where they found the accused claiming they mistakenly
shot Hernando, Jose, and Benito as NPA members.
- Isaac argued misapprehension was impossible due to CAFGU officers'
personal knowledge of victims and recognizable voices. Brgy. Capt.
Balinas confirmed victims couldn't shoot back, Thereafter, Isaac, Delia
and Ronnie proceeded to the crime scene and saw Hernando, Jose, and
Benito lifeless on the ground.
 - The accused stated that were given oral instructions by Senior
Inspector Benigno Baldevinos (Senior Inspector Baldevinos) to conduct
tactical patrol and combat operations against NPA members
 Given the password “simoy” to be replied with “amoy”
 they noticed people approaching, which prompted Arbolonio to
utter the password "Simoy." Instead of replying with the agreed
safe word, the men fired at the accused. The accused fired back
- the RTC found the accused guilty of murder.
 initially said that the accused acted in obedience to the order of
their superior to conduct foot patrol and take up ambush position
at the place of the incident, they undoubtedly exceeded in the
performance of their duties by immediately firing successive
shots on the three unsuspecting victims.
 15K as temperate damages, 50K as civil indemnity, 50K as
exemplary damages, 50K as moral damages
- the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused but modified the
amount of damages awarded.
 25K as temperate damages, 75K as civil indemnity, 30K as
exemplary damages, 75K as moral damages

Issue:

- Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the defense of
mistake of fact

Ruling:

- The SC dismissed the appeal and affirmed with modifications the

decision of the CA
 Suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are ordered to pay
the heirs of the victims the amount 75K as civil indemnity; P75K
as moral damages; 75K as exemplary damages; and P50K as
temperate damages.
- In People v. Oanis and Galanta, the Court has ruled that mistake of fact
applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or
carelessness:
 A proper invocation of this defense requires (a) that the mistake
be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a matter of fact; and (c)
that it negate the culpability required to commit the crime or the
existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with
respect to an element of the offense.
  there was no reason for the accused not to recognize the victims
because they were traversing an open area which was illuminated
not only by moonlight, but also by a light bulb.
 They all reside in the same town and, certainly, the accused who
were all members of the CAFGU would know the residents of that
town so as to easily distinguish them from unknown intruders
 when Jose fell down, Hernando identified himself and shouted,
"This is Hernando!" However, instead of verifying the identities of
the victims, the accused continued to fire at them. One of them
even shouted, "Birahi na!" ("Shoot now!").
 When the victims fell down, the accused approached their bodies.
At that point, they could no longer claim that they didn't
recognize the victims; and still not contented, they sprayed them
with bullets such that Jose suffered 14 gunshot wounds, Hernando
16 gunshot wounds, and Benito 20 gunshot wounds
 The victims could not have known the safe words as accused
Gervero himself stated in his testimony that only he and his co-
accused were present when their commanding officer briefed
them

People vs. Villacorta (Bamboo stick stabbing)

Doctrine:

- Intent to kill in treachery

Facts:

- On June 21, 2002 2:00 AM while Cruz was ordering bread at Cristina
Mendeja's sari-sari store Villacorta, armed with a sharpened bamboo
stick, stabbed Cruz on his left side without saying a word and then fled
- Cruz received outpatient treatment at Tondo Medical Center and was
later admitted to San Lazaro Hospital on February 14, 2002, where he
died the next day due to tetanus infection secondary to the stab
wound.
- Dr. Belandres was able to determine, using Cruz’s medical chart and
diagnosis, that Cruz died of tetanus infection secondary to stab wound
- Villacorta denied stabbing Cruz, claiming he only boxed Cruz after Cruz
put his arm around Villacorta's shoulder.
- The RTC rendered a Decision finding Villacorta guilty of murder,
qualified by treachery
  sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
the heirs of Danilo Cruz the sum of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision

Issue:

- Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in appreciating the

qualifying circumstance of treachery

Ruling:

- The SC reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC an CA, finding
Villacorta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight
physical injuries
- Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms which tend directly or
especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising
from the defense that the offended party might make.
 Cruz, the victim, was attacked so suddenly, unexpectedly, and
without provocation
 Cruz had his guard down and was totally unprepared for an attack
on his person. Villacorta’s treacherous mode of attack left Cruz
with no opportunity at all to defend himself or retaliate.
- We cannot hold Villacorta criminally liable for attempted or
frustrated murder because the prosecution was not able to
establish Villacorta’s intent to kill. In fact, the Court of Appeals
expressly observed the lack of evidence to prove such an intent
beyond reasonable doubt,
 The instrument used is not as lethal as those made of metallic
material. The part of the body hit is not delicate in the sense that
instant death can ensue by reason of a single stab wound. The
assault was done only once.

CICL XXX vs. People (Minor beating)

Doctrine:

- Intent Vs discernment

Facts:

- On January 2010 in Quezon City [CICL XXX], a 17 year old minor acting
with discernment confederating with CHRISTOPHER PUYO AND JAYJAY
 NARAG and mutually helping with intent to kill attacked GLENN
REDOQUERIO mauling him and hitting him in the head with a piece of
stone, thereby inflicting upon him serious and grave wound
- 12:30 in the morning on January 1, 2010, private complainant Glenn
Redoquerio was sent by his mother Lolita Redoquerio to buy iced tea
powder
- While he was at the store, Glenn heard somebody say "Yan si Glenn
anak ni Purok Leader na humuli sa atin nuon." He looked back and saw
CICL XXX, Christopher Puyo (Puyo) and Jayjay Narag (Narag). CICL XXX
suddenly poked a gun at the face of Redoquerio.
- CICL XXX pulled the trigger several times but the gun did not fire. CICL
XXX then hit (hinataw) the left temple and top of the head of
Redoquerio with the gun
- Puyo and Narag held the arms of Redoquerio while CICL XXX punched
him several times. Puyo then hit the head of Redoquerio with a stone
causing the latter to loss (sic) consciousness. Redoquerio was in coma
for 7 days while he was confined at the East Avenue Medical Center.
- CICL XXX denied the allegations against him claiming that he and his
family were having a celebration for the New Year in their residence in
WWW, Quezon City where they hear a commotion outside and saw
Redoquerio and De los Santos mauling Narag. Thereafter, De los
Santos ran away while Narag boxed Redoquerio who fell on his back.
 He surmised that the reason why he was implicated in this case is
that Redoquerio did not really know who mauled him
- the RTC convicted CICL XXX of the crime of Frustrated Murder
- the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction of CICL XXX

Issue:

- Whether or not the CA erred in convicting CICL XXX despite the

prosecution’s failure to show that he acted with discernment
- Whether or not the CA erred in convicting CICL XXX for Frustrated
Homicide without proof of the extent of the injuries sustained

Ruling:

- The SC granted the appeal and reversed and set aside the decision of
the CA
- The Court said in Dorado v. People that “when a minor above fifteen
(15) but below eighteen (18) years old is charged with a crime, it
cannot be presumed that he or she acted with discernment”
  meaning the minor understood the difference between right and
wrong.
 Discernment cannot be presumed even if Dorado intended to do
away with Ronald. Discernment is different from intent. The
distinction was elaborated in Guevarra v. Almodovar.
- In this case, both the RTC and the CA erred in convicting CICL XXX, as
they both equated “intent to kill” – which was admittedly established
through the evidence presented by the prosecution – with acting with
discernment, which, on the contrary, was not proved by the
prosecution.
 The prosecution, in fact, never endeavored to prove that CICL
XXX acted with discernment. Hence, as the presumption that CICL
XXX acted without discernment was not successfully controverted
- As the nature and extent of the injuries were not sufficiently
established, it was error for the lower courts to conclude that the
injuries were fatal and that Redoquerio would have died if not for the
timely medical assistance he received

People vs. Flora

Doctrine:

- Aberratio ictus or transferred intent is a situation in criminal law where

a defendant intends to harm one person, but inadvertently
harms another person instead

Facts:

- On the evening of January 9, 1993, a dance party was held to celebrate

the birthday of Jeng-jeng Malubago where a suitor of Jeng-jeng
Malubago, attended the party with his brother and co-appellant Edwin
Flora, alias "Boboy". Also in attendance were Rosalie Roma, then a high
school student; her mother, Emerita Roma, and her aunt, Flor Espinas.
Ireneo Gallarte, a neighbor of the Romas, was there too.
- At 1:30 on the signal by Edwin Flora, Hemogenes fired hisrevolver
twice. The first shot grazed at Flor Espinas, then hit Emerita Roma,
both attendees of the parties. The second shot hit Ireneo Gallarte, who
was also in attendance, who slumped onto the floor.
 - The victims of the shooting incident were transported to the Health
Unit where Emerita and Ireneo died. The autopsy conducted by the
medico-legal officer revealed that both Emerita and Ireneo died due to
‘Hypovolemic’ shock secondary to massive blood loss
- Flor Espinas submitted herself to a medical examination by Dr. Dennis
Coronado where it was found that she sustained a gunshot wound
- Edwin defended himself stating that he was sleeping with his wife at
the time of the shooting wherein policemen came looking for his
brother Hermogenes and took him to the Municipal building of Paete
and thereafter transferred and detained him to (sic) the Municipal
building of Kalayaan
- Hermogenes stated that he was asleep at his sister's house, and he
had not gone out which his sister collaborated
- The Regional Trial Court convicted accused appellants of the crime
of double murder and attempted murder.
 an alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is invoked
and sought to be crafted mainly by the accused himself and his
immediate relative or relatives

Issue:

- whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the two accused-
appellants despite the failure of the prosecution to morally ascertain
their identities and guilt for the crimes charged.

Ruling:

- The SC modified the decision of the Trial Court

- Hermogenes Flora s guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double
murder for the deaths of Emerita Roma and Ireneo Gallarte, and guilty
of attempted murder of Flor Espinas
 Their deaths were murders, not simply homicides since the acts
were qualified by treachery
 When Hermogenes suddenly shot Emerita and Ireneo, both
were helpless to defend themselves
- Edwin Flora is acquitted of the murder of Emerita Roma and the
attempted murder of Flor Espinas but is guilty of conspiracy
between appellants for murder of Ireneo Gallarte
 As held in People v. Estillore: For conspiracy to exist, it is not
required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period
 prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused and co-accused had the
same purpose and were united in execution.
 He stayed beside his brother, right behind the victims while
the dance party was on-going.
 Although Edwin’s testimony was corroborated by his common-law
wife, it is ineffectual against the positive testimonies of the
eyewitnesses and who contradicted his alibi
 alibis becomes less plausible when it is invoked and sought to be
crafted mainly by the accused and his immediate relatives
 Their alibi’s should have been corroborated by a
disinterested and credible witness

People vs. Bendecio (missed shooting killed daughter)

Doctrine:

Facts:

- on December 24, 2011, Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias "Tan" attempted

to shoot Gerry Marasigan because of a prior altercation (bumping),
however Tan missed Gerry instead hitting Gerry's 7-year-old daughter,
Jonabel Marasigan, and injured Gerry's sister, Princess Marasigan.
 He immediately brought Jonabel to the hospital, but she died the
following day
- Appellant testified that he was in Samat, Samar on the date of the
alleged shooting incident.
- The RTC of Muntinlupa City found appellant guilty of the complex
crime of attempted murder with homicide
 Appellant was guilty of a complex crime because his single act of
firing a gun at Gerry, though ending up killing Jonabel, emanated
from a single criminal intent. The trial court appreciated treachery
as a qualifying circumstance in the attempted killing of Gerry's,
but not as to the killing of Jonabel.
 sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prison
mayor in its maximum as the minimum period to twenty years of
reclusion temporal in its maximum as the maximum period and
pay 75K for civil indemnity, 75K as and for moral damages, 30K
as and for temperate damages, and 75K as and for exemplary
damages, all with 6% interest per annum
 - The CA denied the petition and affirmed with modification the decision
of the RTC
 suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pay 75K as civil
indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages, and 50K as
temperate damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum

Issue:

- Whether or not the Court of Appeals err in convicting appellant of the

complex crime of attempted murder with murder?

Ruling:

- The SC dismissed the instant appeal and affirmed the decision of the
CA. Appellant Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias "Tan" is guilty of complex
crime of attempted murder with murder and pay Gerry Marasigan 25K
as civil indemnity, P25K as moral damages, and P25K as exemplary
damages and the heirs of Jonabel Marasigan 100K as civil indemnity,
P100K as moral damages, P100K as exemplary damages, and 50K as
temperate damages. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%)
interest per annum
- upheld the conviction based on the credible and positive testimonies of
Gerry and Princess Marasigan, which outweighed Bendecio's defenses
of denial and alibi.
 MODULE 3: STAGES OF EXECUTION

ARTICLE 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. –

Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which could produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a

felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.

Attempted Felony
- when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Elements:

- the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt

acts
- the offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution
- offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
 if the reason for the non-consummation of the crime in the
attempted stage is desistance, it negates criminal liability

Rivera v. People (favorite case intent to kill hollowblock)

Facts:

- Ruben Rodil and Edgardo Rivera had a heated exchange of words. The
next day while Ruben went to buy food he was attacked by Esmeraldo
 and his 2 brothers Ismael and Edgardo with fist blows until he fell to
the ground. In that helpless position, Edgardo hit Ruben three times
with a hollow block while the 2 continued mauling Ruben they only
stopped and fled when policemen arrived.
- The RTC of Cavite found the Rivera brothers guilty of frustrated
murder
 Did not give credence to the collective testimonies of the accused
and considered the premise
- The CA modified the decision and ruled that the Rivera brothers are
convicted of attempted murder as they held that the prosecution
was able to prove petitioners' intent to kill

Issue:

- Whether or not the Rivera brothers should be convicted of attempted

murder

Ruling:

- YES. The SC affirmed the decision of the CA with modification

sentencing the petitioners to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from
two (2) years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as
minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor in its
medium period, as maximum.
- commenced the felony of murder by mauling the victim and hitting him
three times with a hollow block; they narrowly missed hitting the
middle portion of his head. If Edgardo had done so, Ruben would surely
have died.

Baleros V People (fratman attempted rape)

Facts:

- private complainant, Marino Lourdes Albano (Malou) staying at room

307 at Celestial Marie Building Lacson Street, Sampaloc, Manila was
awakened by the smell of chemical on a piece of cloth pressed on her
face. She struggled but could not move. Somebody was pinning her
down on the bed, holding her tightly but continued to fight until she
was able to grab hold of his sex organ which she then squeezed
causing the man to let go. Malou went to the intercom and told her
maid Marvilou that: "may pumasok sa kuarto ko pinagtangkaan ako.
Malou proceeded to ask for help in room 310 where her classmates
were staying
 - The only thing she had made out during their struggle was the feel of
her attacker's clothes and weight. His upper garment was of cotton
material while that at the lower portion felt smooth and satin-like
- MALOU testified that her relationship with CHITO, who was her
classmate, was friendly until a week prior to the attack. CHITO confided
his feelings for her
 CHITO was a medical student of UST and a member of Tau Sigma
Phi Fraternity
- CIS found a gray "Khumbella" bag which was identified to be CHITO’s
containing a white t-shirt with a Taunu Sigma Phi sign a Black Adidas
short pants, a handkerchief (later positive for chloroform), 3 white T-
shirts, an underwear, and socks
- Petitioner for his defense alleged that he was in a frat party, got
dunked into the pool, was offered a change of clothes by Perla Duran
(white t-shirt with the Fraternity's symbol and a pair of black shorts
with stripes found in the bag) , went to unit 306 at around 1:30 and
went to bed.
 Called in as witness his frat brothers Alberto Leonardo and Robert
Chan which testified to being with CHITO at a party on December
12, 1991, riding the same car to and from the event.
 Perla Duran confirmed lending the petitioner the pair of short
pants with stripes after the dunking party held in her father's
house
- RTC of Manila convicted petitioner of attempted rape and ordered
him to pay MALOU damages and attorney’s fees
- The CA finding no basis in fact and in law to deviate from the
findings of the court a quo affirmed the RTC’s decision
 CA found circumstantial evidence that led to the identity of the
petitioner as such intruder
 (1) was in the building, (2) had access to the room of
MALOU through the window, (3) building secu and Joseph
Africa confirmed he was wearing black adidas shorts and
frat shirt, (4) bag containing evidence

Issue:

- whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC finding
petitioner guilty of attempted rape

Ruling:
 - YES. The SC acquitted Renato D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for
attempted rape and is now guilty of light coercion
- Justice Claro M. Recto in People vs. Lamahang "the attempt which the
Penal Code punishes is that which has a logical connection to a
particular, concrete offense; that which is the beginning of the
execution of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading
directly to its realization and consummation.
- it would be too strained to construe petitioner's act of pressing a
chemical-soaked cloth in the mouth of Malou which would induce her
to sleep as an overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen into
rape.
- petitioner was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on his part
to undress Malou, let alone touch her private part.
- Perez V Court of Appeals the Court acquitted therein petitioner of the
crime of attempted rape because:
 penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony.
Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have
commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina
of the victim however, slight, is not completed.
 do not constitute attempted rape absent any showing that
petitioner actually commenced to force his penis into the
complainant's sexual organ
- they constitute unjust vexation punishable as light coercion under the
second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code
- Justice Ramon C. Aquino, there is no need to allege malice, restraint or
compulsion in an information for unjust vexation. As it were, unjust
vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for
the reason that this term is broad enough to include any human
conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material
harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person
- Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating to her
classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that
she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was
disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of petitioner.

Overt or external act - physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to

commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or pr eparation, which
if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense
Frustrated Felony
- when the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would
produce the felony as a consequence, but which nevertheless do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of perpetrator.

Elements:

- offender has performed all the acts of execution to produce the felon
- felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator

US V. Eduave (thought killed but lived)

Facts:

- Eduave with treachery rushed and struck from behind with a sharp
bolo the girl because she charged him criminally before the local
officials with having raped her and with being the cause of her
pregnancy
- there was intent to kill in this case. A deadly weapon was used. The
blow was directed toward a vital part of the body. The aggressor stated
his purpose to kill, thought he had killed, and threw the body into the
bushes. When he gave himself up he declared that he had killed the
complainant.

Issue:

- Whether or not if death had resulted, the crime would not have been
murder but homicide, and in the second place, that it is attempted and
not frustrated homicide

Ruling:

- The Court held that the crime committed would have been murder if
the girl had been killed but since the girl had lived as Eduave only
thought that he had killed the girl before throwing the body in the
bushes
- The Court held that the crime was frustrated and not attempted
 clear from the fact that the defendant performed all of the acts
which should have resulted in the consummated crime and
voluntarily desisted from further acts.
  he has performed all of the acts which should result in the
consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from
proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt

Substantive Phase - portion of the acts constituting the crime included

between the act which begins the commission of the crime, and the last act
performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime

- period between the point where he begins and the point where he
voluntarily desists. If between these two points the offender is stopped
by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the
subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not
so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated

Attempted Frustrated
The offender merely commences The offender has already
the commission of a felony. He has performed all the acts of
not yet performed all the acts of execution. Nothing more is left to
execution do.
felony was not produced by felony was not produced by
reason of some cause or accident reason of causes independent of
other than the offender’s the will of the perpetrator.
spontaneous desistance
Offender is still in the subjective Offender is already in the objective
phase in committing the felony phase of committing the felony. He
has no more control of his acts.

People v. Labiaga

Facts:

- Regie Labiaga, Barcenas, and Demapanag shot Gregorio Conde who

called Judy Conde for help which was also shot. Appellant said, "[s]he is
already dead," and the three fled the crime scene. Gregorio and Judy
were rushed to the Sara District Hospital. Judy was pronounced dead
on arrival while Gregorio made a full recovery after treatment of his
gunshot wound
- Appellant, claimed he acted in self-defense as Gregorio, armed with a
shotgun, challenged him to a fight and in struggle to wrestle the
shotgun it fired. He claimed that he did not know if anyone was hit by
that gunshot.
 - Demapanag claimed that at the time of the shooting, he was in D&D
Ricemill which was corroborated by Frederick, Demapanag's brother.
- The RTC of Viejo, Iloilo acquitted Demapanag due to insufficiency of
evidence but convicted appellant of murder and frustrated murder

- CA of Cebu upheld the conviction of murder and frustrated murder but
amended it so that
 claiming that "[the RTC] gravely erred in convicting the
[appellant] of the crime charged despite failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt." however, upheld the
conviction for murder and frustrated murder.

Issue:

- Whether or not Labiaga convicted of murder and frustrated murder

Ruling:

- NO. The SC ruled that the appellant is guilty of attempted murder and
not frustrated murder because the wound sustained by Gregorio was
mortal (not fatal)

indeterminate offense is one where the intent of the offender in

performing the act is not certain

Factors to Determine Intent to kill (MWWMA)

1. Evidence of motive
2. The nature and number of weapons used by the offender
3. The nature, number, and location of the wounds inflicted on the victim
4. Manner of committing the crime
5. Acts and statements made by the offender before, during and after the
commission of the crime

Consummated Felony
- when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are already present

Stages of Execution to Specific Felonies

Theft (either you took something, or you didn’t)
Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by any person
who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter's consent.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the
same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of
another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the
damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass
is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its
owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or
other forest or farm products.

Elements of theft

1. that there be taking of personal property

2. that said property belongs to another
3. that the taking be done with intent to gain
4. that the taking be done without the consent of the owner
5. that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.

Valenzuela v. People (tide nakaw)

Facts:

- On May 19, 1994, Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were spotted
outside the Super Sale Club a supermarket in SM North EDSA. They
were spotted by security guard Lorenzo Lago, who observed them
hauling a pushcart with detergent cases. The petitioner, wearing an ID
with the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), unloaded the boxes in
an open parking, then returned to retrieve them. He then hailed a taxi
and directed Calderon to load the boxes. Lago stopped the taxi and
asked for a receipt of the merchandise. Valenzuela and Calderon fled
on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security
guards. The stolen items cost P12,090. The petitioners were taken to
the SM security office and later transferred to Baler station II of the
PNP, QC for investigation. They were charged with theft by the Asst.
City Prosecutor on May 20, 1994.
 - petitioner and Calderon both claimed having been innocent bystanders
within the vicinity of the Super Sale Club
 Calderon alleged he was at the Super Sale Club to withdraw from
his ATM account with his neighbor and he decided to buy snacks
and while eating they heard the the gunshot fired by Lago,
leading them to head out of the building to check what was
transpiring
 petitioner testified had been at the parking lot, walking beside the
nearby BLISS complex and headed to ride a tricycle
- The RTC convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime
Consummated Theft
 found credible the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and
established the convictions on the positive identification of the
accused as perpetrators of the crime
- The CA denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s decision
 The petitioner admitted to both his felonious intent and
participation in stealing detergent cases worth P12,090.00.

Issue:

- Whether or not the theft committed is consummated?

Ruling:

- YES. Pursuant to article 6 of the RPC all the elements for consummated
stage is present as all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present
- The moment petitioner obtained physical possession of the cases of
detergent and loaded them in the pushcart, such seizure motivated by
intent to gain, completed without need to inflict violence or
intimidation against persons nor force upon things, and accomplished
without the consent of the SM Super Sales Club,

Canceran v. People (ponds nakaw)

Facts:

- On October 6, 2002, Jovito Canceran, along with his co-accused

Frederick Velquizo and Marcial Diaz Jr tole and carried away 14 cartons
of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at P28,627.20, belonging to
Ororama Mega Center.
- They were discovered by Ororama Mega Center employees who
prevented them from further carrying away the cream.
 - The prosecution presented Damalito Ompoc, a security guard, and
William Michael N. Arcenio, the Customer Relation Officer of Ororama
Mega Center, as witnesses to prove the accused's guilt. Ompoc saw
Canceran approaching a counter, pushing a cart containing two boxes
of Magic Flakes for P1,423. After inspection, they found the contents
were 14 smaller boxes of Ponds White Beauty Cream worth
P28,627.20. Canceran hurried away, stumbled upon reaching the Don
Mariano gate, tried to settle with the guards, and offered his personal
effects to pay for the items. Arcenio refused to settle, and his personal
belongings were deposited in Arcenio's office.
- Canceran denied charges against him, claiming He was approached by
a 20-year-old man for payment of two Magic Flakes boxes. He agreed
due to conscience and denied knowing the contents.
- The RTC found Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
consummated Theft as under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), there is no crime of "Frustrated Theft."
 Canceran's denial was not supported by sufficient and convincing
evidence and no disinterested witness was presented to
corroborate his claims
- The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
 unlawful taking was deemed complete from the moment the
offender gained possession of the thing, even if he had no
opportunity to dispose of the same

Issue:

- Whether or not Jovito Canceran is guilty of Consummated theft?

Ruling:

- NO. The SC partially granted the petition and ruled that Jovito
Canceran is guilty of attempted theft.
- "It might be argued, that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of
the property stolen delves into the concept of 'taking' itself, in that
there could be no true taking until the actor obtains such degree of
control over the stolen item. But even if this were correct, the effect
would be to downgrade the crime to its attempted, and not frustrated
stage, for it would mean that not all the acts of execution have not
been completed, the "taking not having been accomplished."

Robbery
Under Article 293 of the RPC, robbery is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another by using
force upon anything.

People v. Dio (Seiko watch)

Facts:

- On July 24, 1971, Crispulo Alega, a civil engineer at Sugar Construction

Company, went to Southeastern College, Pasay City, to fetch his
girlfriend, Remedios Maniti. They went to the Pasay City Public Market
and heard Crispulo dropping her folders. Remedios heard a man, later
identified as Danilo Tobias, twisting Crispulo's neck while he was
holding his wrist. The appellant and his companion tried to take
Crispulo's wristwatch, but Crispulo resisted and fought the robbers. The
man stabbed Crispulo on the left side of his chest. Crispulo ran down
the stairs and called for help, but he fell down and died at the Pasay
Commercial Bank.
- An autopsy conducted on the victim's body by Dr. Ricardo Ibarola,
medico-legal officer of the NBI, revealed that the cause of death was a
stab wound at the region below his left breast which penetrated the
heart.
- The Trial Court found Hernando Dio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Robbery with Homicide

Issue

- Whether or not the defendant-appellant should be charged with the

crime of Robbery with homicide, since the robbery was not
consummated

Ruling:

- NO. The court ruled that the crime committed is just attempted
robbery with homicide when the victim's killing was just the result of
the attempt to perform the robbery, which was, however, foiled by the
deceased's resistance.
 special complex crime of attempted robbery with homicide
- When the victim expired, the Seiko watch was still securely strapped to
his wrist
- The killing of the victim may be considered as merely incidental to the
plan to carry out the robbery, which was not consummated because of
the resistance of the deceased.
People v. Salvilla

Facts:

- Bienvenido Salvilla, along with Reynaldo, Ronaldo, and Simplicio,

staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard on April 12, 1986. They
met Rodita Habiero, an employee, who informed her of the hold-up.
They demanded money from Severino Choco, the owner, and his two
daughters, Mary and Mimmie. Simplicio Canasares took Severino's
wallet and wristwatch, leaving them inside the office. The appellant
demanded P100,000.00 for the hostages' release, but Severino refused
due to bank closures.
- Major Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo City,
negotiated with the accused, but they refused. Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor
of Iloilo City, offered P50,000 instead.
- The accused agreed to release Rodita and Mary to leave the office.
Rodita was set free, but Mary was herded back to the office.
- Police and military authorities assaulted the place, resulting in injuries
to the girls, accused Ronaldo, and Reynaldo Canasares. Mary's right leg
had to be amputated due to her injuries.
- The appellant argued that the money, wallet, and watches were left on
the counter and never touched by them.
- Appellant Salvilla confirmed that accused entered the lumber yard and
demanded 10K but was only given P5,000.00, which he placed on the
counter of the office of the lumber yard. . He maintained, however,
that he stopped his co-accused from getting the wallet and wristwatch
of Severino and, like the P5,000.00 were all left on the counter, and
were never touched by them
- The RTC , guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Robbery with
Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention"

Issue:

- Whether or not the crime of robbery was consummated

Ruling:

- YES. Pursuant to article 6 it is consummated when all the elements

necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present
- The robbery shall be deemed consummated when the “unlawful
taking” is complete. the money demanded, the wallet and the
 wristwatch were within dominion and control of the appellant and his
co-accused and thus the taking was completed
- The detention in the case was not only incidental to the robbery but as
a necessary means to commit the same so the nature of the offense
was affirmed.

Illegal Trespass
People v. Lamahang (Iron bar trespassing)

Facts:

- Policeman Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Delgado

and C.R. Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caught Aurelio Lamahang
in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store
of cheap goods located on the last named street. At that time the
owner of the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman.
The accused had only succeeded in breaking one board and in
unfastening another from the wall, when the policeman showed up,
who instantly arrested him and placed him under custody.
- The Court of First Instance of Iloilo found Lamahang guilty of attempted
robbery
- The Office of the Solicitor General affirmed the ruling of the CIF-Iloilo.

Issue:

- Whether or not the acts of Aurelio Lamahang are sufficient to convict

him of attempted robbery

Ruling:

- NO. for an act to be considered an attempt to commit a specific crime

under the Penal Code, it must have a logical and direct relation to the
particular offense.
 The attempt must be the beginning of the execution of the
offense by overt acts leading directly to its realization and
consummation.
- The Court noted that the mere act of entering another person's
dwelling by force does not automatically imply an intent to commit
robbery unless there is clear evidence of such intent. Consequently,
the Court concluded that Lamahang's actions were more appropriately
 classified as attempted trespass to dwelling, as he intended to enter
the store against the will of its owner

Physical Injuries, Homicide, and Murder

People v. Borinaga (Corral attempted Killing)

Facts:

- An American named Harry H. Mooney contracted with Juan Lawaan for

the construction of a fish corral. Basilio Borinaga was associated with
Lawaan in the construction of the corral. On the morning of March 4,
1929, Lawaan, with some of his men, went to Mooney’s shop and tried
to collect from him the full payment fixed by the contract,
notwithstanding that only about two-thirds of the fish corral had been
finished. Mooney refused to pay and this angered Lawaan and
threatened him. On the evening of the same day, Mooney was in the
store of a neighbor, Perpetua Najarro. That evening, while Mooney was
seated in a neighbor's store with his back to a window, Borinaga
attempted to stab him. The knife struck the back of Mooney's chair,
causing Mooney to fall but not injuring him. Borinaga fled but returned
shortly after for another attack, which was thwarted when Mooney and
the store owner, Perpetua Najarro, illuminated him with a flashlight.

Issue:

- Whether or not the facts constitute frustrated murder?

Ruling:

- YES. The Court held that within the meaning of article 3 of the Penal
Code, the crime committed was frustrated murder and not attempted
murder.
- The homicidal intent of the accused was plainly evidenced. The
aggressor stated his purpose, which was to kill, and apologized to his
friends for not accomplishing that purpose. A deadly weapon was
used. The blow was directed treacherously toward the vital organs of
the victim. The means used were entirely suitable for accomplishment.
The crime should, therefore, be qualified as murder because of the
presence of the circumstance of execution and attending the attack.
- The cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason of
forces independent of the will of the perpetrator. The assailant
 voluntarily desisted from further acts. What is known as the
subjective phase of the criminal act was passed.

People v. Kalalo (land dispute bolo and gun)

Facts:

- The events transpired on October 1, 1932, in the barrio of Calumpang,

San Luis, Batangas. The conflict arose from a land dispute between
Marcelo Kalalo and Isabela Holgado, the sister of the deceased Arcadio
Holgado and cousin of the deceased Marcelino Panaligan. On the day
of the incident, the Kalalos and Ramos, armed with bolos, confronted
the Holgados and their laborers who were plowing the disputed land. A
violent altercation ensued, resulting in the deaths of Arcadio Holgado
and Marcelino Panaligan, who sustained multiple wounds inflicted by
sharp instruments. Marcelo Kalalo also fired shots at Hilarion Holgado,
who was fleeing the scene.
- The Court of First Instance found appellants guilty of the crime of (2)
murder and (1) frustrated murder.
- The Attorney General found the accused guilty of murder in view of the
presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Issue:

- Whether or not the appellants are guilty of murder in the deaths of

Marcelino Panaligan and Arcadio Holgado

Ruling:

- NO. The court concluded that the appellants were guilty of homicide,
not murder,
- The court also found that Marcelo Kalalo's actions constituted
attempted homicide, as he fired multiple shots at Hilarion Holgado with
the intent to kill, but failed due to causes independent of his will.
- The Supreme Court determined that the qualifying circumstance of
"abuse of superior strength" did not apply because the deceased were
also armed, one with a bolo and the other with a revolver, which
balanced the risk between the parties.
- the appellants acted with the intent to prevent the Holgados from
plowing the disputed land, leading to the violent confrontation.
People v. Trinidad (nakisakay namaril)

Facts:

- The incident occurred on January 20, 1983. The victims, Lolito Soriano
and Marcial Laroa, were fish dealers based in Davao City, accompanied
by Ricardo Tan, a driver, and a helper.
- Trinidad, who was in uniform and armed with a carbine and a .38
caliber revolver, asked for a ride to Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. While
traveling, Trinidad advised the group to drive slowly due to the
dangerous area.
- Suddenly, Tan heard gunshots and saw Soriano and Laroa slump dead,
both shot in the head by Trinidad. Tan managed to escape and later
identified Trinidad as the assailant.
- Trinidad's defense was an alibi, claiming he was in Cagayan de Oro City
at the time of the incident.
 the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to Tan’s
testimony who, Trinidad alleges, was an unreliable witness.
- RTC found Trinidad guilty of two crimes of Murder and one Frustrated
Murder

Issue:

- Whether or not the evidence presented was sufficient enough to prove

Emeliano Trinidad’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of
murder and frustrated murder?

Ruling:

- YES. The Court modified the penalty for the frustrated murder to
attempted murder, as the wound inflicted on Tan was not sufficient to
cause death.
 The Court also adjusted the penalties for the murder convictions
in accordance with the 1987 Constitution, which abolished capital
punishment.
- The Court found no significant inconsistencies in Tan's testimony that
would undermine his credibility. Tan's account was corroborated by
other witnesses and remained consistent throughout the trial.

Martinez v. CA (dahil sa “kabet” frustrated murder)

Facts:
 - Dean had filed a complaint for damages against Martinez, alleging that
Martinez had spread false rumors about Dean having an illicit affair
with Elvisa Basallo, which led to a quarrel between Dean and his wife,
Freda.
- Dean was attacked by Martinez with a bolo, resulting in multiple stab
wounds. Dean managed to escape and was later treated at the Ilocos
Regional Hospital, where he underwent surgery
- SPO1 Henry Sulatre arrived at the Tubao Police Station to report a fight
in the bank. He found Barangay Captain Rodolfo Oller and his son Nicky
Oller, who handed him the bolo used to stab Dean. They brought the
petitioner to the police station, where he shouted "Sinaksak kon pare,
sangsangaili laeng isuna saan isuna to agari ditoy Tubao" (I stabbed
him, he is just a visitor, so he should not act like a king here in Tubao).
- the Provincial Prosecutor of La Union indicted Benjamin for
frustrated murder before the Regional Trial Court
 accused, with intent to kill assault and stab one DEAN DONGUI-IS
y Manalo, hitting him on his left breast and right elbow, and
thereby inflicting on him injuries that would have produced the
crime of Murder as a consequence but which nevertheless, did
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
accused
- Martinez claimed self-defense, stating that Dean had assaulted him
first
 Dean was so jealous of him because his mistress, Elvisa, had also
been his mistress.
- The RTC convicted Martinez of frustrated homicide
 gave credence and full probative weight to the testimony of
Dean, Dr. Rimando, SPO1 Sulatre, and the documentary evidence
of the prosecution and rejected petitioner's twin defenses of
denial and self-defense.
- The CA affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications
 the case is more of a "retaliation" rather than a case of self-
defense
 CA ruled that when an unlawful aggression which has begun no
longer exists, the one making the defense has no more right to
kill or even wound the aggressor

Issue:

- Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of Benjamin P.

Martinez for frustrated homicide?
Ruling:

- NO. The petitioner had the intention to kill Dean as he was able to
perform all the acts of execution but the crime was not consummated
because of the timely medical intervention applied on the victim
- the Court affirmed the conviction to frustrated murder
- found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the
testimony of the victim Dean Dongui-is and the medical findings, was
credible and sufficient to establish Martinez's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt
- Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of the following: (1) motive;
(2) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the
crime; (3) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (4)
the manner the crime was committed; and (5) actions by the offender
at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.
 In the case at bar, firstly, the petitioner had motive to do harm to
the victim because the former had more hatred to harbor arising
from the fact that the victim filed a lawsuit against him and his
wife. Secondly, petitioner was armed with a deadly 14 ½ inch
bolo. Thirdly, the medical reports and the testimony by Dr.
Rimando presents that the victim sustained three (3) stab
wounds, two (2) of which penetrated his heart and lung (4) the
manner in which petitioner ambushed Dean and struck him with a
bolo and Dean was defenseless and unarmed (5) the words of the
petitioner while he was assaulting the victim shows that he had
an intention to kill.

Mondragon v. People (dike spadahan)

Facts:

- The incident occurred on July 11, 1954, in Antandan, Miagao, Iloilo. At

around 5:00 PM, the complainant, Serapion Nacionales, was opening
the dike of his ricefield to drain water for planting the next day.
Mondragon, upon seeing this, shouted at Nacionales to stop.
- Despite the warning, Nacionales continued, prompting Mondragon to
approach and attempt to hit him. Nacionales dodged the blow, and
Mondragon then drew his bolo and struck Nacionales multiple times.
- Nacionales defended himself by unsheathing his own bolo and hacking
Mondragon, causing the latter to retreat.
 - The next day, Nacionales was treated by Dr. Alfredo Jamandre for
several incised wounds, none of which were fatal and were expected to
heal within 20 to 25 days.
- the Court of First Instance of Iloilo found him guilty of attempted
homicide
 intention to kill may be inferred from his admission made in court
that he would do everything he could to stop Nacionales from
digging the canal because he needed the water
- The CA affirmed the decision

Issue:

- Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding Isidoro Mondragon

guilty of attempted homicide instead of less serious physical injuries.

Ruling:

- YES. The Supreme Court concluded that the offense committed was
less serious physical injuries
- However, the Supreme Court held that this statement (he would do
everything to stop Nacionales from digging the canal) made almost
five years after the incident, was not a categorical indication of an
intent to kill. The Court emphasized that the injuries inflicted were not
necessarily fatal and could heal in less than 30 days
- Mondragon's retreat when Nacionales started hitting him with a bolo
indicated a lack of homicidal intent

People v. Sy Pio

Rape
People v. Orita

Facts:

- Abayan arrived at her boarding house, from a party. When she knocked
at the door of her boarding house, Orita suddenly held her and poked a
knife to her neck. Thereafter, he dragged Abayan to her room and
pushed her. Her head was hit against the wall. With one hand holding
the knife, Orita undressed himself and ordered Abayan to take off her
clothes. She was told to lie down on the floor. However, Orita could not
 fully penetrate her in that position. He then laid down on his back and
ordered Abayan to mount him. In that position, only a small part again
of his penis was inserted into her vagina. Abayan took the opportunity
and escaped. She ran towards the nearby municipal building to report
the incident. The medical certificate showed that there was no visible
abrasion or mark at the perineal area or over the vulva. Orita was
charged with the crime of Frustrated Rape

Issue:

- Whether or not Orita should be convicted of Frustrated Rape

Ruling:

- In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished.
- for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry
of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen
or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female
organ because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender
merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of
the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly
conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed.

People v. Campuhan

People v. XXX

People v. Efren Agao

Arson
US v. Valdes
 MODULE 4: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSALS TO COMMIT A
FELONY (ART. 8, RPC) AND FELONIES AS TO SEVERITY (ART.
7 AND 9, RPC)
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against person or property.

Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and

proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the
law specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement

concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave
felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art.
25 of this Code.

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the
above-mentioned Art..
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a
penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is
provided.

Dungo v. People (Alpha Phi Omega)

Facts:

- Office of the City Prosecutor of Calamba, Laguna filed an Information

against the petitioners, accusing them of willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously assaulting and using personal violence upon Marlon
Villanueva y Mejilla, a neophyte of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity
- prosecution presented twenty witnesses to prove the crime, including
Dr. Ramon Masilungan, who observed Villanueva as motionless, not
breathing, and had no heartbeat and found a large contusion
hematoma on the left side of Villanueva's face, several injuries on his
arms and legs, and cyanotic blood flow due to lack of oxygen.
 Due to the nature, extent and location of the injuries, he opined
that Villanueva was a victim of hazing
- Dr. Roy Camarillo, Medical-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police
Crime Laboratory (PNP-CL), performed an autopsy on Villanueva's body
and found various external injuries in the head, trunk, and extremities.
He concluded that the cause of death was subdural hemorrhage due to
head injury contusion-hematoma and he also found 2 matchsticks from
the cadaver with the marking of Alpha Phi Omega (APO) Fraternity
- Susan Ignacio owner of the sari-sari store saw a jeepney with more
than twenty (20) persons arrive at the resort and identified Christopher
Braseros and Sibal
- The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the crime charged
 Dungo was with his girlfriend and merely helped bring the neo to
the hospital and gave the fake name Jerico Paril
 Sibal stated that the initiation rites was cancelled and only helped
bring the neo to the hospital which he gave a false name
- The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating
Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua
 even if there was no evidence that Dungo and Sibal participated
to bodily assault and harm the victim, it was irrefutable that they
brought Villanueva to the resort for their final initiation rites.
 defense of denial and alibi were self-serving negative assertions
 - the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
 appeal of Dungo and Sibal was bereft of merit
 RTC properly relied on circumstantial evidence adduced by the
prosecution and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence

Issue:

- Whether or not conspiracy of the offenders was duly proven?

Ruling:

- YES. Section 4, paragraph 6 of RA No. 8049 provides that the presence

of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation
as principal, unless he prevented the commission of the punishable
acts. In this case, there was prima facie evidence of the petitioners'
participation in the hazing because of their presence in the venue
- generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself
amount to conspiracy. Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the
participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven
by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing,
unless they prevented the commission of the acts therein
- The petition is denied

People v. Aguilos (Gang stabbing)

Facts:

- Edmar Aguilos, Odilon Lagliba y Abregon and appellant Rene Gayot

Pilola conspiring and confederating together with one Ronnie Diamante
armed with double-bladed knives and a bolo hack and stab one Joselito
Capa y Rulloda which caused his death
- On February 5, 1988, 11:30 in the evening, Elisa Roldan was inside
their store waiting for husband to arrive. Joselito Capa and Julian Azul,
Jr. were drinking beer and Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba joined
them.
- Aguilos had a heated argument with Azul Aguilos and Lagliba left then
returned to block Capa and Azul. Aguilos took off his eyeglasses and
punched Azul in the face.
- Elisa shouted "Tama na, tama na!" but she was ignored as they
continue to rumble until they reach the end of the street As Capa tried
to stop the fight, Lagliba pulled out his knife with his right hand and
stepped down from his perch. He placed his left arm around Capa's
 neck and stabbed him. Ronnie and Rene Gayot Pilola, who were across
the street, saw their gang-mate Lagliba stabbing the victim and
decided to join the fray
- victim fell in a canal, and while Odilon and the appellant fled, Ronnie
tried to stab him. Julian ran for help, but Ronnie continued to attack. He
used a hollow block and a broken bottle to hit Joselito's head, causing
him to die. Elisa informed his wife and brother about the incident.
- Dr. Bienvenido Muñoz, Supervising Medico-Legal Officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation, conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of
Joselito
 stabbed 11 times (6 fatal stab wounds)
- appellant denied stabbing the victim and interposed the defense of
alibi
 he was in the house of his cousin suffering from ulcer which was
collaborated with Julian alias "Buboy" Cadion his cousin
- Agripina Gloria, a security guard in Mandaluyong City, testified that on
February 5, 1988, she heard a commotion outside and saw Ronnie rush
into her niece Teresita's house. He took a knife and ran towards Edmar
and Julian, aiming to pacify them. Joselito tried to pacify them, but
Ronnie stabbed him. Odilon and the appellant were not present at the
incident, and Agripina did not see them.
- the trial court found RENE GAYOT PILOLA guilty of murder qualified
by treachery sentenced to reclusion perpetua

Issue:

- Whether or not the trial court erred in concluding that there was
conspiracy?

Ruling:

- NO. In this case, Odilon all by himself initially decided to stab the
victim. The appellant and Ronnie were on the side of the street.
However, while Odilon was stabbing the victim, the appellant and
Ronnie agreed to join in. All the overt acts of Odilon, Ronnie and the
appellant before, during, and after the stabbing incident indubitably
show that they conspired to kill the victim.
 conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense,
the accused had the same purpose and were united in its
execution
- Even if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or
murder, they may be held criminally liable as principals by direct
 participation if they perform overt acts which mediately or immediately
cause or accelerate the death of the victim
- The trial court correctly overruled the appellant's defense of alibi. Alibi
is a weak

People v. Larranaga (Chiong sisters kidnapping and gang rape)

Facts:

- Russia testified because of guilt and nightmares

- On July 16, 1997, Rusia, Rowen, and Josman met in a white car with
Larrañaga, James Anthony, and James Andrew in a red car. Josman
stopped the car in front of Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong's waiting
shed, taped their mouths, and handcuffed them jointly.
- The assailants went to a Mercury Drug Store and Park Place Hotel to
rent a van but failed
- Thus, the cars sped to a house in Guadalupe, Cebu City known as the
safehouse of the "Jozman Aznar Group." the group thereafter headed
to the South Bus Terminal where they met Alberto and Ariel, and hired
the white van leaving their red car
- After parking their vehicles near a precipice, they drank and had a pot
session. Later, they started to rape Marijoy inside the vehicle, and
thereafter raped Jacqueline. The both died because of the physical
trauma they went through
- Josman instructed Rowen and Ariel to bring Marijoy to the cliff and push
her into the ravine
- The defense gave their alibi
 Larrañaga was in Quezon City taking his mid-term examinations
and at the time of the crime was with his friends at the R & R Bar
and Restaurant
 James Anthony Uy was with his brother at home in Cebu City
because it was their father's 50th birthday
 Alberto and Ariel was at the shop to have its aircon repaired of
the white Toyota van
- prosecution moved that Russia be discharged as an accused for the
purpose of utilizing him as a state witness
 attempt to bribe because of health
 defense lawyers, moved for the inhibition of Judge Ocampo,
withdrew en masse as counsel and were ordered jailed
 now represented by PAO lawyers
 - Trial court of Cebu found all accused guilty of two crimes of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention and sentenced to
Reclusiones Perpetua which may be served by them simultaneously

Issue:

- Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that there was
conspiracy?

Ruling:

- NO. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by which
the offense was perpetrated or may be inferred from the acts of the
accused themselves, when such point to a joint design and community
of interest. Appellants' actions showed that they have the same
objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong sisters. the argument of
Rowen, Ariel and Alberto that they were not part of the "conspiracy" as
they were merely present during the perpetration of the crimes
charged but not participants therein, is bereft of merit.
- The SC affirmed the decision of the trial court with modifications
 Paco, Wesley, Allan Pahak, Ariel, and MM found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and are
sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH by lethal injection
 James Uy as a minor found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with homicide and rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA
- Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659 is
unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty;
nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is
constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the
case at bar.

People v. Garchitorena (balut stabbing)

Facts:

- Dulce Borero and her brother Mauro Biay were selling balut 7 arms
lengths from eachother was called by Jessie Garcia accused who
twisted his hand behind his back while companions-accused Arnold
 Garchitorena and Joey Pamplona — began stabbing her brother with a
shiny blade until her brother slumped face down on the ground
- Arnold then instructed his two co-accused to run away
- Borero went home to call her elder brother Teodoro Biay, but when
they returned to the scene, the victim was no longer there as he had
already been brought to the Perpetual Help Hospital; who was
pronounced dead on arrival
- Dr. Rolando Poblete testified that the victim's death was caused by (8)
stab wounds suffered by the victim and the nature of the wounds
indicate it may have been caused by more than one bladed instrument
- The accused-appellants denied the charge against them
 Joey Pamplona denied that he participated in the stabbing of
Mauro Bay
 Jessie Garcia interposed the defense of alibi,
 Arnold Garchitorena defense of insanity because of use of shabu
allegedly suffering from schizophrenia
- The Trial Court found them guilty of Murder with the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strengthand sentence them to suffer
the penalty of death
 In light if all foregoing considerations (presented witness)
 Superior strength – numbers and armed with weapons
- The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
 do not find any reason to overturn the ruling of the trial court
 find reason to uphold the trial court's giving credence to
prosecution witness Dulce Borero who testified as an eyewitness
on the circumstances surrounding the incident and the manner by
which the crime committed.
 Evidence presented by the prosecution shows that the accused
conspired to assault the victim Mauro Biay

Issue:

- Whether or not the lower courts erred in ruling that conspiracy was
present in this case?

Ruling:

- NO. In this case, conspiracy was shown because accused-appellants

were together in performing the concerted acts in pursuit of their
common objective. The three accused-appellants' prior act of waiting
for the victim outside affirms the existence of conspiracy, for it speaks
of a common design and purpose
 - The SC affirmed the decision of the lower courts with modifications
 Death penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua

People v. Carandang (pulis pinto)

Facts:

- The Drug Enforcement Unit of La Loma Police Station 1 received a

request for assistance regarding a drug deal that would take place at
the house of Milan
- SPO2 Red formed a team and proceeded to Milan’s house where they
surrounded the house and saw, through an open door, that Carandang
and his co-accsused were inside the house
- When the police team introduced themselves, Milan shut the door
prompting the police to push through the door but was fired upon by
Carandang resulting in the deaths of PO2 Salgo, SPO2 Pilar, and hitting
SPO1 Dalida who managed to shoot Milan when he was rushed by the
latter
- Reinforcements came and SPO1 Montecalvo was brought to the
Chinese General Hospital. Milan stepped out and was also brough to a
hospital, but Carandang and Chua remained holed up inside the house
for several hours but eventually surrendered
- Dr. Winston Tan, Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP found that the
gunshot wounds of Red and Alonzo were the cause of their deaths
- Defense:
 it was the police officers who fired all the shots
- P/Sr. Insp. Grace Eustaquio, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime
Laborator testified that Chua tested negative for gunpowder nitrates
but Caranddang tested positive
- The Trial Court found RESTITUTO CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN AND
JACKMAN CHUA guilty of 2 counts of Murder and one 1 count of
Frustrated Murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua
 Carandang, Milan and Chua acted in conspiracy in the
commission of the crimes charged. Thus, despite the established
fact that it was Carandang who fired the gun which hit SPO2 Red,
PO2 Alonzo and SPO1 Montecalvo, all three accused were held
equally criminally responsible therefor
- The CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the RTC
  For SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo’s case pay for loss of earning
capacity
 For SPO1 Montecalvo sentenced to suffer prision mayor as
minimum to reclusion temporal as maximum

Issue:

- Whether or not the court erred in holding that there was conspiracy
among the appellants in the case at bar?

Ruling:

- NO. the three acted in concert can be gleaned from their actuations.
First, when they learned of the presence of the police officers, they
closed the door. Not one of them came out to talk peacefully with the
police officers. Instead, Carandang opened fire, Alonzo and Red did not
even have the chance to touch their firearms at that instant
- Milan's act of closing the door facilitated the commission of the crime
as while the police were trying to open the door it gave way for the
appellants to take strategic positions which gave them a vantage point
in staging their assault
- Chua ordered Millan to attack the fallen officer with the obvious
intention to finish them off

People v. Dadao (stepfather stabbed and shot)

Facts:

- Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfemio Malogsi

conspiring with each other conspiring and mutually helping one
another, with intent to kill, by means of treachery, armed with guns
and bolos, attack and shoot Piono Yacapin inflicting wounds that
caused his death
- Prosecutor’s witness the 14- and 12-year-old stepsons of the victim
testified that they saw the accused helping each other and with the
use of firearms and bolos, shot to death the victim, Pionio Yacapin in
their house. Nenita Yacapin, the widow of the victim, also corroborates
the testimony
- Defense:
 Police Inspector Vicente Armada, testified he conducted an
examination for paraffin test on all four accused with the findings
that they yielded negative result
  Eddie and Alfermio Malogsi were at the farm of a certain Boyle
 Antonio Sulindao was at Salucot together with his family and had
no grudge
 Fernandez Saplina was at his house and no occasion that said
accused went outside or left his house on the said date and time
- The trial Court found the accused guilty of the crime murder and
sentenced them to the penalty of reclusion perpetua
 The court did not consider their alibis because of positive
identification
 cancellation of the memorandum of encumbrance that was
reflected in his land title because Eddie Malogsi had already died
on August 25
- The CA affirmed the decision of the Trial Court with modifications
 Considered the pleadings of the parties
 increasing the amount of exemplary damages and decreasing the
amount of moral damages awarded.

Issue:

- Whether or not conspiracy was established?

Ruling:

- YES. the evidence on record has established that all four accused
shared a community of criminal design. By their concerted action, it is
evident that they conspired with one another to murder Pionio Yacapin
and should each suffer the same criminal liability.
- Credible witness identification > alibi
- paraffin tests should be considered as evidence of innocence as the 2
accused used bolos
- The SC upheld the conviction of the appellants and were sentence to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua

People v. Octa (Cute Kidnapper)

Facts:

- Johnny Corpuz and Mike Batuigas are on board in a silver Honda Civic
travelling in Sampaloc they were blocked by a red-orange Mitsubishi
box type Lancer
- 4 armed men alighted and fired at the left window of the Honda Civic
then handcuffed blindfolded, and boxed Corpuz
- The assailant informed the mother-in-law of the kidnappees and called
her to meet at a certain place.
- Ana Marie The wife of Corpuz sought the assistance of the Police Anti-
Crime and Emergency Response (PACER)
- The kidnappers wanted 20M for the release of her husband but settled
for 538K
- Ana Marie travelled to Red Lips Beer House and go to the nearby
Caltex Auto Supply where she would see a man awearing a red cap and
who would ask her "saan yong padala ni boss"
- She saw the man but didn’t give the money because she wanted to
make sure that it was the right person, so she called the kidnappers
- The man in the phone and the man in the red cap talked for a while in
another dialect which Ana Marie did not understand
- She described the man wearing red cap to be goodlooking, lightly built,
in his early 20s, around 5'4" in height and with dimples, which she later
identified in court as accused Estanly Octa
- On October 1, 2003, Johnny was released by his captors after the
payment of ransom money. He was detained for the duration of six (6)
days
- Defense:
 he himself was a victim of abduction his way was blocked by a
van 2 persons alighted and a gun was poked at him then he was
boarded inside the van and was taken PACER Office, Camp
Crame, Quezon City where he was tortured to admit the charge
filed against him
- The RTC found Estanly Octa guilty of the crime of kidnapping for
ransom and sentenced to suffer maximum prison term of reclusion
perpetua
 Ana Marie Corpuz, wife of victim steadfastly testified that she
gave the ransom money to accused-appellant
 The trial court also viewed the act of receiving ransom money as
sufficient evidence to establish accused-appellant's conspiratorial
act in the kidnapping for ransom of the victims in this case
- The CA denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the RTC
 positive identification of accused-appellant by prosecution
witness Ana Marie Corpuz to be unwavering and steadfast
 accused-appellant had been rightly found to be a co-conspirator
in this case because his act of taking the ransom money was an
overt act made in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity
Issue:

- Whether or not trial court gravely erred in finding him to be a

conspirator to the crime charged

Ruling:

- NO. The receipt of money by Octa was part of the grand plan
and was in fact the main reason for kidnapping the victims. accused-
appellant was the one who received the ransom money . . . then the
commonality of purpose of the acts of accused-appellant together
with the other accused can no longer be denied. Such acts have the
common design or purpose to commit the felony of kidnapping for
ransom.

People v. Feliciano (Sigma Rho VS Scintilla Juris frat war)

Facts:

- Venturina along with other 7 members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity

were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library
of UP Diliman when they were attacked by masked men armed with
lead pipes and baseball bats
- Venturia died in the attack and several Sigma Rho frat members
were injured.
- Dr. Rolando Victoria, a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation the injuries that killed Venturia could have been caused
by a hard blunt object and that he died due to traumatic head injuries
- Sigma Alpha Nu sorority members testified seeing the attack but
couldn’t identify the assailants because of the mask
- UP workers also saw the attack but failed to identify anyone
- Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma Rho Fraternity identified
Robert Michael Beltran Alvir because his mask fell of
- Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon of Sigma Rho he recognized
Warren Zingapan and Christopher L. Soliva since they were not wearing
any masks
- Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., member of Sigma Rho he recognized Gilbert
Merle Magpantay and Carlo Jolette Fajardo because their masks fell off
- Defense:
 Danilo Feliciano was in Pampanga to visit his sick grandfather
  Robert Michael Beltran Alvir was sick, not enrolled in UP and was
working
 Julius Victor Medalla was working on a school project
 Christopher Soliva was eating lunch with his girlfriend
 Warren Zingapan was at sm north to buy a gift for a friend's
wedding
- Filed information for murder was filed against several members of
the Scintilla Juris fraternity with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City for the death of Venturina and attempted murder of other Sigma
Rho fraternity
- The RTC found that Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr.,
Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor Medalla, and Warren Zingapan were
guilty of murder and attempted murder and were sentenced to
reclusion perpetua
 The beleaguered victims were able to espy and identify some of
the attackers etching an indelible impression in their memory. If
the Sigma Rhoans wanted could have easily tagged each and
every single accused as a participant instead each eyewitness
named only one or two
- The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with 3 concurring and 1
dissenting but modified so that the accused were guilty of murder
and slight physical injuries
 Lachica and Mangrobang "were no longer chased by the
attackers," thus they voluntary desisted from pursuing them
showing they did not have the intent to do more than to make
them suffer pain by slightly injuring them and that the wounds
against Gaston was too shallow

Issue:

- Whether or not Feliciano and his co-accused should be convicted of

Attempted Murder only against Natalicio and Fortes, and not against
Mangrobang, Lachica, and Gaston?

Ruling:

- NO. the trial court found that there was conspiracy among the accused
appellants and the appellate court sustained this finding. Conspiracy,
once proven, has the effect of attaching liability to all of the accused,
regardless of their degree of participation. Accused appellants armed
with baseball bats and lead pipes, all in agreement to do the
highest amount of damage possible to the victims. The intent
 to kill was already present at the moment of attack and that
intent was shared by all of the accused-appellants alike when
the presence of conspiracy was proven
- accused-appellants should be liable for the murder of Dennis
Venturina and the attempted murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar
Mangrobang, Jr.,Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr

People v. Morilla (droga sa ambulansya)

Facts:

- A Starex van and an ambulance van were en route to Manila. The

Starex was driven by Mayor Mitra, while the ambulance was driven by
Morilla.
- The Van was able to pass a checkpoint, but the ambulance was
stopped and asked about the contents of the ambulance which Morilla
stated that it was wood but the police were unconvinced and upon
inspection discovered shabu inside the ambulance
- Morilla told the police officers that he was with Mayor Mitra in the hope
that the operatives would let him pass but that only prompted the
police to chase the starex van
- The police were able to overtake the van and Mayor Mitra was asked to
stop where they saw his van was also loaded with sacks like the ones
found in the ambulance. Upon examination, the contents of the sacks
were likewise found to contain sacks of methamphetamine
hydrochloride
- The RTC convicted Morilla and Mayor Mitra, then incumbent Mayor
of Panukulan, Quezon, of illegal transport dangerous drugs and
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment but absolved Dequilla and
Yang due to the prosecution's failure to present sufficient
evidence to convict them
 found valid the search conducted by police officers on the
vehicles driven by Mayor Mitra and Morilla
 two other accused in this case, Dequilla and Yang, were acquitted
by the trial court for failure on the part of the prosecution to
establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue:

- Whether or no Morilla should be convicted for conspiracy to commit

the offense charged absent the allegation of conspiracy in the
Information
Ruling:

- YES. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to
commit a felony. In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances
leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a
common desire to transport the dangerous drugs. If indeed he was not
involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the
police officers that he was with the Mayor.

People v. Bokingco (pawnshop robbery AND murder)

Facts:

- Bokingco and Col conspiring and , armed with a claw hammer and with
intent to kill by means of treachery confederating together assault and
maul Noli Pasion by hitting and beating his head and other parts of his
body inflicting fatal wounds thus killing him
- Pasion and his wife owned pawnshop, which formed part of his house
as well as 2 rows of apartment units at the back of his house one of
which is Apartment No. 5 and was being leased to Vitalicio his brother-
in-law
- The other rows/apartments were still under construction. Appellants,
who were staying in Apartment No. 3, were among the 13 construction
workers employed by Pasion.
- Vitalicio was spin-drying his clothes when he heard a commotion from
apartment 3 he checked and saw Bokingco hitting something on the
floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco allegedly pushed open the
screen door and attacked him with a hammer hitting his hand
- A struggle ensued and Vitalicio was hit several times but Vitalico bit
Bokingco's neck and ran while Vitalicio tried to chase him but was
stopped by his co-workers
- Elso told Vitalicio that Pasion was dead in apartment 3
- Vitalicio and Pasion was taken to a hospital, Pasion was treated for his
wounds but Vitalicio died
- Elso testified that Col blocked her way, ran towards her, sprayed tear
gas on her eyes and poked a sharp object under her chin, then
instructed her to open the vault of the pawnshop, but she didn’t know
the combination. Col dragged her towards the back door by holding her
neck and pulling her backward
 - Before reaching the door Bokingco said “tara, patay na siya." Then Col
and Bokingco ran
- Dr. Esguerra concluded that the injuries sustained by Pasion on his
skull proved fatal.
- Filed murder
 Bokingco pleaded guilty
 Admitted he harbored ill feelings towards Pasion but only
retaliated when Pasion allegedly hit him in the head
 Col pleaded not guilty
 Resigned because of deduction of pay. Didn’t know
Bokingco well
- Trial Court found accused guilty of murder with aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence and
sentenced them to death
- CA affirmed the findings of the trial court but reduced the penalty
to reclusion perpetua
 Bokingco and Col are found GUILTY as conspirators beyond
reasonable doubt of MURDER aggravating circumstances of
nighttime and abuse of confidence

Issue:

- Whether or not appellant Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a

co-conspirator

Ruling:

- NO. There were two crimes committed simultaneously and they

were united in their efforts to escape from the crimes they separately
committed. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought
Col. Their moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was
killing Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob
the pawnshop
- Col is acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt
- Bokingco is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide

Fernan v. People (Government highway corruption conspiracy)

Facts:
 - Simon Fernan, Jr. and Expedito Torrevillas were former officials of the
Ministry of Public Highways
- They were implicated in a fraud scheme in the Cebu First Highway
Engineering District in 1977 which involved falsifying public documents
and issuing fake Letters of Advice of Allotments (LAAs)
 splitting of LAAs and RSEs so that the amount covered by each
general voucher is less than P50K to do away with the approval of
the Regional Auditor
- The fraud caused the Philippine Government approximately 86M
- NBI busted the illegal operations because of lavish spending and
bought two cars at a time
- The anti-graft court convicted Jose Ramon, Mariano Montera, Zosimo
Mendez, Mariano jarina, and Simon Fernan of 6 cases guilty as co-
principals in the crime of Estafa thru falsification of Public
Documents

Issue:

- Whether or not sandigangbayan erred in convicting petitioners as co-

conspirators despite prosecution’s failure to specifically prove beyond
reasonable doubt

Ruling:

- NO. Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join him. All three
agreed to help him carry out his plan. They typed fake LAAs during
Saturdays. Cruz and Sayson also took charge of negotiating or selling
fake LAAs to contractors at 26% of the gross amount. Preagido
manipulated the general ledger
 The four formed the nucleus of the nefarious conspiracy. Other
government employees, tempted by the prospect of earning big
money, allowed their names to be used and signed spurious
documents.
- Wheel conspiracy 36 disparate persons who constituted the massive
conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by a single hub
the petitioners who controlled the separate "spokes" of the conspiracy
- In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we categorized two (2) structures of
multiple conspiracies, namely: (1) the so-called "wheel" or "circle"
conspiracy, in which there is a single person or group (the "hub")
dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the
"spokes"); and (2) the "chain" conspiracy, usually involving the
distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which there is
 successive communication and cooperation in much the same
way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People

Facts:

- Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan former President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo, members of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office (PCSO) Benigno Aguas, Rosario C. Uriarte, Sergio O. Valencia,
Manuel L. Morato, Jose R. Taruc V, Raymundo T. Roquero, and Ma.
Fatima A.S. Valdes, Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman Reynaldo A.
Villar; and COA Head of Intelligence/Confidential Fund Fraud Audit Unit
Nilda B. Plaras with plunder
 The court accused various public officers of unlawfully and
criminally amassing, accumulating, and acquiring wealth in the
aggregate amount of PHP365,997,915.00 through various overt
or criminal acts.
 diverting funds from the operating budget of PCSO to its
Confidential/Intelligence Fund
 raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving
above-mentioned amount
 taking advantage of their respective official positions to
unjustly enrich themselves
- The State presented Atty. Aleta Tolentino a certified public
accountant and a lawyer who testified that the former management
of the PCSO was commingling the charity fund, the prize fund
and the operating fund. They also found there was excessive
disbursement of the Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF
- GMA, Aguas, Valencia, Morato, Taruc V, Roquero and Villar separately
filed their demurrers to evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not
establish a case for plunder against them
- The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers to evidence of Morato,
Roquero, Taruc and Villar, and dismissed the charge against them
 members of the PCSO Board of Directors were not shown to have
diverted any PCSO funds to themselves
- the Sandiganbayan denied the demurrers of GMA, Aguas and
Valencia
  there was sufficient evidence showing that they had
conspired to commit plunder; and that the Prosecution had
sufficiently established a case of malversation against Valencia

Issue:

- Whether or not the State sufficiently established the existence of

conspiracy among GMA, Aguas

Ruling:

- NO. The Prosecution did not properly allege and prove the existence of
conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte
- GMA had been the mastermind of plunder was unfounded
 her handwritten unqualified "OK" as an overt act of plunder was
absolutely unwarranted considering that such act was a
common legal and valid practice of signifying approval of a
fund release by the President
- considering that 10 persons have been accused of amassing ill-
gotten wealth aggregating P365,997,915.00, it would be
improbable that the crime charged was plunder if none of them
was alleged to be the main plunderer. As such, each of the 10
accused would account for the aliquot amount of only
P36,599,791.50, or exactly 1/10 of the alleged aggregate ill-gotten
wealth, which is far below the threshold value of ill-gotten
wealth required for plunder

Go-Tan v. Tan (parents in law abuser)

Facts:

- Sharica Go-Tan and Steven were married and had 2 children

- Barely six (6) years later, Sharica filed a Petition with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven and
her parents-in-law alleging Steven, in conspiracy with Spouses Tan,
committed verbal, psychological, and economic abuses upon her in
violation of RA 9262
- On January 25, 2005, the RTC granted TPO
- On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution dismissing the case
  being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not
included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262
 to include respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262 would
be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law
- Petitioner contends that R.A. No. 9262 explicitly provides for the
suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and,
accordingly, the provision on "conspiracy" under Article 8 of the RPC
can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No. 9262 Steven and respondents
had community of design and purpose in tormenting her by giving her
insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be
ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally,
emotionally, mentally and physically;
- Defense:
 they are not covered by R.A. No. 9262 since Section 3 thereof
explicitly provides that the offender should be related to the
victim only by marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or sexual
relationship

Issue:

- Whether or not the principle of conspiracy under the RPC applies to

violations of RA 9262

Ruling:

- YES. Legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in
a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such
as RA 9262. While RA 9262 provides that the offender be related or
connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or
dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle
of conspiracy under the RPC under section 47.
- The SC granted the petition and reversed the decision of the RTC

People v. Diega (1 person 4 case of rape)

Facts:

- 14th day of April 2013 Carlo and 3 others conspiring together with
lewd design, by means of force, and by intoxication did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the
said AAA, 12 years old, minor, against her will and without her consent
 - AAA and JJJ were walking after tending a grocery store where they were
blocked by Ismael and invited AAA to a drinking session with Obat,
Kalbo, and Carlo.
- AAA wanted to go home but Ismael dragged her along and proceeded
to a riverbank to drink then to a vacant lot near the store.
- AAA felt dizzy and dozed off then Carlo removed her pants and
underwear. AAA tried to kick him, but someone held her legs and
spread them apart and another held her hands
- Carlo went on top of AAA, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made
pumping motions. Afterwards, Kalbo, Ismael, and Obat took turns in
having carnal knowledge with AAA
- Around 5:00 a.m. of the following day AAA awakened, dressed herself,
went home relayed the ordeal to her parents and reported the incident
to the barangay hall and the police station
- After performing a physical and genital examination on AAA, PSI Aulida
concluded that there was recent evidence of blunt penetrating trauma
to the genitalia and that the injuries on the hymen of the victim could
have been caused by an erected penis
 The findings were consistent with the narrative of AAA
- Carlo and 3 John does were charged with rape of minor AAA
- Carlo pleaded not guilty
 was engaged in a drinking spree but went home to change his
clothes where he heard a group of women looking for AAA but
AAA did not want to go home because she was intoxicated and
will be scolded. Around 11:30 p.m.,Carlo went home and slept
- RTC found Carlo guilty of Rape and his three (3) companions
conspired with each other to commit the crime of Rape
 gave credence to the account of AAA which was supported by
medical findings
- The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
 it was not physically impossible for Carlo to be at the crime scene
because his house was located near the crime scene

Issue:

- Whether or not the lower courts erred in establishing conspiracy

Ruling:

- NO. At the time of the commission of the offense, all the

perpetrators have the same purpose and were united in its
execution. The records show that Carlo and his three (3) companions
 successively raped AAA and that while one of them had carnal
knowledge of the victim, the others held her arms and kept her from
struggling. Viewed in its totality, the individual participation of
each perpetrator pointed to a joint purpose and criminal
design
- The SC found Carlos guilty of 4 counts of Simple Rape sentenced
to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each count
 accused is responsible not only for the Rape he personally
committed but also for the other counts of Rape that his co-
conspirators perpetrated although they were unidentified or are
at large

People v. Castillo (katulong hindi tumulong sa kidnapping)

Facts:

- Rosanna Baria, a household helper for Mr. and Mrs. Luis De Guzman
Cebrero, bathed and dressed their six-year-old son Rocky and
afterwards advised Baria that someone, who was also a Cebrero house
helper, will fetch Rocky
- At about 8:00 a.m.,a tricycle arrived. On board was who gave her name
as Evangeline Padayhag
- Baria assisted Rocky to board the tricycle. The tricycle brought Rocky
and the woman to a nearby "Mcdonald's".Thereat, they were joined by
Elizabeth Castillo
- The three proceeded to a house far from the "Mcdonald's" where Rocky
slept "four times"
- When Luis Cebrero arrived home, he found Rocky missing and reported
him to the police. At night, he received a phone call from a woman
asking about his ATM card and money he replied that it only contained
40K
- On March 2, 1995 the woman told him to give 1M which he replied he
couldn't she replied she will call back later
- On March 4, 1995 the woman asked "Ano nasa iyo na ba ang pera"?
Luis answered, "Hindi ko kayang ibigay sa iyo ang halagang iyon,
kalahati lang ang kaya kong ibigay". The caller said, "Sige, puede na
yan. She instructed him to be alone in Paco, Obando, Bulacan at 2:00
a.m. and follow a street to a church called "Sabadista" to drop the
money. He also received another call instructing him to drop the money
on a chapel's terrace.
 - After about forty (40) minutes, two women appeared, proceeded to
where the bag was dropped, laughed and disappeared
- March 5, 1995, Luis Cebrero was at home when a tricycle stopped in
front of his house. Somebody knocked at the door and when Luis
Cebrero opened it, he saw his son, Rocky
- search warrant was shown to Elizabeth Castillo and her father who
signed the same which yielded a black bag placed in a carton inside
the house containing money in P1,000.00 bills in the total amount
277K
- Castillo and Padayhag initially pleaded guilty but withdrew their
plea of guilt
 Castillo took the child because she was owed unpaid wages by
the victim's family
- Trial Court convicted Castillo and Padayhag of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention and imposed on them the death penalty
 testimonies of the prosecution witnesses more credible and gave
no weight to Castillo and Padayhag's defenses
- determining the liability of Evangeline Padayhag as it seems that her
only participation in the crime was picking up the boy from his
house. Although she did not get part of the ransom the fact is that
she fully and directly cooperated and did her part to carry out
the resolution of her co-accused. Under these facts there was
conspiracy to extort ransom

Issue:

- Whether or not trial court erred in concluding that there was

conspiracy to extort ransom

Ruling:

- YES. There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag

acted in concert with Castillo to commit the same criminal act.
Padayhag's act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her
complicity with Castillo's plan, a plan Padayhag did not even know.
Both appellants testified that Padayhag met Castillo only because
Castillo told Padayhag that Padayhag's boyfriend was sick.
 She never visited nor contacted Castillo aftrwards
 None of the money used as ransom was found in her possession
 involvement in the "pay-off" was never established
- Castillo is guilty of kidnapping with serious illegal detention suffer the
penalty of DEATH
 - Evangeline Padayhag is acquitted

Republic Act No. 10951

- Penalties for grave felonies are adjusted based on the value of property
or damage involved.
- If the fine exceeds P1,200,000, it is considered an afflictive
penalty.
- If the fine is between P40,000 and P1,200,000, it is considered a
correctional penalty.
- If the fine is less than P40,000, it is considered a light penalty.
- amends several articles of the Revised Penal Code, including:
 Treason – reclusion perpetua to death and fine not exceeding 4M
 If alien – reclusion temporal to death and fine not exceeding
4M
 Conspiracy – prision mayor and fine not exceeding 2M and prision
correctional and fine not exceeding 1M
 Search warrants maliciously obtained – arresto mayor in
maximum period to prision correctional in its minimum period and
fine not exceeding 200K
 Conspiracy coup d’etat – prision mayor in minimum period fine
not exceeding 1M
 Rebellion or insurrection – prision corecional maximum period fine
not exceeding 1M

MODULE 5: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any
criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that

the following circumstances concur;
- First. Unlawful aggression.
 Elements: (1) There must be a physical or material attack, (2)
attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent, (3) attack
or assault must be unlawful
- Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it.
- Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.

Justifying Circumstances - circumstances which if present or attendant in

the commission of the felony, the offender acted within the bounds of the
law

- Therefore, there is no crime committed, there is no criminal, there is no

criminal liability, and as a rule, there is also no civil liability because
the author acted within the bounds of the law

Note: The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the
circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real
peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the
peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat

People V. Olarbe (landmark self defense 22 airgun)

Facts:

- Olarbe voluntarily surrendered to police officers informing them that he

killed Arca. Police proceeded to the crime scene and found the lifeless
body of Arca caused of death was gunshot wounds and his immediate
cause of death was hacked wounds
- Defense: Orlarbe invoked self-defense
 Arca drunk and shouting “Mga putang ina ninyo, pagpapatayin ko
kayo “ forcibly entered their house and aimed the gun at Olarbe
and his wife. They wrestled for the gun and Olarbe manage to
shoot Arca, but Arca pulled his bolo and they wrestled again and
Olarbe was able to get the bolo and hack Arca
- Olarbe was charged with murder
- RTC pronounced him guilty of murder as charged
  initial unlawful aggression by Arca had ceased when Olarbe shot
him and the instance of Arca being able to grab his bolo is
implausible
- CA affirmed the conviction of Olarbe
 findings of the RTC were consistent with the evidence on record
and accorded with human experience

Issue:

- Whether or not lower courts erred in disregarding Olarbe’s invocation

of self defense

Ruling:

- YES. Armed with both the gun and the bolo, Arca not only disturbed
Olarbe's peace but physically invaded the sanctity of the latter’s home
at midnight. We should easily see and understand why Olarbe would
feel that his and his common law spouse's lives had been put in
extreme peril. The 2nd element was also present as reasonable
necessity of the means employed requires is rational equivalence
which does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the
imminent danger of such injury. Lastly, the absence of any showing
that Olarbe had provoked Arca, or that he had been induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive has been equally palpable

GANAL, JR. v PEOPLE (patay sa bato)

Facts:

- Ganal was having a drinking session at his house when his neighbor
Angelo arrived uninvited and insisted on joining. Ganal refused as
Angelo was already very drunk.
- Angelo and Julwin then started throwing stones at the roof of Ganal’s
and his father’s house. His father approached the 2 and asked them to
go home because his wife is suffering from hypertension and should
not be disturbed.
- Julwin hit him with a stone in the chest causing Ganal to fall on the
plant box and pass out
- Julwin then advanced towards Ganal with a knife. Ganal fired a warning
shot with his gun. Since he thought that Julwin had an intent to kill him,
he fired at Julwin.
 - Julwin continued to threaten that he would kill everyone inside the
house so Ganal fired all rounds in his gun which resulted to Julwin’s
death.
- RTC & CA: GUILTY OF HOMICIDE (rejected self-defense: force
employed was not equal to Julwin's unlawful aggression. rejected
defense of property: no reasonable necessity)

ISSUE: WON it was self-defense

RULING: YES. 3 elements of self-defense were present:

- 1. Unlawful Aggression: Julwin advanced towards Ganal with a knife

and continued to threaten that he would kill everyone in the house.
- 2. Reasonable Necessity: Julwin was determined to inflict injury,
brought 2 large stones and knife. He also entered the property and
knocked his father unconcious
- 3. Lack of sufficient provocation: Julwin went to the petitioner’s house
and started the incident

PO2 Cambe v. People (pulis kulang element para self-defense)

Facts:

- Brothers Lynyrd and Paul Cueva went to Sitio Caarosipan, Brgy. Apostol,
San Felipe, Zambales together with their mother Merlyn, cousins, and a
friend and after dropping of their mother they together with James,
Roberto and Royce proceeded to the Bachelor’s Bar where they saw
PO2 Anthony Cacho and PO2 Randolph Cambe, having a drinking spree
inside a nearby hut
- 30 mins later Merylyn came to pick them up when petitioners irritated
by the noise came up to them and had a verbal altercation
- PO2 Cambe pushed Merlyn before pointing his gun at her and when
Paul went to his mother PO2 Cambe shot in his left leg and shot Lynyrd
which had his hands up in the abdomen when he tried to ask why he
shot Paul
- PO2 Cambe aimed the gun at Paul and tried to shoot him but the gun
jammed. He tried for Merlyn but it wouldn't fire and then Lynyrd bit it
still jammed
 Collaborated by Pabito the bouncer and waitress Luzviminda
 - Dr. Maninang testified that Lynyrd sustained a fatal through and
through wound in his abdomen and would have died had it not been for
the immediate medical intervention
- according to Dr. Toledo Paul suffered a non-fatal gunshot wound in his
left thigh
- petitioners pleaded not guilty to both charges. DEFENSE: self-defense
 Roberto cousin of the Lynyrd and Paul, hit him in the head with a
beer bottle and the later 2 tried to attack him so he had shoot
them
 Defense was collaborated by PO2 Anthony Cacho and waitress
Lalaine
- Charged with two (2) counts of Frustrated Murder
- RTC = guilty of frustrated murder of Lynyrd and attempted murder of
Paul
 rejected PO2 Cambe's claim of self-defense. First, the initial
aggression came from Roberto, not from the victims themselves.
Second, PO2 Cambe failed to testify on the manner by which he
was allegedly attacked by Lynyrd and Paul who were merely
poised to attack. Third, PO2 Cambe got hit with a beer bottle only
after he shot Lynyrd and Paul. Lastly, none of the defense
witnesses testified that Lynyrd and Paul were armed during the
incident
 There was intent to kill as PO2 Cambe tried to shoot the victims
and was stopped only because the gun jammed
- CA = affirmed RTC decision
 found no unlawful aggression on the part of Lynyrd and Paul. In
contrast, petitioners intended to kill the victims
 There was conspiracy between the two police officers. Although
PO2 Cacho did not personally take part in shooting the victims, he
urged PO2 Cambe to finish off the group. He also left the scene
with PO2 Cambe.

Issue:

- Whether or not Court of Appeals err in affirming petitioners' conviction

for Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder?

Ruling:

- NO. not all the elements for self-defense are present

 (1) there was unlawful aggression as PO2 Cambe only shot when
he fell down because of a beer bottle hitting him as established
 by the original police testimony of Merlyn and testimony of
Lalaine Rodriguez, a waitress at the nearby Pangga Bar
 (2) the only available tool of defense for him at that time was his
service pistol
 (3) NOT PRESENT: PO2 Cambe's act of pushing and cursing Merlyn
triggered Lynyrd, Paul and Roberto to assault him
- Both PO2 Cambe and PO2 Cacho were convicted of Frustrated Murder
and Attempted Murder for the injuries sustained by Lynyrd and Paul

Dawat, Jr. v. People

Facts:

- Emily Aloc, Sherly Abanto, Robert Oliva, and Wenceslao were drinking
at Emily's sister-in-law's house. Roberty went inside for water, and
Wenceslao answered the call of nature
- Emily tried looking for Wenceslao when se saw Romeo Wenceslao
being held by the neck by Romeo Dawat, Jr who who then slit
Wenceslao's neck with a bolo
-
- Information for Homicide was filed against petitioner for the death of
Wenceslao Flores
-

Issue:

Ruling:

Senoja v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Manaban v. Court of Appeals

Facts:
Issue:

Ruling:

SENOJA v PEOPLE

Facts:

- Senoja and Miguel, with 2 other guys, were drinking in the hut of their
friend Crisanto, then Leon (drunk) suddenly arrived holding bolo and
looking for his brother Miguel.
- Senoja and Miguel, with 2 other guys, were drinking in the hut of their
friend Crisanto, then Leon (drunk) suddenly arrived holding bolo and
looking for his brother Miguel.
- They reconciled but before Leon left, he warned Senoja for siding with
his brother.
- Leon had already gone but Senoja followed him. Senoja stabbed him in
his left butt. When Leon turned around, Senoja stabbed him multiple
times. The victim suffered 9 wounds then died
- Defense: Self defense as Senoja alleges Leon hacked him with a bolo
twice
- RTC & CA: GUILTY OF HOMICIDE
- NO. When Leon was already walking home, he had stopped being the
aggressor. It was Senoja who was now the unlawful aggressor in the
second phase of their confrontation
- SC: Guilty of Homicide

People v. Decena

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Dela Cruz

Facts:
Issue:

Ruling:

PEOPLE v JAURIGUE

Facts:

- Amado was courting Avelina. However, he disrepected her several

times:
 approached Avelina, spoke of his love, then suddenly embraced
and kissed her and touched her breasts
 climbed up to her house and entered her room with the intention
of abusing her
 boasted that something happened between the 2 of them
- Avelina went to a chapel. Amado went to Avelina and sat by her side,
and suddenly placed his hand on her thigh. Avelina then pulled out a
fan knife with the supposed intention of cutting his hand but she
stabbed Amado on the neck instead which caused his death
- She surrendered herself when Nicolas (her father) and the barrio
lieutenant who were also in the chapel came up to her
- Prosecuted for the crime of murder
- RTC & CA: Avelina: HOMICIDE

ISSUE:

- WON Avelina should be completely absolved of criminal liability

Ruling:

- NO. Avelina is guilty of Homicide

People v. Narvaez

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Sabang v. People
Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Dagani

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Palaganas v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Velasquez v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Regalario

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Dulin

Facts:

Issue:
Ruling:

People v. Fontanilla

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Josue v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Toledo v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Dela Cruz v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Guevarra v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:
People v. Sevillano

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Manaban v. Court of Appeals

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,

ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first
and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one
making defense had no part therein.

Abuyo v. People (father and son VS father and son)

Facts:

- At around 7:30 in the evening, Leo Abuyo and his wife were heading
home on board their motorcycle.
- Cesar Tapel armed with a balisong and his son Charles Tapel armed
with a gun, suddenly blocked their way
- Leo left and sped towards his father's (Leonardo abuyo) house which
was beside Leo’s house but was followed by Charles
- Charles kicked in the bamboo gate and waved his gun demanding Leo
come out
- When Leonardo tried to pacify the situation he was stabbed in his lower
left chest by Ceasar
- Cesar then turned to Leo and tried to stab him, but Leo got hold of a
bolo on top of the table and hacked Cesar's right hand which made
Cesar drop the balisong
- Cesar managed to pick up the balisong but Leo stabbed him again in
the lower part of his stomach causing him to die
- Leo voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities
- CHARGED with Homicide
- Leo pleaded not guilty (acted in self-defense and defense of a relative)
 - RTC convicted Leo of Homicide
 Leo employed means that was not reasonably necessary to repel
the unlawful aggression
 Mitigating: incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender
- CA denied the petition and reaffirmed the ruling of the RTC

Issue:

- Whether or not the means employed by Leo was reasonably necessary

to repel the unlawful aggression

Ruling:

- YES. In defense of a relative, in lieu of the third element, the accused

must prove that in case of provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein.
- In the case at bar all the 3 elements for defense is present:
 (1) Cesar attacked Leonardo and attempted to stab Leo
 (2) Leo held his ground and was forced to act only when Cesar
repossessed the fan knife. Second, there was a threatening
presence of Charles who was holding a gun that could be fired at
any given moment during the incident.
 (3) there was no provocation on Leo’s part since the attack
originated from Cesar and Charles. Leo and his wife were
traversing their way home when Cesar and Charles blocked their
way and chased them

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,

provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the
first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other
evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act
which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites
are presen
- First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
 - Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it
- Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it

People v. Ricohermoso

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Norma Hernandez (run-away bride)

Facts:

- Vivencio Lascano, and Maria Norma Hernandez are boyfriend-girlfriend

and are talking about marriage and Vivencio’s parents went to the
house of Norma to have a “pamamanhikan”.
- The marriage was set on March 19, 1955. The preparation went on but
on the day of wedding, Maria did not show up causing Vivencio and his
family great shame and humiliation.
- Maria Confessed that she wasnot really in love with him, and that she
accepted the proposal because she was convinced by her parents
- RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed
 purposely and deliberately fled to prevent celebration of
marriage.

Issue:

- Whether or Not Norma should be convicted on the ground of serious

slander by deed

Ruling:

- NO. SC reversed the RTC judgment and acquitted the appellant

- Maria Norma has the right to avoid to himself or herself the evil of
going through a loveless marriage pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4
of the Revised Penal Code. One of the essential requisites of slander
hasn’t been proven. There is no malice in the act of the appellant
changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right not to give her
consent to the marriage after mature consideration

 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office

People v. Delima

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Lagata

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Mamangun v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Dagani

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a

superior for some lawful purpose.

Absolutory Causes
Article 6. (3) There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the
acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.

People v. Beronilla

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The penalties
prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such
with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural,
and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions
of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.

Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional

circumstances. - Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse
in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any
of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict
upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be
exempt from punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents

with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their
seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or
daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.

Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. - Any private person who shall
enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will shall be punished by
arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty

shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine
not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who
shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third
person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling
for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor
to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses,
while the same are open.

Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - No criminal, but only
civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft,
swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the
following persons:

- Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the

same line
- widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the
possession of another
- Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living
together.

The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers

participating in the commission of the crime.

Section 26 of RA 9262 Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. – Victim-

survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering
from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime,
the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.

Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales v. People

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Lua Chu

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Doria

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

People v. Romy Lim y Miranda

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:
 Absolutory Causes
circumstances which if present or attendant in the commission of a
felony would serve to exempt the offender from criminal liability but
not from civil liability

- he is absolved of criminal liability but not of civil liability because a

wrong, a violation of the law has indeed been committed.

absolved of criminal liability because the offender acted without

voluntariness. There is the absence of any of the elements of voluntariness

- intentional felony:
 (1) Criminal intent, (2) Freedom of action, and (3) Intelligence on
the part of the offender.
- culpable felony
 (1) Criminal negligence, (2) Freedom of action, and (3)
Intelligence on the part of the offender.

NOTE: to raise an exempting circumstance is also an act of admission and

an act of avoidance. The offender, in effect, admits the acts alleged in
the Information but he is trying to avoid criminal responsibility
 Justifying Exempting
no criminal liability, no civil liability no criminal liability, but as a rule,
there is civil liability because a
wrong has indeed been committed.
offender acted within the bounds of offender violated the law
the law.
Affects the act or the crime Affects the offender.
committed.
There is no crime nor criminal. There is a crime but there is no
criminal since the offender acted
without voluntariness.
May be raised as a defense only in May be raised as a defense in both
intentional felonies. intentional and culpable felonies.

ARTICLE 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. – the

following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted

during a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of
the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same
court.

Insanity Imbecility
someone who lacks total mental someone who is already advanced
aberration of the mind. in age, but he has only the mental
capacity of a 2 to 7-yearold
Cannot distinguish right from child.
wrong, good from evil.
not exempting in all Imbecility is exempting under any
circumstances. It is necessary that and all circumstances. There is
it must be proven that the allegedly no lucid interval in so far as an
insane person did not act during imbecile person is concerned
lucid interval, otherwise, he can still
be convicted.

Note: offender or an accused, who pleads the exempting circumstance of

insanity, has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that he or
she was insane immediately, prior to, or at the time of the
commission of the crime.
 - If only became insane after the commission of the crime. Such
kind of insanity will not free him from criminal liability because the
insanity that is exempting must be present immediately prior to, or at
the time of the commission of the crime.
 Offender shall only be brought to the mental institution. The
moment he regains sanity, he will again be prosecuted
before the court except when the crime has already been
prescribed.

People v. Taneo (Tulog Tuba)

Facts:

- Taneo lived with his wife in his parent's house

- On the day of a festival Taneo was sleeping while visitors were
entertained in the house including Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao.
- Taneo suddenly awoke from his sleep, took a bolo and wounder her
wife in the abdomen who tried to stop him. She died 5 days later along
with the fetus
- He attacked FRED TANNER, LUIS MALINAO, AND HIS FATHER
- Information filed: Parricide (convicted)
- Defense: he dreamt that he was attacked by Collantes with a Bolo as
he was held by ABADILLA. For that reason he got up, and it seemed to
him that his enemies were there, inviting him to come down.

Issue:

- Whether or not insanity can be appreciated in this case

Ruling:

- Yes. The Court held that the defendant acted while in a dream and
his acts hence, not criminally liable for the offense with which he is
charged, and it is ordered that he be confined in the Government
insane asylum
- lack of a motive for committing a criminal act
 Loved his wife
 No reason to attack FRED TANNER, LUIS MALINAO, AND HIS
FATHER

People v. Bonoan (barbershop dementia)

Facts:
 - The defendant Celestino Bonoan met the now deceased Carlos Guison
on Avenida Rizal near a barbershop
- the defendant say in Tagalog, "I will kill you." Guison replied, also in
Tagalog, "I will pay you", but Bonoan replied saying that he would kill
him and then stabbed Guison thrice on the left side. The assault was
witnessed by policeman Damaso Arnoco who rushed to the scene and
arrested Bonoan and took possession of the knife
- Charged: murder
- Defense: defendant was mentally deranged and was at the time
confined in the Psychopathic Hospital
 Dr. Jose A. Fernandez, assistant alienist of the Psychopathic
Hospital initially stated that the accused was not in a condition to
defend himself but later stated that he was "considered a
recovered case."
- Lower Court: Convicted of Murder

Issue:

- whether or not the defendant-appellant was insane at the time of the

commission of the crime charged.

Ruling:

- YES. The Court ruled that defendant-appellant was demented at the

time he perpetrated the serious offense charged in the information and
that consequently he is exempt from criminal liability
- In the Philippines, we have approximated that insanity as a defense in
a confession and avoidance and as such must be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.
 It is the responsibility of the defendant to establish insanity
- defendant-appellant, during the periods from April 11 to April 26, 1922,
and from January 6 to January 10, 1926, was confined in the insane
department of the San Lazaro Hospital suffering from a disease
diagnosed as dementia praecox
 the mind appears "deteriorated"
 defendant and appellant had "an attack of insomnia", which is
one of the symptoms of, and may lead to, dementia praecox
- Mind can only be known by outward acts. Thereby, we read the
thoughts, the motives and emotions of a person and come to
determine whether this acts conform to the practice of people of sound
mind.
People v. Formigones (feeblemindedness/Palay/Selos)

Facts:

- Abelardo Formigones and his wife Julia Agricola went to live with his
half-brother, Zacarias Formigones to find employment as harvesters of
palay
- After about a month's stay Abelardo without any previous quarrel or
provocation whatsoever, took his bolo and stabbed his wife, Julia, in
the back resulting in her death and which sent her toppling down the
stairs to the ground
- Abelardo taking her up in his arms, carried her up the house, laid her
on the floor of the living room and then lay down beside her
 Reason: Jealousy he suspected that the two were maintaining
illicit relations
- Initially pleaded GUILTY in PI but later NOT GUILTY in court
- counsel presented the testimony of two guards of the provincial jail
where Abelardo was confined
 (1) his conduct there was rather strange and that he behaved like
an insane person, (2) remain silent and indifferent to his
surroundings, (3) refused to bath and wash clothes, and (4) sing
in chorus with others or himself
- Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur: guilty of parricide
-

Issue:

- Whether or not imbecility appreciated in this case?

Ruling:

- NO. The Court found appellant guilty of parricide

- Dr. Francisco Gomez, Abelardo was suffering only from
feeblemindedness and not imbecility and that he could distinguish
right from wrong
- In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile: he must be
deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of
the will at the time of committing the crime.
 during his marriage of about 16 years, he has not done anything
or conducted himself in anyway so as to warrant an opinion that
he was or is an imbecile
 - And a man who could feel the pangs of jealousy could hardly be
regarded as an imbecile.
- His action in picking up the body of his wife after she fell down to the
ground, dead, taking her upstairs, laying her on the floor, and lying
beside her for hours, shows his feeling of remorse at having killed his
loved one

People v. Puno (Barang/Kulam)

Facts:

- Ernesto Puno a jeepney driver, entered a bedroom in the house of

Francisca Col (Aling Kikay), 72, a widow and proceeded to insult her
saying: "Mangkukulam ka, mambabarang, mayroon kang bubuyog."
Then, he repeatedly slapped her and struck her several times on the
head with a hammer until she was dead
- The assault was witnessed by Hilaria de la Cruz, 23 and Lina Pajes, 27
who were told by Puno "Pinatay ko ang iyong matanda. Huag kayong
tumawag ng pulis. Pag tumawag kayo ng pulis, kayo ang
paghihigantihan ko"
- He then proceeded fled to his parents' house where his father
surrendered him
- Lina, after noting that he had left, notified the Malabon police of the
killing.
- Indicted for: Murder
- Defense: Puno was insane when he killed Francisca Col because he
had chronic schizophrenia since 1962

Issue:

- Whether or not Puno acted with discernment

Ruling:

- YES. the Supreme Court holding that the accused is guilty of Murder
qualified by abuse of superiority ruled:(a) that he was not legally
insane when he killed the victim as he was not completely deprived of
reason and freedom of will
- defense presented three psychiatrists. However, instead of proving
that Puno was insane when he killed Aling Kikay, the medical experts
testified that Puno acted with discernment.
 - Doctor Araceli Maravilla testified that Puno was an out-patient who
could very well live with society
- Doctor Robles observed that while Puno was suffering from
"schizophrenic reaction", his symptoms were "not socially
incapacitating"
- Doctor Carlos Vicente testified that Puno acted with discernment when
he committed the killing and thatPuno could distinguish between right
and wrong

J. Makasiar’s Dissenting Opinion:

- appellant be acquitted of the charge of murder because at the

very moment of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still a
mentally sick person
- Schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to
distinguish between fantasy and reality thus Puno did not kill Aling
Kikay herself but rather the "mangkukulam"
- barely 1 month and 15 days had elapsed. Medically speaking, the
interval was not sufficient time for appellant's full recovery nor did
such time give any guaranty for his mental disease to be "cured"
o For chronic schizophrenia, the patient does not recover fully in
two months' time. His condition may simply be "in remission",

People v. Dungo (Department of Agrarian Reform/envelope)

Facts:

- Rosalino Dungo went to the place where Mrs. Sigua was holding office
at the Department of Agrarian Reform and after talking drew a knife
from the envelope he was carrying and stabbed Mrs. Sigua several
times
o (14) wounds, five (5) of which were fatal
- he went down the staircase and out of the DAR's office with blood-
stained clothes, carrying along a bloodied bladed weapon
- Defense: Insanity
o Wife: her husband would inform her that his feet and head were
on fire when in truth they were not
o Dra. Sylvia Santiago and Dr. Nicanor Echavez of the National
Center for Mental Health testified that the accused was confined
in the mental hospital. The concluded that Rosalino Dungo was
 psychotic or insane long before, during and after the
commission of the alleged crime
- RTC: guilty of Murder
o Sane during because of the act of act of concealing a fatal
weapon

Issue:

- whether or not the accused was insane during the commission of the
crime charged

Ruling:

- NO. The SC affirmed the lower court’s decision of Murder. "The Court is
convinced that the accused at the time that he perpetrated the act
was sane.
- The accused, at the time he perpetrated the act, was carrying an
envelope where the fatal weapon was hidden. This is evidence
that the accused consciously adopted a pattern to kill the victim
- he was apprehended and arrested in Metro Manila, an indication
that he took flight in order to evade arrest. This to the mind of the
Court is another indicia that he was conscious and knew the
consequences of his acts

People v. Rafanan (store/ schizophrenia)

Facts:

- Estelita Ronaya 14 years old was hired as a house helper by the

mother of the accused Ines Rafanan alias 'Baket Ines'
- Policarpio Rafanan and his family lived with his mother in the same
house.
- Estelita Ronaya was sent by the mother of the accused to help in their
store
- During the closing of the store the accused suddenly pulled the
complainant inside the store and asked her to have sexual intercourse
with him. When she refused, POLICARPIO pointed a bolo at her throat,
he forced her to lie down on a bamboo bed, and had carnal knowledge
of her despite her resistance and struggle.
- After the sexual intercourse, the accused cautioned the complainant
not to report the matter to her mother or to anybody in the house,
otherwise he would kill her.
 - Because of fear, the complainant did not immediately report the
matter and did not leave the house of the accused that same evening.
- on March 18, 1976 that the complainant told her mother that she was
raped by the accused. They proceeded to the house of Patrolman
Bernardo Mairina of the Villasis Police Force a cousin of the father of
the complainant
- Defense: suffering from schizophrenia when he inflicted his violent
intentions upon Estelita
- Suspended trial and ordered appellant confined at the National Mental
Hospital in Mandaluyong for observation and treatment
o Policarpio Rafanan, Jr. y Gambawa is found suffering from a
mental disorder called schizophrenia
- Court of First Instance: Rape

Issue:

- Whether or not Policarpio’s ailment prevent him from being conscious

of his actions

Ruling:

- NO. The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court

- The fact that appellant Rafanan threatened complainant Estelita with
death should she reveal she had been sexually assaulted by him,
indicates, to the mind of the Court, that Rafanan was aware of the
reprehensible moral quality of that assault.
- Dr. Jovellano testified that Policarpio was not completely devoid of
consciousness during the commission of the crime

People v. Madarang (Seaman Sabong)

Facts:

- Fernando Madarang y Magno and Lilia Mirador were legally married

and had 7 children
- Madarang was a seaman for 16 years and upon returning he and his
family opened a Hardware store which failed, and he lost his entire
fortune due to cockfighting
- Madarang and his family was forced to stay in the house of Avelina
Mirador as the accused could no longer support his family
- The accused and Lilia had a squabble because accused was jealous of
another man and was accusing Lilia of infidelity. In the heat of the fight
 and in the presence of their children, the accused stabbed Lilia,
resulting in her untimely demise
- At the arraignment, the accused refused to enter a plea. Pursuant to
the Rules, the trial court entered a "not guilty" plea for him.
- observed behaving in an abnormal manner inside the provincial jail
- the Court ordered that the accused be transferred to the National
Center for Mental Health (NCMH) for psychiatric evaluation to
determine his fitness to stand trial.
- Revealed he was suffering from a form of psychosis known as
schizophrenia and after 2 years of confinement, the accused was
discharged and recommitted to the provincial jail as he was already
found fit to face the charges against him
- charged: Parricide
- Defense: he has absolutely no recollection of the stabbing incident.
o suffering from a form of psychosis known as schizophrenia
o Dr. Tibayan's opinion that there was a high possibility that he was
already suffering from insanity prior to his commission of the
crime. his mental illness may have been caused by his loss of
fortune.
- Trial Court: Convicted him of Parricide

Issue:

- Whether or not Madarang was suffering from insanity at the time of the
commission of the crime

Ruling:

- NO. The SC affirmed the lower court’s decision convicting Madarang

with parricide
- the appellant was diagnosed to be suffering from schizophrenia when
he was committed to the NCMH months after he killed his wife.
o the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of the
offense may be accorded weight only if there is also proof of
abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to
the commission of the crime
- Although Dr. Tibayan opined that there is a high possibility that the
appellant was already suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the
stabbing, he also declared that schizophrenics have lucid intervals
during which they are capable of distinguishing right from
wrong
People v. Robios ('It's Good you would see how your sister died)

Facts:

- 15 year old Lorenzo while cookier heard his parents arguing. Lorenzo
heard his mother tell Melecio Robiños, 'Why did you come home, why
don't you just leave?' After hearing what his mother said, Lorenzo, at a
distance of about five meters, saw appellant, with a double-bladed
knife, stab Lorenza on the right shoulder.
- Lorenzo immediately left their house and ran to his grandmother's
house where he reported the incident
- At around eight o'clock in the morning of the same day, Benjamin
Bueno, the brother of the victim Lorenza Robiños, went to his mother's
house for the purpose of informing his relatives that the appellant had
killed his uncle, Alejandro Robiños where he was also informed that his
own sister Lorenza had been killed by appellant
- Benjamin did not go to the house of his sister because he was afraid of
what the appellant might do. From his mother's house, Benjamin saw
an appellant who shouted at him, 'It's Good you would see how
your sister died.
- Benjamin sought the help of Barangay Captain Virgilio Valdez who
called the police station
- police, with the help of barangay officials, detached the bamboo wall
from the part of the house where blood was dripping. SPO1 Lugo saw
appellant embracing [his] wife uttering 'I will kill myself, I will kill
myself.
- Lorenza was dead with 41 stab wounds on different parts of her body
- Charged: parricide with unintentional abortion
- Defense: insanity
o Melecio Robiños (accused): He could not remember when he was
informed by his children that he killed his wife. He could not
believe that he killed his wife."
o nurse: 'laging nakatingin sa malayo', rarely talked, just stared at
her and murmured alone
o detention prisoner: accused sometime[s] refused to respond in
the counting of prisoners. Sometimes, he stayed in his cell even
if they were required to fall in line in the plaza of the penal
colony.
 o detention prisoner: Accused sometimes was lying down, sitting,
looking, or staring on space and without companion, laughing
and sometimes crying
- Trial Court: Guilty of complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion

Issue:

- Whether or not the lower court erred in disregarding accused-

appellant's defense of insanity?

Ruling:

- NO. The SC found Melecio Robiños guilty of complex crime of parricide

with unintentional abortion
- Testimonies from both prosecution and defense witnesses show no
substantial evidence that appellant was completely deprived of reason
or discernment when he perpetrated the brutal killing of his wife
- appellant was obviously aware of what he had done to his wife. He was
even bragging to her brother, Benjamin Bueno, how he had just killed
her.

People v. Opuran (Allan and Demetrio)

Facts:

- Bambi Herrera was studying his lessons inside his house when Jason
barged in shouting "There's a long-haired man!"
- Bambi stood up and saw appellant Anacito Opuran stab Allan on the
chest with a knife
- Although Allan had several stab wounds on different parts of his body,
he managed to stand up and run inside Bambi's house, with Anacito
chasing him
- Bambi immediately locked the door but Anacito tried to force the door
open by thrusting a knife at the door shutter and throwing stones at
the door. After a while Anacito left
- Bambi went out to ask the aid of his neighbors and saw Anacito's two
brothers and asked for their help but they just said "Never mind
because he [referring to Anacito] is mentally imbalanced."
- Bambi carried Allan on his shoulders and dragged him to the lower
portion of the neighborhood. Several persons, who were having a
 drinking session, helped Bambi bring Allan to the hospital. Allan,
however, died about fifteen minutes later.
- Tomas Bascal was on his way home, he saw Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr.
Helikewise noticed Anacito hiding in a dark place. When Demetrio Jr.
reached the national highway, near the so-called "lover's lane," Anacito
emerged from his hiding place and stabbed Demetrio Jr. with a knife
about three to four times.
- Charged: 2 counts of murder for Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr and Allan
Dacles
- Defense:
o was suffering from a psychotic disorder and was, therefore,
completely deprived of intelligence when he stabbed the victims
o never went out that night and was resting/sleeping at about
8:30pm., eight policemen entered his house, pointed their guns
at him, and arrested him
- defense moved for the suspension of the hearing because trial court
issued an Order authorizing the psychiatric examination of Anacito
- Dr. Lyn Verona, physicianpsychiatrist of the EVRMC, found Anacito had
a psychotic disorder characterized by flight of ideas and auditory
hallucinations and that Anacito was psychotic before and during
the commission of the crime. Suffering from schizophrenia
- Trial Court: found Anacito guilty of murder for the death of Demetrio
Patrimonio, Jr.,and homicide for the death of Allan Dacles
- Office of the Solicitor General (OSG): Anacito failed to establish with
the required proof his defense of insanity or his claim of the mitigating
circumstance of diminished willpower

Issue:

- Whether or not the trial court grave error in disregarding the

exempting circumstance of insanity

Ruling:

- NO. The SC affirmed the decision of the Lower Court and found Anacito
guilty of murder and homicide
- Dr. Verona was certain that Anacito was not grossly insane, but she
was uncertain that Anacito was "unconscious" at the time he stabbed
the two victims
- Anacito failed to raise insanity at the earliest opportunity. He invoked it
for the first time in the year 2000 and only after he had already
testified on his defenses of alibi and denial
Verdadero v. People (valid insanity/ fan belt of their irrigation pump)

Facts:

- Maynard Plata (Maynard) and his father Romeo were at the Baggao
Police Station. Together with Ronnie Elaydo (Ronnie), they went there
to report that Verdadero had stolen the fan belt of their irrigation
pump.
- the three men made their way home on a tricycle but stopped at a
drugstore as Maynard intended to buy some baby supplies.
- Romeo proceeded towards a store near the drugstore while Ronnie
stayed inside the tricycle. From the drug store, Maynard saw Verdadero
stabbing Romeo, after he was alerted by the shouts of Ronnie
o left side of the latter's upper back with the use of a Rambo knife.
He again struck Romeo's upper back, just below the right
shoulder.
- Maynard tried to help his father butVerdadero attempted to attack him
as well. He defended himself using a small stool, which he used to hit
Verdadero in the chest
- Ronnie ran towards the police station to seek assistance. The
responding police officers arrested Verdadero, while Maynard and
Ronnie brought Romeo to a clinic but died upon arrival
- Defense: Insanity
o as early as 1999, he was already brought to CVMC and that he
was diagnosed with schizophrenia on July 21, 2003. Dr.
Pagaddu agreed with Dr. Andres-Juliana that Verdadero had
suffered a relapse on the day of the stabbing incident.
- Charged: Murder
- RTC: guilty of Homicide
o prosecution failed to establish the presence of treachery (so not
murder)
o Verdadero was unsuccessful in establishing that he was not in a
lucid interval at the time
- CA: affirmed RTC, guilty of Homicide
o Verdadero had a history of schizophrenic attacks, but was unable
to prove that he was not lucid at the time of the commission of
the offense

Issue:
 - Whether or not CA erred in convicting Verdadero despite his insanity
being established at the time of the commission of the crime

Ruling:

- YES. The SC acquitted Solomon Verdadero y Galera of Homicide by

reason of insanity. Ordered confined at the National Center for Mental
Health for treatment and pay for civil liability
- Dr. Paggadu, without any reservations, stated that Verdadero was
suffering a relapse of his schizophrenia at the time of the
stabbing incident.
o hesitant to opine that Verdadero Might have been in a lucid
interval because of the medications taken
- at the very first opportunity, Verdadero already raised the
defense of insanity and remained steadfast in asserting that he was
deprived of intelligence at the time of the commission of the offense

2. A person under nine years of age. (Repealed by Sec. 6 of

RA 9344)
RA 9344: JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT

Sec. 6 Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years

of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to
an intervention program pursuant to Sec. 20 of this Act.

A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth
anniversary of his/her birthdate

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to
an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment,
in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws

Basically: 15 below dismiss agad. 15 to 18 determine if acted with

discernment
NOTE: Under Sec. 6 of RA 9344, as amended, a child in conflict with the
law shall only be exempted from criminal liability but not from civil
liability because a wrong has indeed been committed

- a child in conflict with the law is a child who alleged as, accused of,
or adjudged as having committed an offense under Philippine Laws.

Sec 38 of RA 9344: Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age
at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the
offense charged

Even if the said child in conflict with the law who committed a crime when
he was a minor, and became an adult at the time of the promulgation of
judgment, such minor offender shall still be entitled to suspended
sentence without need of application

Section 40 of RA 9344: If the court finds that the objective of the disposition
measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been
fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to
comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the
court for execution of judgment

If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of
age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine
whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order
execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age
of twenty-one (21) years.

SECTION 57. Status Offenses. – Any conduct not considered an offense or

not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered an
offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child."

- status offense refers to any conduct not considered an offense or not

penalized if committed by a child (Ex: curfew violations, truancy,
parental disobedience, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, etc.)
SECTION 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. – Ordinances enacted by
local governments concerning juvenile status offenses such as, but
not limited to, curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience, antismoking
and anti-drinking laws, as well as light offenses and misdemeanors against
public order or safety such as, but not limited to, disorderly conduct, public
scandal, harassment, drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal nuisance,
vandalism, gambling, mendicancy, littering, public urination, and
trespassing, shall be for the protection of children. No penalty shall be
imposed on children for said violations, and they shall instead be
brought to their residence or to any barangay official at the
barangay hall to be released to the custody of their parents.
Appropriate intervention programs shall be provided for in such ordinances.
The child shall also be recorded as a ‘child at risk’ and not as a ‘child in
conflict with the law’. The ordinance shall also provide for intervention
programs, such as counseling, attendance in group activities for children,
and for the parents, attendance in parenting education seminars.

3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80
of this Code

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in

conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care
of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80. (Repealed by Sec. 6
of RA 9344)

People v. Doqueña (Volleyball)

Facts:

- On the date of the crime, the appellant was exactly 13 years, 9 months
and 5 days old
- "Between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon of November 19,1938, the
now deceased Juan Ragojos and one Epifanio Rarang were playing
volleyball in the yard of the intermediate school
 - Valentin Doqueña, who was also in said yard, intervened and, catching
the ball, tossed it at Juan Ragojos, hitting him on the stomach.
- Juan Ragojos chased him around the yard and, upon overtaking him,
slapped him on the nape then accused turned around assuming a
threatening attitude for which reason said deceased struck him on the
mouth with his fist
- Valentin Doqueña, offended looked around the yard for a stone with
which to attack the now deceased Juan Ragojos, but finding none, he
approached a cousin of his named Romualdo Cocal, to ask the latter to
lend him his knife
- Valentin Doqueña approached Juan Ragojos and challenged the latter
to give him another blow with his fist, to which the deceased answered
that he did not want to do so because he (Juan Ragojos) was bigger
than the accused
- Juan Ragojos, continued playing and, while he was thus unprepared
and in the act of stopping the ball with his two hands, the accused
stabbed him in the chest with the knife which he carried."
- Court of First Instance: Homicide
o sent to the Training School for Boys to remain therein until he
reaches the age of majority.

Issue:

- Whether or not the court erred in determining that Valentin Doqueña

holding that acted with discernment

Ruling:

- NO. The SC affirmed the ruling of the lower court

- The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from
criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine
who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong,
o one of the brightest in said school. captain of a company of the
cadet corps thereof, and during the time he was studying there
he always obtained excellent marks

Ortega v. People (

Facts:
- Petitioner, then about 14 years old raped AAA then about eight (8)
years of age 3 times of 3 different occasions
o AAA, then 6 years old and son BBB, then 10 years old, in the care
of Luzviminda the mother of the petitioner for 2 nights because
MMM had to stay in a hospital to attend to her other son who was
sick. Petitioner woke AAA up and led her to the sala. There
petitioner raped AAA
o second occasion occurred the following day, again at the
petitioner's residence. Observing that nobody was around,
petitioner brought AAA to their comfort room and raped her
there. AAA testified that petitioner inserted his penis into her
vagina and she felt pain. In all of these instances, petitioner
warned AAA not to tell her parents, otherwise, he would spank
her
o third and last occasion happened in the evening of December 1,
1996. petitioner called AAA to come to the room of CCC and BBB.
AAA obeyed. While inside the said room which was lighted by a
kerosene lamp, petitioner pulled AAA behind the door, removed
his pants and brief, removed AAA's shorts and panty, and in a
standing position inserted his penis into the vagina of AAA
- last incident was corroborated by BBB in his testimony. BB reported the
incident to his mother, MMM
- MMM testified that when she asked AAA about what BBB saw, AAA told
her that petitioner inserted his fingers and his penis into her vagina
The following morning, at about four o'clock, MMM called Luzviminda
and petitioner to come to their house. MMM confronted Luzviminda
about what petitioner did to her daughter, and consequently, she
demanded that AAA should be brought to a doctor for examination
- Dr. Lucifree Katalbas found no indication that she was molested
HOWEVER, Dr. Jocson found "abrasions on both right and left of the
labia minora and a small laceration at the posterior fourchette".She
also found that the minor injuries she saw on AAA's genitals were
relatively fresh
- amicable settlement was reached between the two families through
the DAWN Foundation, an organization that helps abused women and
children
- Defense: Minor/Did not rape AAA treated her as a sister
o AAA pointed to BBB as the one who molested her
- Charged: Rape in two separates informations
- RTC: guilty of Rape
 o petitioner's defenses of denial cannot prevail over the positive
identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime by AAA
and BBB
o not perceive any motive for AAA's family to impute a serious
crime of Rape to petitioner
- CA: affirmed, guilty of Rape
o respective medical examinations conducted by the two doctors
were irrelevant, as it is established that the slightest penetration
of the lips of the female organ consummates rape; thus, hymenal
laceration is not an element of rape
o petitioner acted with discernment as shown by his covert acts
- Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006, was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and it took effect on May
20, 2006.
o with the petitioner now approximately 25 years old, he no longer
qualifies as a child as defined by R.A. No. 9344
- The OSG claimed that the retroactive effect of Section 64 of R.A. No.
9344 is applicable only if the child-accused is still below 18 years old
as explained under Sections 67 and 68 thereof

Issue:

- Whether or not R.A No. 9344 be applicable to the accused who is now
25 years of age at the time of its enactment

Ruling:

- YES. The SC dismissed the case, and the petitioner is hereby referred
to the local social welfare and development officer of the locality for
the appropriate intervention program
- What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption from
criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICL's age at the time of the
promulgation of judgment but the CICL's age at the time of the
commission of the offense
o In short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal
irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old.
- the petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of the
commission of the alleged rape. petitioner, at the time of the
commission of the crime, was below 15 years of age. Under R.A. No.
9344, he is exempted from criminal liability
o Not exempted to civil liability
People v. Mantalaba

Facts:

- The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response received a tip

from an informant that Allen Mantalaba was selling Shabu.
- After forming a buy-bust team, a buy-bust operation was then
conducted. After the exchange of a sachet of Shabu and marked
money, the Mantalaba was arrested and found to be in possession of a
big sachet of Shabu, small sachet of shabu, and (2) pieces of one
hundred pesos marked money and a fifty peso (P50) bill
- Charged: Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Possession of Dangerous
Drugs under RA 9165 (2 cases initially then consolidated)
- Defense: Minor
o The appellant was seventeen (17) years old when the buy-bust
operation took place or when the said offense was committed,
but was no longer a minor at the time of the promulgation of the
RTC's Decision
- RTC: Guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165

Issue:

- Whether or not Mantalaba is entitled to suspended sentence on the

ground of minority

Ruling:

- NO. While Sec. 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can

still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already
eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement
of his/her guilt, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of
sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21.
- appellant, who is now beyond the age of twenty-one (21) years can no
longer avail of the provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to
his suspension of sentence, because such is already moot and
academic
- The records show that the appellant filed his notice of appeal at the
age of 19 (2005), hence, when RA 9344 became effective in 2006,
appellant was 20 years old, and the case having been elevated
to the CA, the latter should have suspended the sentence of the
 appellant because he was already entitled to the provisions of
Section 38 of the same law, which now allows the suspension of
sentence of minors regardless of the penalty imposed as opposed to
the provisions of Article 192 of P.D. 603

Samahan Ng Mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City

Facts:

- Following the campaign of President Duterte to implement a

nationwide curfew for minors, several local governments in Metro
Manila started to strictly implement their curfew ordinances on minors
through police operations.
- Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) filed a Petition
assailing the constitutionality of the Curfew Ordinances of Quezon City,
Manila, and Navotas on the ground that the imposition of the penalties
thereof contravenes RA 9344 which provides that no penalty shall be
imposed on minors for curfew violations.

Issue:

- Whether or not Sec. 4 of the Manila Curfew Ordinance goes against

Sec. 57-A of R.A. 9344

Ruling:

- YES. The provisions of RA 9344 provisions do not prohibit the

enactment of regulations that curtail the conduct of minors, when the
similar conduct of adults are not considered as an offense or penalized
(i.e., status offenses).
- what they prohibit is the imposition of penalties on minors for
violations of these regulations. Consequently, the enactment of curfew
ordinances on minors, without penalizing them for violations thereof, is
not violative of Section 57-A. The provisions of RA 9344, as amended,
should not be read to mean that all the actions of the minor in violation
of the regulations are without legal consequences. Section 57-A thereof
empowers local governments to adopt appropriate intervention
programs, such as community-based programs recognized under
Section 54 of the same law.
- The curfew ordinance of Quezon City was declared constitutional by
the SC, but the curfew ordinances of Manila and Navotas were declared
 unconstitutional because penalties were imposed on minors for being
arrested in violation of the said ordinance; therefore, null and void

People v. Retubado (yosi paputok)

Facts:

- someone played a joke on Edwin Retubado, the appellant's younger

brother who was mentally ill by inserting a a lighted firecracker in a
cigarette pack and gave it to Edwin when he brough it home it
exploded
- Initial suspect was Emmanuel Cañon, Jr but it turned out he was not
the culprit
- Emmanuel Cañon, Sr a pedicab driver was confronted by the appelent
Jesus G. Retubado asking "Noy, why is [it] your son did something to
my brother?"
- Emmanuel ignored the appellant which angered him and grabbed and
pushed the pedicab which nearly fell into a canal. Emmanuel again
ignored the appellant and pedaled on until he reached his house but he
was followed
- Emmanuel suddenly opened the door and demanded to know why he
was being followed. The appellant told Emmanuel that he just wanted
to talk to Emmanuel, Jr.,but Emmanuel told the appellant that his son
was already asleep
- appellant pulled out a handgun and shot Emmanuel on the forehead
- Defense: he was merely performing a lawful act with due care; hence,
cannot be held criminally liable for the victim's death
o when he insisted that Emmanuel wake up his son, Emmanuel
went to his room and emerged therefrom holding a handgun
o They wrestled for the gun and appellant pulled the gun to the
level of Emmanuel's forehead, and the gun suddenly went off
o He ran home and to change clothes and left the gun on the table
where Edwin took it and threw it in the sea
- Jesus G. Retubado surrendered to the police
 - RTC: Guilty of murder

Issue:

- Whether or not the defense of accident can be appreciated

Ruling:

- NO.
- First: Norberta wife of the deceased was shocked when the appellant
pulled out his handgun and deliberately shot the victim on the
forehead
- Second: After shooting the victim, the appellant fled
- Third: The appellant had the motive to shoot and kill the victim
- By admitting causing the injuries and killing the victim, the accused
must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness
of the evidence of the prosecution because if such evidence is weak
but the accused fails to prove his defense, the evidence of the
prosecution can no longer be disbelieved.
- GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of homicide
o there is no treachery in the present case to qualify the crime to
murder

People v. Loreno (pineapple juice conspiracy)

Facts:

- Barangay Captain Elias Monge and his family were preparing to attend
the dance to be held in the barrio proper that evening
- While waiting Francisco Fabie saw at first four men with flashlights
approaching. When they came near, he heard one of them call Elias
Monge saying that there was a letter from the chief (hepe)
- On reading the letter, Elias Monge and Monica read the following:
"Kami mga NPA",
- Fabie saw and recognized the man in red clothes to be Eustaquio
Loreno. Also Elias Monge and his two daughters, Monica and Cristina,
saw and recognized Eustaquio Loreno as he entered the sala as one of
the companions of the man in dark sweater
- the man in dark sweater instructed Loreno to tie all their victims on the
floor.
 - the man in dark sweater got hold of Monica Monge and dragged her up
to a room and forcibly removed her pants. Monica resisted and shouted
at her parents for help. He boxed and slapped her Thereafter, the man
in dark sweater returned to the sala reached for a can of pineapple
juice he turned his attention to Cristina Monge, and he dragged her to
the room forced his lewd designs
- Eustaquio Loreno y Malaga and Jimmy Marantal y Londete along with
people still at large armed with firearms attack and rob Elias Monge
and his family properties amounting to P10,619.50 and by means of
force feloniously commit sexual intercourse with Monica Monge, a
virgin of 16 years old, and with Cristina Monge, all against their will.
- Thereafter Loreno entered the room where Cristina Monge was earlier
brought by the man in dark sweater, and he found her still lying on the
floor. Loreno embraced her trying to kiss her and touch her private
parts.
- The man in dark sweater returned to the sala and touched the thighs of
Cristina Monge, who was already wearing her shorts, and he told them
not to tell anybody what happened to them, otherwise he will kill them.
And then all the malefactors left the place
- The family managed to escape, and the following day proceeded to the
PC headquarters at Camp Tara, was given a written recommendation
from the PC to the hospital with instructions to have himself and his
daughter Monica be physically examined
- Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal were arrested and identified as
two of the robbers
- the two suspects refused to give their written statements and told their
victims if they could just talk and settle the matter, but Elias Monge
replied that what they did that evening was an oppression (kaapihan)
against him and his family
- Defense: acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury
o only forced by a man wearing black sweater and his five
companions with the threat that if they did not obey, appellants
and their families would be killed
- information filed before the Court of First Instance: Robbery with
Double Rape

Issue:

- Whether or not the accused acted under irresistible force or

uncontrollable fear, exempting them from criminal liability
Ruling:

- NO. The Court held that the accused's claim of acting under irresistible
force or uncontrollable fear was untenable
o Appellant Eustaquio Loreno was armed with a short firearm and
pointed the gun to the victims which enabled the malefactors to
ransack the house
o Loreno positioned himself next to the post in the balcony, while
the man in dark sweater delivered the letter to Elias Monge
o Eustaquio Loreno himself tied the victim with rattan which he got
from inside the house
o When Monica Monge was struggling and shouting for help from
inside the room where she was earlier dragged by the man in
dark sweater, Loreno's immediate reaction was to point his gun
to the victims who were then lying on the floor, telling them not
to rise if they wanted to live
- All these demonstrated the voluntary participation and the conspiracy
of the appellants
- Guilty of crime of robbery with double rape

Separate Opinion:

- Appellant Jimmy Marantal is guilty of robbery only

o Did not know Monica Monge was being raped and even if he did,
he could not prevent it if he was on the ground outside the house
as look out

People v. Del Rosario (tricycle driver)

Facts:

- tricycle driver Paul Vincent Alonzo testified that he saw (2) men and a
woman grappling for possession of a bag and after getting the bag one
of the two men armed with a gun started chasing a man who was
trying to help the woman, while the other snatcher kicked the woman
sending her to the ground and the armed man returned and shot her in
the head
- The bag taken by the man was brought to the tricycle of accused del
Rosario where someone inside received the bag
- Alonzo gave chase, got the plate number of the tricycle driven by
accused del Rosario, and went to the nearest police headquarters and
reported the incident
- Accused Joselito del Rosario gave his own version:
o original agreement was that he would drive him to a cockpit but
was directed by Boy Santos to proceed to the marketplace to
fetch "Jun" Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya
o asked to proceed and stop at the corner of Burgos and General
where Bisaya alighted on the pretext of buying a cigarette
o Dodong accosted the victim Virginia Bernas and grappled with
her for the possession of her bag and Jun Marquez helped
o Accused del Rosario tried to leave and seek help but "Boy
Santos" who stayed inside the tricycle prevented him from
leaving and threatened in fact to shoot him
- "Dodong" Bisaya succeeded in taking the victim's bag, but before
boarding the tricycle "Jun" Marquez mercilessly shot the victim on the
head while she was lying prone on the ground
- Upon arriving at Dicarma, the three (3) men alighted and warned del
Rosario not to inform the police authorities about the incident
otherwise he and his family would be harmed.
- Because of the threat, however, he did not report the matter to the
owner of the tricycle nor to the barangay captain and the police
- Charged: charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide
- accused Joselito del Rosario pleaded not guilty while Virgilio "Boy"
Santos and John Doe alias "Dodong" remained at large, and Ernesto
"Jun" Marquez was killed in a police encounter
- Joselito Del Rosario was found guilty as co-principal in the crime of
Robbery with Homicide
- Defense: acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force
o not aware of the plan of Santos and his two companions to rob
and kill the victim
o not able to seek assistance because Santos threatened to shoot
him if he did and culprits has threatened him and his family
- Trial Court:
o del Rosario facilitated the escape of the other malefactors from
the crime scene and conspiracy between while the grappling of
the bag, the chasing of the helper of the victim and the shooting
that led to the death of Virginia Bernas were happening, accused
 Joselito del Rosario was riding on his tricycle and the engine of
the motor was running;"

Issue:

- Whether or not the defense of acted under the compulsion of an

irresistible force should be appreciated

Ruling:

- The Supreme Court ruled that del Rosario is acquitted of Robbery with
Homicide
- unarmed and unable to protect himself when he was prevented at
gunpoint by his co-accused from leaving the crime scene during the
perpetration of the robbery and killing
o Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by
me against my will is not my act
- There is no doubt that the fear entertained by del Rosario because of
the gun directly pointed at him was real and imminent
- del Rosario did not disclose what he knew about the incident to the
authorities, to his employer or to the barangay captain does not affect
his credibility
o del Rosario was merely a tricycle driver with a family to look
after. Given his quite limited means, del Rosario understandably
did not want to get involved in the case

People v. Bandian (tinae yung bata)

Facts:

- Valentin Aguilar the appellant's neighbor, saw Josefina Bandian go to a

thicket and after a few minutes emerged with her clothes stained with
blood, staggering, and showing signs of not being able to support
herself
- Aguilar helped her go up to her house and placed her in her own bed
and when asked what happened merely answered that she was very
dizzy
- Aguilar called Adriano Comcom, who lived nearby and requested him
to take bamboo leaves to stop the hemorrhage
 - Comcom had scarcely gone about five brazas when he saw the body
of newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket where the
appellant had gone a few moments before
- When asked whether the baby was hers she answered in the
affirmative
- Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno went to the appellant's house and found her
lying in bed still bleeding and declared that the appellant gave birth in
her house and in her own bed; that after giving birth she threw her
child into the thicket to kill it
o concealing her dishonor from the man, Luis Kirol because the
child was not his but of another man
o the appellant had admitted to him that she had killed her child
- prosecuting attorney and the lower court: infanticide
o giving absolute credit to Dr. Nepomuceno
- The Solicitor-General: guilty only of abandoning a minor under
subsection 2 of article 276 of the Revised Penal Code, the
abandonment having resulted in the death of the minor allegedly
abandoned
o wounds found on the body of said child caused by bites of
animals, the pigs
- Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be
committed wilfully or consciously, or at least it must be the result of a
voluntary, conscious and free act or omission.
- Luis Kirol knew about her past which occurred 3 years prior the
incident
o he knew that the appellant was pregnant and believed it was his
o appellant, therefore, had no cause to be ashamed of her
pregnancy to Kirol.

Issue:

Ruling:

- The SC acquitted her of her crime

- The act performed by the appellant in the morning in question, by
going into the thicket to answer the call of nature notwithstanding the
fact that she had fever for a long time, was perfectly lawful
o If she left the child after giving birth it was no because of
imprudence or any other reason than that she was overcome by
strong dizziness and extreme debility and happened by mere
accident, with no fault or intention on her part
 - said appellant has the fourth and seventh exempting
circumstances
o 4: Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it.
o 7: Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause

Separate Opinion:

- We cannot apply to the accused the fourth exempting circumstance

o although the lawful act of satisfying a natural physiological
necessity accidentally provoked the delivery, the delivery itself
was not an injury, but the exposure of the child at the mercy of
the elements and of the animals which caused its death.
o the child was born alive, if the accused had been aware of her
delivery and she had deliberately abandoned the child, her
accidental delivery would not exempt her from criminal liability
because then the death of said child no longer would have been
accidental
- Neither can we consider the seventh exempting circumstance
o implies knowledge of the precept of the law to be complied with
o what the law requires of the accused-appellant, with respect to
the child, is that she care for, protect and not abandon it. Had
she been aware of her delivery and of the existence of the child,
neither her debility nor her dizziness resulting from the fever not
being of such gravity as to prevent her from complying with her
duties by herself, or from asking for help, would constitute the
lawful or insuperable impediment required by law.
- Having had no knowledge of the expulsion of her fetus, the death
thereof resulting from its exposure of the rough weather and to the
cruelty of the animals cannot be imputed to the accused, because she
had neither deceitfully nor faultily committed any act or omission
punishable by law with regard to the child.

People v. Toledo (insane pero guilty)

Facts:
- trial court referred Dennis to the National Center for Mental Health
(NCMH) which concluded that he is incompetent to stand trial
o suffering from "Psychosis classified as Schizophrenia."
- trial court archived the case until such time that Dennis be deemed fit
to undergo trial
- Warden requested the trial court to order another mental examination
because his mental condition has since improved but the NCMH
reported no improvement
- RTC ordered Dennis' transfer to the Metro Manila District Jail (MMDJ) in
Taguig, after he was found to have been involved in "leftist
tendencies,"
- On April 15, 2009, the NCMH found that his mental condition has
improved and that he is fit to stand trial

- AAA 8 years old at the time and BBB 6 years old were playing near
McDonalds Restaurant and was approached by Dennis and invited
them to go with him to his house and will give them money and food
and will allow BBB to play on his computer
- Upon entering the house accused brought BBB inside a room to play
with a computer and took AAA to another room
- AAA was instructed to lie down on the bed and go to sleep then he
locked the door proceeded to undress AAA, held her hand and inserted
his penis into her vagina
- Accused threatened AAA that if she shouts, he will let his dog bite her
and BBB and told her he will kill her and BBB and they will not be able
to get·out of his house alive.
- The accused brought her inside the comfort room sat her down and
spread her legs and again inserted his fingers and penis into the
vagina of AAA
- AAA pleaded with the accused to let her and BBB go home. Accused
asked if AAA has an older sister and instructed AAA to bring him to her
so that he will allow AAA and BBB to go home
- AAA and BBB tried to run away but the door was locked. Accused gave
them P15 for the fare and instructed them to bring her older sister to
him
- Upon arriving home, AAA immediately took a bath her parents noticed
the bloodied towel used by AAA and she confessed she was raped by a
man whose name was not known to her
 - She described the man as a cripple with crutches (pilay na may
saklay)
- They reported the incident to the barangay authorities and went to
Camp Crame for medical examination
- Dr. Paul Ed Ortiz: found the injuries are compatible with recent loss of
virginity
- AAA and her father CCC boarded a jeepney coordinated with the
barangay authorities went to the said address twice, but they did not
see the accused
- On April 13, 2009, AAA and CCC, along with barangay tanods and PO3
Armando Rivera, apprehended Dennis Paul Toledo y Buriga, a cripple,
who was later identified as the perpetrator of the alleged rape.
- Charged: rape
- Defense: Dennis was insane when the alleged crime was committed
o Dr. Zarah Ezpinoza: "Based on the history, mental status
examination suffering from Schizophrenia
- Trail Court: found Dennis guilty as charged of Rape
o gave full credence to AAA's testimony
o Furthermore, AAA's testimony was corroborated by the medico-
legal findings which prove the fact of penetration
o defense was unable to prove that Dennis' schizophrenia deprived
him of the capability to reason at the time of the commission of
the crime
- CA: affirmed the RTC’s decision finding Dennis guilty as charged of
Rape
o defense failed to present "conclusive, corroborative and
convincing evidence" that Dennis was suffering from
schizophrenia immediately before or during the commission of
the crime
o intentionally lured AAA and BBB to his house and separated the
two children to accomplish his malicious purposes on AAA
o threatened AAA not to shout

Issue:

- Whether or not lower courts erred in not appreciating the defense of

insanity

Ruling:

- The SC held that Dennis is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape

 o positive testimonies of AAA, BBB, and CCC, as well as the results
of the medico-legal examination conducted on AAA which prove
beyond reasonable doubt that Dennis raped AAA when she was
still eight (8) years old
- the defense did not present Dennis himself; or anyone who may have
known him long enough to testify about his character, demeanor, or
behavior, before or immediately after the incident or prior to his arrest.
- Relied only on testimony from NCMH
o these reports pertain only to his mental state at the time of the
examinations, which were both conducted months after the
incident

Turalba v. People (carnapping)

Facts:

- Gregorio was driving his Honda CRV to buy some bread. When he
arrived, he parked his CRV ten (10) meters away across the bakery and
left the car key inside the vehicle
- when he turned around to check on his car, he noticed that his car was
already moving towards another street being driven by Oligario Turalba
- Gregorio immediately flagged down and boarded a tricycle to pursue
his car while continuously shouted, "Carnaper yan harangin ninyo yan
sasakyan, akin yan, carnaper yan harangin ninyo yan sasakyan, akin
iyan!"
- The chase ended when the car was caught on a traffic congestion.
Gregorio was able to recover his car and Turalba was later
apprehended.
- Charged: Carnapping
- Defense: he was suffering from psychosis.
o Dr Evangelista testified Oligario with psychosis ("nawawala sa
sarili") due to use of alcohol and methamphetamine
o Oligario maintained that he was suffering from psychosis,
negating his voluntariness and free wil
- Charged: Carnapping under Republic Act (RA) No. 6539
- RTC: guilty of Carnapping
o rejected Oligario's insanity defense considering that the manner
by which he perpetrated the offense suggests full consciousness
of his criminal act.
 o Dr. Evangelista's medical assessment was rendered inconclusive
and insufficient proof
- CA: Oligario Turalba y Villegas guilty of carnapping
o Dr. Evangelista only met with Oligario once and was not yet able
to identify the kind of psychosis he was afflicted with

Issue:

- Whether or not insanity should be appreciated

Ruling:

- The SC ruled that Oligario Turalba y Villegas is guilty of carnapping

- In this case, Oligario failed to establish his mental state, much less his
insanity. Aside from the testimony of Dr. Evangelista, no other witness
testified as to the mental condition of Oligario
- Oligario was charged with violation of RA No. 6539, a special law,
which is not governed by the rules of penalties under the RPC
- after a plea of insanity, the accused is tried on the issue of sanity
alone, and if found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is rendered
without any trial on the issue of guilt, because the accused had already
admitted committing the crime

People v. Sarcia (guilty but because minor minus parusa)

Facts:

- Five-year-old AAA, together with her cousin and 2 other playmates

were playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo near a mango tree
- Richard O. Sarcia alias "Nogi” appeared and and invited AAA to go with
him to the backyard of Saling Crisologo’s house which AAA agreed to
but her cousin followed them
- Appellant removed [AAA’s] shorts and underwear, ordered AAA to lie
down on her back, laid on top of her, inserted his penis into [AAA’s]
private organ, and made an up-and-down movement ("Nagdapadapa
tabi")
- AAA felt severe pain inside her private part and said "aray." And inside
her stomach
- AAA’s cousin witnessed the appellant's dastardly act and rushed to the
house of [AAA’s] mother, her aunt Emily, and told the latter what she
had seen
 - AAA’s mother answered they were still very young to be talking about
such matters
- At home AAA did not tell her mother what appellant had done due to
fear of being slapped
- Later, when her mother washed her body, she felt a grating sensation
in her private part.
- AAA called for her cousin who told AAA’s mother again that appellant
had earlier made an up-and-down movement on top of AAA
- AAA’s mother, however, did not say anything. At that time, [AAA’s]
father was working in Manila
- Dr. Joana Manatloa who conducted a physical examination on AAA
testified that there was was no showing of any scar or wound, and
there is a complete perforation of the hymen which means that it could
have been subjected to a certain trauma or pressure
- Defense: instigated rape charge to further the case of murder
o there was a four-year delay in filing the criminal case, and the
only reason why they filed the said case was "to help Salvacion
Bobier get a conviction of this same accused in a murder case
filed by said Salvacion Bobier for the death of her granddaughter
Mae Christine Camu on May 7, 2000"
o he knows [AAA’s] parents, because sometimes they go to their
house looking for his father to borrow money, he does not know
AAA herself
o AAA's parents who are related to Salvacion, concocted and
instigated AAA's rape charge against him to make the case for
Murder against him stronger
- Charged: Rape
- RTC: guilty of rape and suffer reclusion perpetua
- CA: guilty of rape and imposed death penalty
o accused-appellant cannot be deemed a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense

Issue:

- Whether or not Sarcia is entitled under RA 9344

Ruling:

- YES. When accused appellant testified on March 14, 2002, he admitted

that he was 24 years old, which means that in 1996, he was 18 years
of age
 - The SC ruled that Sarcia is guilty of rape but lowered the sentence to
reclusion perpetua
- Sec. 68 of R.A. No. 93444 provides for the automatic suspension of
sentence of a child in conflict with the law, even if he/she is already 18
years of age or more at the time he/she is found guilty of the offense
charged.
o makes no distinction as to the nature of the offense committed
by the child in conflict with the law, unlike P.D. No. 603 and A.M.
No. 02-1-18-SC.
- Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a
minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
- Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the
said child reaches the maximum age of 21.
o accused-appellant is about 31 years of age, and the judgment of
the RTC had been promulgated, even before the effectivity of
R.A. No. 9344.
- the application of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of
sentence is now moot and academic.

People v. ZZZ

Facts:

- The uncle of the victim (BBB) testified that when he was on his way to
the store to buy cigarettes, he suddenly saw ZZZ dragging the victim
by the wrists towards a school
- Days later, the cadaver of the victim was found in a bamboo grove.
- BBB said that her niece's naked body had already blackened due to
decomposition
- Autopsy showed visible signs of sexual assault and a cracked skull.
- Charged: Rape with Homicide.
- Defense: Minor
o he was 15 years old when the incident happened
o he went to his grandmother's house, where he watched
television with his brother and around 20 other people including
AAA. After watching, he and his brother, YYY, returned to their
sister's house to sleep.
- RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with
homicide.
 o According to the report of the social worker who was assigned to
ZZZ, the trial court found that he acted with discernment
- CA: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide.
o Republic Act No. 9344: Under Section 6 of the law, a child above
15 years old but below 18 years old is not exempt from criminal
liability when the child acted with discernment
o ZZZ acted with discernment when he perpetrated the crime in a
dark and isolated place, and when he evaded arrest by fleeing to
Tarlac under an alias
o ZZZ was already above 30 years old when he was convicted

Issue:

- Whether or not ZZZ acted with discernment

Ruling:

- YES. Under Sec. 6 of the RA 9344, a child above 15 years old but below
18 years old is not exempt from criminal liability when the child acted
with discernment.
- The SC convicted him of special complex crime of rape with
homicide
- In this case, accused-appellant acted with discernment in carrying out
the crime – (i) He perpetrated the crime in a dark and isolated place;
(ii) After knowing that he had been tagged as the suspect, he evaded
authorities by fleeing to Tarlac and concealing his identity; (iii) As
confirmed by the social worker assigned to him, he knew and
understood the consequences of his acts; and (iv) Dr. Bandonill
concluded that AAA was raped by means of force, as evidenced by the
contusions all over her body and by the tear from her vaginal area

CICL XXX vs. People

Facts:

- AAA allegedly saw CICL XXX 17 at the time of the commission of the
crime, hit DDD with a bucket inside a bar in Assumption, Baguio City
- The next day, BBB awakened from sleep when someone shouted
"Mama! Mama!" She woke up her husband and when they went
outside the house, AAA was lying in front of their gate, his face and
eyes bloodied
 - Her husband washed AAA's face with water and when asked what
happened , AAA told them that CICL XXX and his companion were
inside their house looking for somebody then CICL XXX struck his eyes
- On 29 October 2003, AAA complained of dizziness. As his other eye
was already popping out, and was brought and confined in the hospital
- In the evening of the same date, he was transferred to Baguio General
Hospital where Dr. Romeo Concepcion remarked that when he first met
AAA, the latter was conscious and coherent and had been blind on one
eye
o CT scan: the victim had massive cerebral contusions and
bleeding on spaces in the brain (severe brain damage)
- A few days later, AAA could no longer speak, was discharged, and after
being bed-ridden for five years, AAA died on 26 November 2008
o immediate cause of death disturbance in the brain function
which may be due to brain tissue death secondary to loss of
blood supply
- Defense: denied the allegations against him
o Drinking with his friends at a computer shop. Thereafter, he and
his friends transferred to another bar and stayed there until 4:00
in the morning of 28 October 2003. He then went home.
- Charged: Frustrated murder then F Homicide then when AAA died to
Homicide
- RTC: guilty of homicide
o identification of CICL XXX was predicated principally on the
statement uttered by AAA to his mother when the latter and her
husband found AAA wounded and lying on the ground.
o elements of the crime of homicide are present in this case.
- CA: guilty of homicide
o prosecution was able to show that AAA sustained heavy injuries
resulting from the blows delivered by CICL XXX to the head of AA
o RTC failed to appreciate the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority thus CICL XXX is entitled to the retroactive
application of Republic Act No. (RA) 9344

Issue:

- Whether or not CICL XXX should be criminally liable

Ruling:

- YES. The Court held that CICL XXX acted with discernment and thus
is guilty of Homicide
 o mauled the victim with a blunt object which is hard enough to
break a skull or shake a brain
o perpetrated the attack early in the morning at around 3:00 A.M
accompanied with by a companion and they escaped before any
witnesses could see them
o CICL XXX's attack against the victim can be considered
retaliation for testifying against him
o CICL XXX's overt acts of quitting school and returning home to
Sagada are indicative of his awareness that what he did was
wrong
o CICL XXX was a second-year Nursing student. His level of
education shows that he had the capacity to discern that
inflicting bodily harm upon AAA was wrong, and it would likely
result in his death.
- courts shall consider the totality of facts and circumstances in each
case. Further, discernment may be established by either direct or
circumstantial evidence
- social worker's assessment is merely an initial or preliminary
determination of discernment. The final discretion to determine the
existence of discernment remains vested in the courts.
o assessment of a social worker or psychologist is merely
evidentiary and is not binding upon the court

US vs. Tanedo

Facts:

- The accused was a landowner. On the morning of the 26th of January,

1909, he, with Bernardino Tagampa, Casimiro Pascual, Valeriano
Paulillo, and Juan Arellano, went to work on a malecon or dam on his
land.
- The defendant took with him a shotgun and a few shells, with the
intention to hunt wild chickens
- He went a short distance away across a stream and carried d his
shotgun with him across the stream.
- On the other side of the stream he met the deceased, who, with his
mother and uncle, had been living in a small shack. The accused asked
the uncle of the deceased where he could find a good place in which to
hunt wild chickens
 - The deceased, a young man about 20 years of age, was working at
something under a manga tree a short distance from the shack
answered and pointed out in a general way a portion of the forest near
the edge of which stood the shack
- Charged: Cecilio Tañedo with murder
- Defense:
o Feliciano Sanchez pointed out that place to me, that place where
the wild chickens where he proceeded to hunt.
o after I shot that chicken, I heard a human cry. After I saw that I
had wounded a man I went back toward the malecon, where my
companions were working, running back, and when I arrived
there, I left my shotgun behind or by a tree not far from where
my companions were working and called Bernardino Tagampa to
tell him about the occurrence
o they went to the place where the body of the deceased lay and
removed it to a place in the cogon grass where it would not be
easily observed. It is certain, however, that the body was
concealed in the cogon grass
o That evening the accused and Tagampa went together to dispose
of the body and buried it in an old well
- CFI: Homicide
o premeditation consists in that the accused had prepared his
plans to take the deceased to the forest, there to kill him, so that
no one could see it, and to bury him afterwards secretly in order
that the crime should remain unpunished."

Issue:

- Whether or not there is criminal liability

Ruling:

- NO. The SC acquitted Cecilio Tañedo. In accordance with Article 8,

paragraph 8 He who, while performing a legal act with due care,
causes some injury by mere accident without liability or intention of
causing it. In the present case there is absolutely no evidence of
negligence upon the part of the accused. Neither is there any question
that he was engaged in the commission of a lawful act when the
accident occurred. Neither is there any evidence of the intention of the
accused to cause the death of the deceased.
- there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part of the
accused. Neither is there any question that he was engaged in the
 commission of a lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is there
any evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the death of the
deceased.
- there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the killing was
accidental or intentional, the jury should acquit.

People vs. Leocadio

Facts:

- On March 26, 2002, spouses BBB227396 and CCC227396 instructed

their 12-year-old daughter, AAA227396, and her two siblings to collect
the payment of rice cakes from their neighbor, accused-appellant Milo
Leocadio (Milo).
- AAA227396 was unable to return home so BBB227396 searched for
AAA227396 the whole night but did not find her
- The following day, BBB27396 and CCC227396 reported the matter to
the police. BBB227396 then received news from the barangay officials
that they discovered AAA227396's lifeless body in the house of Milo.
Immediately, BBB227396 went to the crime scene and saw AAA227396
underneath Milo's wooden bed lying flat on her back with a cloth
wrapped around her mouth and nose, and with both hands tied and
twisted at her back.
- autopsy reported that AAA227396 died due to asphyxia by suffocation
and sustained hymenal lacerations and suffered a total of 33 injuries
and abrasions
- Defense: Accident
o Milo, asleep, accidentally woken by AAA227396, causing him to
unconsciously punch her in the chest, causing AAA227396 to fall
dead. Milo denied raping AAA227396.
- Charged: complex crime of Rape with Homicide
- RTC: guilty of Rape with Homicide
o found adequate circumstantial evidence and gave credence to
the autopsy report and the testimony of BBB227396 on the
factual circumstances before and after the commission of the
crime

Issue:
 - Whether or not the defense of accident should be appreciated

Ruling:

- NO. The exempting circumstance of "accident" is anchored on the

complete absence of intent or negligence on the part of the accused.
In other words, the accused does not commit either an intentional or
culpable felony.
- accident is an affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to
establish with clear and convincing proof
o the first element of accident requires that the act done must be
lawful. Punching the chest of the girl is still unlawful because it
amounts to physical injury
o Second, since the victim died, intent to kill becomes a general
criminal intent which is presumed.
o Assuming there was no evil intent, the hard facts indicate that
Milo acted without due care and prudence as regards the
circumstances before him. Milo’s supposed unconscious
punching of the victim amounts to a negligent act absent
evidence that he was totally deprived of his powers of
observation and mental faculties

Ty vs. People

Facts:

- Ty’s mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the Manila Doctors’

Hospital (hospital) from 30 October 1990 until 4 June 1992. Being the
patient’s daughter, Ty signed the "Acknowledgement of Responsibility
for Payment" in the Contract of Admission
o Amount of P657,182.40.
- Ty’s sister, Judy Chua, was also confined at the hospital from 13 May
1991 until 2 May 1992, incurring hospital bills in the amount of
₱418,410.55.8
- Total of P1,075,592.95.
- Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed payment of the
obligation in installments. To assure payment of the obligation, she
drew several postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the
hospital. The seven (7) checks, each covering the amount of
₱30,000.00
 - Checks all were dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to
the hospital due to insufficiency of funds, with the "Account Closed"
advice
- the complainant hospital sent demand letters to Ty by registered mail.
As the demand letters were not heeded, the complainant filed the
seven (7) Informations subject of the instant case.
- Defense: uncontrollable fear of a greater injury
o she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her
mother whom the hospital inhumanely and harshly treated and
would not discharge unless the hospital bills are paid
o her mother was deprived of room facilities and subject to
inconveniences as well as suspending medical treatment
o Ty was compelled to sign a promissory note, open an account
with Metrobank and issue the checks to affect her mother’s
immediate discharge.
- Charged: 7 nformations for violation of B.P. 22
- RTC: 7 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 (B.P. 22) or
Bouncing Checks Law
- CA: 7 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 (B.P. 22) or
Bouncing Checks Law
o issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it
was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance
o set aside the penalty of imprisonment and instead sentenced Ty
"to pay a fine of ₱60,000.00 equivalent to double the amount of
the check, in each case.

Issue:

- Whether or not there is criminal liability

Ruling:

- YES. The SC convicted her of 7 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa

Blg. 222 (B.P. 22) or Bouncing Checks Law
- the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is based on a real,
imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and mere threat of a
future injury is not enough
- A person invoking uncontrollable fear must show therefore that the
compulsion was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting
not only without will but against his will as well
- fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real and imminent but was merely
speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fear contemplated by law
 o there was no showing that the mother’s illness was so life-
threatening such that her continued stay in the hospital suffering
all its alleged unethical treatment would induce a well-grounded
apprehension of her death
- Ty has also failed to convince the Court that she was left with no choice
but to commit a crime. She did not take advantage of the many
opportunities available to her to avoid committing one.
- petitioner had sufficient knowledge that the issuance of checks without
funds may result in a violation of B.P. 22.

People vs. Labuguen

Facts:

- On 3 January 2002, while spouses Manuel Padre and Nenita Padre and
their two daughters, Rhoda and Rachel, were having dinner at their
home, five (5) men suddenly barged in, one holding a firearm and one
with a bonnet with [a] hole showing the eyes only.
- Labuguen entered first and pulled Rachel into the comfort room (CR),
together with her mother Nenita and sister Rhoda, who in turn were
pulled by Macalinao and by an unidentified man respectively.

Issue:

Ruling:

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes
an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

Elements of Accident:

- (1) offender is performing a lawful act

- (2) offender is performing a lawful act with due care
- (3) he caused an injury by mere accident
- (4) injury was caused without fault or intent on the part of the offender.

NOTE: If accident is present in the commission of a crime, there is no

criminal liability nor civil liability
US v. Tañedo (shotgun chicken)

Facts:

- Tanedo invited Feliciano Sanchez to hunt wild chickens. When they

reached the forest, Tanedo shot him with a shotgun which destroyed
the heart.
- To hide the crime, he buried the body in a well with the help of
Tagampa a laborer
o Tagampa said that he helped the accused dispose of the body
because he was afraid of him, although he admits that the
accused in no way threatened or sought to compel him to do so
- charged: murder for killing Feliciano Sanchez
- CFI: guilty of homicide

Issue:

- Whether or not Tanedo is guilty of homicide

Ruling:

- NO. The SC ruled that he accidentally killed Sanchez along with the
Chicken thus he is acquitted
- That idea is wholly negatived by the fact that the chicken and the man
were shot at the same time, there having been only one shot fired.
- In this case there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part
of the accused. Neither is there any question that he was engaged in
the commission of a lawful act when the accident occurred.

People v. Castillo (sling nail neck)

Facts:

- Isaias Castillo y Completo shot with a dart from a rubber sling, his wife
hitting her at the neck and causing her instantaneous death.
- Consorcia Antiporta Castillo died due to massive hemorrhage due to
"laceration of the jugular vein of her neck
- Accused wrote letters addressed to his mother-in-law, to his father-in-
law, and lastly, the victim's sister, speak so eloquently of someone who
accepts the fault for the early demise of the victim. Asking forgiveness
- Charged: Parricide
- RTC: guilty of parricide
- CA: guilty of parricide
Issue:

- Whether or not accident can be appreciated

Ruling:

- NO. The Court denied the petition as the mere act of playing with a
illegally possessed deadly sling and arrow is unlawful.
- Asking for forgiveness can be seen as an admission of guilt
- Guilty of Parricide

Pomoy v. People (PNP agawan baril)

Facts:

- Tomas Balboa during a routine investigation tried to remove Roweno

Pomoy’s an investigator of the PNP service weapon from his holster
and grappled for the possession of the gun until it fired
- Defense of Roweno Pomoy: Accident
- Trial Court: Guilty of homicide
- CA: Guilty of homicide

Issue:

- Whether or not lower courts erred in not appreciating the defense of

accident

Ruling:

- YES. the Supreme Court ruled that all the elements of the exempting
circumstances of accident were duly established thus he is
ACQUITTED
o (1) the accused was at the time performing a lawful act with due
care
 petitioner was a member of the PNP
o (2) the resulting injury was caused by mere accident
 The accidental firing of the gun which caused the death of
the victim was beyond the control of petitioner
o (3) on the part of the accused, there was no fault or no intent to
cause injury
 exercised all the necessary precautions to prevent his
service weapon from causing accidental harm to others
 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Elements of Irresistible Force

- (1) force must be a physical force

- (2) said physical force must be irresistible
- (3) physical force must come from a third person
 force employed by the third person on the accused must be
irresistible such that it reduced him to a mere instrument that he
acted not only without will but also against his will.

Us v. Caballeros (forced to burry)

Facts:

- American school-teachers Louis A. Thomas, Clyde O. France, John E.

Wells, and Ernest Eger were killed
- Roberto Baculi assisted in the burial of the corpses because he was
compelled to do so by the murderers of the four teachers
o corroborated by Teodoro Sabate a witness who testified that he
was present when the Americans were killed; that Roberto Baculi
was not a member of the group who killed the Americans
- Charged: Murder
- CFI: Assasination or murder

Issue:

- Whether or not there is criminal liability

Ruling:

- The Court acquit the defendants

Penal Code exempts from liability any person who performs the act by reason
of irresistible force (par. 9, art. 8). Baculi acted, doubtless, under such
circumstances when he executed the acts which are charged against him

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of

an equal or greater injury.

Elements of Uncontrollable Fear

- (1) There exists an uncontrollable fear

- (2) The fear must be real or at least imminent
 - (3) The fear of the injury must be greater than or equal to the act
committed.

NOTE: The offender does not have freedom of action – an element of

voluntariness. The said offender has no choice but to do the criminal act
which he is required to do.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when

prevented by some lawful insuperable cause

If the offender fails to perform an act required by law because of some lawful
insuperable cause, he is exempted from both criminal and civil liability

Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The following are mitigating

circumstances:

- Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites

necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant
- That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years.
In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Art. 80.
- That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed.
- That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act.
- That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave
offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
- That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation.
- That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in
authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt
before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution;
- That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some
physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communications with his fellow beings
 - Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-
power of the offender without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.
- And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous
to those above mentioned.

MODULE 7: MITIGATING CICUMSTANCES

People v. Jaurigue (Manyak murdered surrendered)

Facts:

- Amado Capiña had been courting Avelina Jaurigue in vain

- Multiple Occasions of unwanted advances
 Amado Capiña snatched a handkerchief
 while Avelina was feeding a dog Amado approached her and
spoke to her of his love which she refused then he suddenly
embraced and kissed her and touched her breast
- Because of these she armed herself with a long fan knife for self
protection
- On September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed up the house
of Avelina entered her room with the intention of abusing her
 She screamed which woke her parents and he was handed over to
the barrio lieutenant, his parents apologized
- Her father Nicolas Jaurigue and she went to the chapel to attend
religious activities
- Amado Capiña went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat
by her right side, and, placed his hand on the upper part of her right
thigh
- She took her knife and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side
of the neck
- Bario lieutenant Casimiro Lozada, who was also in the same chapel
approached her and she said "Kayo na po and bahala sa aquin,"
- The lieutenant instructed them to go home, close their doors and
windows and not to admit anybody into the house, unless
accompanied by him
 - About 10 o’clock that night three policemen arrived in their house
where se surrendered her knife and herself
- Charged: Murder
- Convicted: Homicide
 seven years, four months and one day of prision mayor to
thirteen years, nine months and eleven days of reclusion
temporal

Issue:

- Whether or not the lower court erred in not finding in her favor the
additional mitigating circumstances that (a) she did not have the
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that actually committed, and
that (b)she voluntarily surrendered to the agents of the authorities

Ruling:

- YES. The Court found her guilty of homicide but reduced the penalty
by two degrees sentencing her to prision correccional from reclusion
temporal
- no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least three
mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in
her favor; and, in accordance with the provisions of article 69 of the
Revised Penal Code, she is entitled to a reduction by one or two
degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon her
- immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to the
barrio lieutenant, agreed to go to her house, remained there subject to
the order of the said barrio lieutenant, an agent of the authorities,
should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor
- further claims that she had not intended to kill the deceased but
merely wanted to punish his offending hand with her knife, as shown
by the fact that she inflicted upon him only one single wound as
another mitigating circumstance

People v. Narvaez (Fence fired upon)

Facts:

- Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibañez, together with the two
deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of
George Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer
 - Navarez was was taking his rest when he heard the chiseling of his
house so he arose to prevent the fencing as it would prevent him form
going to his house and bodega from the highway
 he addressed the group, saying -'Pare, if possible you stop
destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over - what is
good,'
- deceased Fleischer, however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go
ahead
- Navarez lost his equilibrium and from his house using a shotgun shot
Fleischer and Rubia who was running towards the jeep parked in the
highway which had a gun
- Later revealed in a letter that the conflict originated due to dispute
over lands
- CFI: Murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance
of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender
- Defense: He did so in defense of his person and of his rights, and
therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability.

Issue:

- Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting defendantappellant

despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person and rights

Ruling:

- Navarez is guilty of 2 homicides mitigated by privileged extenuating

circumstance of incomplete self defense and 2 generic mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and obfuscation without any
aggravating circumstances
 Imprisonment of 4 months of arresto mayor
 Since he has been under detention for almost 14 years he will be
released immediately
- The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be appreciated. WE
likewise find the aggravating (qualifying) circumstance of evident
premeditation not sufficiently established
 no direct evidence of the planning or preparation to kill the
victims
 premeditation is further negated by appellant pleading with the
victims to stop the fencing and destroying his house
- appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all
the elements for justification are present.
 - There is lawful aggression on the part of the deceased
 the deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage to
appellant's house, nor to close his accessibility to the highway
while he was pleading with them to stop and talk things over with
him.
 there was an actual physical invasion of appellant's property
which he had the right to resist
- There was NO reasonable resistance
 When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing his
two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the attack.
- third element of defense of property is present, i.e., lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of appellant
 there was no provocation at all on his part, since he was asleep at
first

People v. Ulep (Police Double Tap)

Facts:

- Buenaventura Wapili was having a high fever and was heard talking
insensibly to himself in his room
- His brother-in-law, Dario Leydan, called Pastor Bonid to help him "pray
over" Wapili, but they could not enter the latter's room as he became
wild and violent.
- Wapili bolted out of his room naked and chased Leydan. Thereafter,
Leydan with the aid of two (2) of his neighbors attempted to tie Wapili
with a rope but was unsuccessful as Wapili was much bigger in built
and stronger than anyone of them
- Leydan went to the house of policewoman Norma Plando, a neighbor,
and asked for assistance.
- She contacted d SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, SPO1 Edilberto Espadera and
SPO2 Crispin Pillo who arrived at the scene on board an Anfra police
service jeep and armed with M-16 rifles, alighted from the jeep when
they saw the naked Wapili approaching them
- The police claimed he was armed with a Bolo, but relatives of the
deceased said he had no bolo, but only a rattan stool.
- SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili to put down
his weapons or they would shoot him. But Wapili retorted "pusila!"
("fire!") and continued advancing towards the police officers.
 - When Wapili was only about two (2) to three (3) meters away from
them, SPO1 Ulep shot the victim with his M-16 rifle, hitting him in
various parts of his body. As the victim slumped to the ground, SPO1
Ulep came closer and pumped another bullet into his head and literally
blew his brains out.
- Ombudsman for the Military filed an Information for murder against
SPO1 Ulep
- Defense: Initially self-defense later changed to performance of his
official duty as a police officer
- RTC: convicted Ernesto Ulep, a policeman, of the crime of murder and
to suffer the death penalty
 means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the alleged
aggression is not reasonable because the victim, Buenaventura
Wapili, was already on the ground,

Issue:

- Whether or not the defense of SPO1 Ulep be appreciated

Ruling:

- No. Guilty of Homicide not Murder and is sentenced to an

indeterminate prison term of four (4) years, two (2) months and ten
(10) days of prision correccional medium as minimum, to six (6) years,
four (4) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor minimum as
maximum
 Incomplete justification is a special or privileged mitigating
circumstance because second element of performance of a duty
or the lawful exercise of a right or office
 credit in favor of accused-appellant the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender
- NO. fulfillment of duty. There were two (2) stages of the incident
 victim threatened the safety of the police officers by menacingly
advancing towards them. his decision to respond with a barrage
of gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was justified under
the circumstances.
 Not official duty as accused-appellant, a veteran policeman,
should have ceased firing at the victim the moment he saw the
latter fall to the ground.
 No longer a threat and was already incapable of aggression
against police. Shooting him in the head was obviously
unnecessary
 - Not self-defense as the victim was lying in a prone position on the
ground — bleeding from the bullet wounds he sustained, and possibly
unconscious — when accused-appellant shot him in the head. The
aggression that was initially begun by the victim already ceased when
accused-appellant attacked him. From that moment, there was no
longer any danger to his life
- No treachery as appellant's decision to kill the victim was made in an
instant and the victim's helpless position was merely incidental to his
having been previously shot by appellant in the performance of his
official duty

Guillermo v. People (chainsaw conflict)

Facts:

- Winnie Alon, Wilfredo Cabison, Eddie Roque, and Vicente Alon were at
the public market of Cuartero, at the restaurant of Melecio Heyres to
eat
- Noel Guillermo, Arnel Socias, and Joemar Palma were at the restaurant
drinking beer
- an altercation between Arnel Socias and Winnie Alon regarding the
cutting of wood by a chain saw transpired.
- Noel Guillermo suddenly took hold of Winnie Alon and stabbed the
latter at the neck three (3) times with a Batangueño knife. Joemar
Palma went to the kitchen and got a knife. Arnel Socias hit him with a
bottle of beer by the head. He fell down and lost consciousness
- Winnie Alon resisted trying to struggle, but could not move because he
was ganged up by the three
- Defense: Sel-Defense
- Noel Guillermo together with Arnel Socias and Joemar Palma drinking
beer, consuming only about half a bottle, when Winnie Alon, Eddie
Roque, Vicente Alon, and Wilfredo Cabison arrived and ordered beer
from Babylou Felipe.
 Winnie Alon then had an altercation with Arnel Socias regarding
"labtik" (string used in marking wood to be cut)
 Winnie Alon got angry and told him "you're stupid" ("gago ka!").
Arnel responded: "If the wood is crooked and you would deviate
from line, you're stupid."
 Winnie Alon was so furious and grabbed Arnel Socias by the collar
and hit Noel with a beer bottle. He was hit at the right top of his
 head thrice. He stood up and boxed Winnie who again picked up a
bottle break it against the wall, and struck him with the broken
bottle
 He stepped back, pulled his knife, and stabbed him three (3)
times but cannot remember what part of his body was hit by his
successive stabs.
- RTC: convicting and penalizing Noel Guillermo for the crime of
homicide but acquitted Arnaldo and Joemar
 attended by a special or privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete justification, and without any aggravating or
mitigating circumstances attendant, he is imposed an
indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum
 For insufficiency of evidence, the accused Arnaldo Socias and
Joemar Palma are acquitted
- CA: convicting and penalizing the petitioner for the crime of homicide

Issue:

- Whether or not the Lower Courts erred in failing to recognize the

existence of all the elements of self-defense.

Ruling:

- The court affirmed the decisions of the Lower Courts and found Noel
Guillermo guilty of homicide with modifications.
- Since no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance intervened, the
maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be prision mayor in its
medium period whose range is from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years
- Since the petitioner's plea of self-defense lacks only the element of
"reasonable means", the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete selfdefense.
Consequently, the penalty for homicide may be lowered by one or two
degrees
- First element Present: Unlawful Aggresion
 Winnie started the fight that ended in his death; he struck the
petitioner on the head when the latter intervened to pacify the
quarrel between Winnie and Arnaldo
- reasonableness of the means to repel the aggression NOT PRESENT
 (1) there is intrinsic disproportion between a Batangas knife and a
broken beer bottle. (2) petitioner suffered only one contusion
hematoma at the parietal area above the left ear. (3) they were
 already drunk. (4) the knife wounds were all aimed at vital parts
of the body (chest, neck, abdominal area)
- Third element present: lack of sufficient provocation
 petitioner did not provoke the fight that ensued he was a third
party to the quarrel between the original protagonists — Winnie
and Arnaldo
- self-defense may be complete or incomplete. It is complete when all
the three essential requisites are present; it is incomplete when the
mandatory element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present,
plus any one of the two essential requisites self-defense may be
complete or incomplete. It is complete when all the three essential
requisites are present; it is incomplete when the mandatory element of
unlawful aggression by the victim is present, plus any one of the two
essential requisites

People v. Ural (fire, prison trippings)

Facts:

- Alberto, a former detention prisoner, decided to sleep in the municipal

building. Upon arrival, he witnessed Policeman Ural inside the jail cell
boxing the Napola
- . Napola collapsed on the floor. Thereafter, Ural stepped on Napola’s
prostrate body. Ural went out of the cell and eventually returned with a
bottle. He poured its contents on Napola's recumbent body. Thereafter,
he ignited it with a match and left the cell
- Napola screamed in agony. He shouted for help, but nobody came to
help him
- When Alberto left the municipal building, Ural warned him not to tell
what he saw. Later on, Napola died.
- Charged: Murder
- Defense: he was in the municipal jail on guard duty. He heard a scream
for help from Napola. He entered the cell and found Napola's shirt in
flames. He and the cellmates helped Napola and he did not call a
doctor as the burns were not serious
- CFI: Convicted of Murder

Issue:

- Whether or not the Trial Court erred in

Ruling:

- The Court affirmed the ruling of the Trial Court and finds Ural guilty of
Murder and gave the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the
medium period of the penalty for murder
- trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance "that the
offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed"
 appellant Ural had no intent to kill Napola. His design was only to
maltreat
- Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic
aggravating, circumstance of abuse of his official position.
- There is a rule that "an individual who unlawfully inflicts wounds upon
another person, which result in the death of the latter, is guilty of the
crime of homicide, and the fact that the injured person did not receive
proper medical attendance does not affect the criminal responsibility

People v. Gonzales (road rage)

Facts:

- On October 31, 1998, Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr. and the family of Noel
Andres almost collided at an intersection in Loyola Memorial Park,
Marikina.
 Inocencio Gonzalez was driving a white Isuzu Esteem with his
grandson and three housemaids
 Noel Andres was driving a maroon Toyota FX with his pregnant
wife Feliber Andres, his two year old son, Kenneth, his nephew
Kevin and his sister-in-law, Francar Valdez
- Inocencio Gonzalez continued to drive but was cut off by Noel Andres
and knocked on his window
- Prosec: Noel Andres calmly told the appellant to be careful with his
driving. Gonzalez allegedly replied, "Accidents are accidents, what's
your problem.”
 Andres went back to his car when he was blocked by the
appellant's son who said, "Anong problema mo sa erpat ko."
 During their shouting he heard one of his passengers said "Binaril
kami".He turned to his wife Feliber Andres and saw her bloodied
and unconscious. He turned around and saw his son Kenneth and
nephew Kevin were also wounded.
 - Defense: Andres cut the appellant's path, got out of his vehicle, stood
beside the appellant's car window, and repeatedly cursed the
appellant, "Putang ina mo, ang tanda-tanda mo na hindi ka pa
marunong magmaneho. Ang bobo-bobo mo."
 appellant stayed inside his car and allegedly replied, "Pasensiya
ka na hindi kita nakita, nasilaw ako. Aksidente lang."
 Dino, the appellant's son, who rode in another vehicle decided to
go back to the scene and confronted Andres and the two had an
altercation
 Andres suddenly reached for something inside his vehicle
 he lost his balance when his daughter intervened to stop him,
which caused the gun to discharge.
 The defense claims that the appellant did not try to flee and even
told the complainant's sister-in-law to take the wounded to the
hospital
- Charged: Murder for the death of Feliber Andres, Double Frustrated
Murder for the injuries sustained by John Kenneth Andres and Kevin
Valdez and Attempted Murder against Noel Andres
- Trial Court: guilty of the complex crime of murder and two counts of
frustrated murder and accordingly sentenced him to death
 attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery
 When he alighted with a drawn gun to protect his son and
released all the safety measures of his gun as he fired and
missed at Noel who was then unarmed, but instead hit
Kevin Valdez, John Kenneth Andres and Feliber Andres
 existence of five (5) sequences of events: (1) when Noel Andres
overtook the car driven of the accused and cut cross his path (2)
when Noel Andres alighted from his vehicle and confronted
Inocencio, (3) Noel had an argument with Dino Gonzalez, the son
of the accused, (4) Inocencio seeing his son having confrontation
with Noel, got his gun to protect Dino, (5) Inocencio had a
struggle with his daughter. Trisha Gonzalez

Issue:

- Whether or not the e trial court committed reversible error when it

failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of passion or
obfuscation, lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, provocation
or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act, incomplete defense of relative, and voluntary surrender.
Ruling:

- The crime committed for the death of Feliber Andres was deemed to be
homicide, not murder. The injuries sustained by the two children were
classified as two counts of slight physical injuries, considering the
absence of a clear intent to kill and the nature of their injuries. The
charge of attempted murder against Noel Andres was also dismissed
due to the lack of evident intent to kill.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the shooting was not attended by
treachery. The attack was not deliberate, and the evidence did not
show that Gonzalez had consciously employed a method to ensure that
the victim would have no opportunity to defend against it. Instead, the
encounter was a chance altercation that escalated due to the parties'
tempers.
 There is no evidence that the appellant deliberately employed the
means of attack to insure execution of the crime and at the same
time eliminate the risk of retaliation from the private complainant
- The mitigating circumstances pleaded by Gonzalez, such as passion
and obfuscation and voluntary surrender, were not sufficiently
established. Consequently, Gonzalez was found guilty of homicide with
corresponding penalties adjusted based on the absence of aggravating
circumstances

People v. Pagal

Facts:

- Pagal y Marcelino and Jose Torcelino y Torazo planned to take away

from the person of Guan, cash amounting to P1,281.00.
- On the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling
them to take, steal, and carry away the said amount, use personal
violence upon the Guan, by then and there stabbing him with an
icepick and clubbing him with an iron pipe on different parts of his
body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which were the direct
and immediate cause of his death thereafter
- Charged: Robbery with Homicide
 Aggravating circumstance of: (1) nighttime, (2) evident
premeditation, (3) disregard of the respect due the offended
party, (4) abuse of confidence, the accused being then employees
of the offended party.
 - Defense: sufficient provocation on the part of the victim immediately
preceding the act and acting upon an impulse so powerful as to
produce passion and obfuscation
- Court: found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime
of robbery with homicide
 aggravating circumstances of nighttime, evident premeditation
and disregard of respect due the offended party offset only by the
mitigating circumstance of their plea of guilty
 sentences each one of them to DEATH

Issue:

- Whether or not the Trial Court erred in not appreciating in their favor
the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation, and passion or
obfuscation.

Ruling:

- The Court found them guilty of Robbery with homicide but the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime is offset by the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty, the lesser penalty, which is reclusion
perpetua, should be imposed
- NO. Since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the
appellants arose from the same incident, that is, the alleged
maltreatment and/or ill treatment of the appellants by the deceased,
these two mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as two
distinct and separate circumstances but should be treated as one
- NO. the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating
in a crime which — as in the case at bar — is planned and calmly
meditated before its execution
- evident premeditation will only be aggravating in a complex crime of
robbery with homicide if it is proved that the plan is not only to rob, but
also to kill
 original plan was only to rob, and that, they killed the deceased
only when the latter refused to open the "kaha de yero", and
fought with them
- NO aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult
or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his
rank, age or sex
 Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and
not against persons
Urbano v. People (Lucky Punch)

Facts:

- victim Brigido Tomelden and Urbano were at the compound of the

Lingayen Water District (LIWAD) when they had a heated altercation
wherein Tomelden hurled insulting remarks at Urbano.
- The exchange of words led to an exchange of blows where petitioner
delivered a "lucky punch" on Tomelden's face, which made Tomelden
topple down
- Tomelden was on the verge of hitting his head on the ground had their
companions not caught him and prevented the fall. The blow, however,
caused Tomelden's nose to bleed and rendered him unconscious
- Rosario brought Tomelden to the Sison Memorial Provincial Hospital,
where the attending physician diagnosed Tomelden to be suffering
from "brain injury, secondary to mauling to consider cerebral
hemorrhage." Later on, he died
- Charged: Homicide
- RTC: found petitioner Rodel Urbano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Homicide
 Found no qualifying circumstance to increase or lower the penalty.
- CA: found petitioner Rodel Urbano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Homicide with modifications awarding moral damages to
the heirs of Tomelden
 the lucky punch as the proximate cause of Tomelden's
hospitalization and ultimately his death

Issue:

- Whether or not sufficient provocation on the part of the victim and lack
of intent to commit so grave a wrong should be appreciated

Ruling:

- YES. The mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part

of the victim and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong are
present.
- When the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating
circumstance or as an essential element of self-defense, the reference
is to an unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of
exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. It is not enough that the
 provocative act be unreasonable or annoying, the provocation must be
sufficient to excite one to commit the wrongful act and should
immediately precede the act.
 third requisite of self-defense is present: (i) when no provocation
at all was given to the aggressor; (ii) when, even if provocation
was given, it was not sufficient; (iii) when, even if the provocation
was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself;
and (iv) when even if a provocation was given by the person
defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act
of aggression.
- In the instant case, Tomelden’s insulting remarks directed at Urbano
and uttered immediately before the fist fight constituted sufficient
provocation.
- the mitigating circumstance that Urbano had no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed should also be appreciated in his
favor
 Considering that Urbano tried to avoid the fight, being very much
smaller than Tomelden. He tried to parry the blows of Tomelden,
albeit he was able, during the scuffle, to connect a “lucky punch”
that ended the fight

People v. Benito (Pikon assassination)

Facts:

- victim Pedro Moncayo, Jr Acting Chief of the Administrative Division of

the Civil Service Commissionwhile driving his car on P. Paredes street
was followed by Alberto Benito Y Restubog, and when the car was
about to turn he accused shot him eight times with a .22 caliber
revolver, causing the victim's death
- immediately after the shooting, the accused having all the opportunity
to escape, did not do so but instead called up the Manila Police
Department.
 when brought to the police station confided to the investigators
that he was "voluntarily surrendering" and "also surrendering the
fatal gun used in the shooting of the victim"
- Charged/Filed: Murder
 - Initially pleaded not guilty but changed it to guilty providing mitigating
circumstances
- Defense: (1) voluntary surrender, (2) immediate vindication of a grave
offense, and (3) sufficient provocation or threat
- Circuit Criminal Court of Manila: Guilty of Murder and sentenced the
accused to death
 qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstances of
evident premeditation and disregard of the respect due to the
offended party on account of his rank, offset by the mitigating
circumstance of accused's plea of guilty

Issue:

Ruling:

- The SC ruled that Alberto Benito Y Restubog is guilty of Murder Only

entitled to mitigating circumstances of (1) plea of guilty and (2)
voluntary surrender but are offset by the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and disregard of
respect/rank
 The penalty of death imposed by the trial court is hereby modified
and reduced, as above indicated, to reclusion perpetua with
accessories of the law
- NO. criminal act of murder was committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense. The supposed grave offense done by
the victim was an alleged remark made in the presence of the accused,
that the Civil Service Commission is a hangout of thieves.
 cannot be considered a grave offense against the latter. The
remark itself was general in nature and not specifically directed to
the accused
 The juridical reason for appreciating this mitigating circumstance
is the implied recognition by the law of the weakness of human
nature such that an ordinary human being if sufficiently provoked
would immediately retaliate in the unchristian spirit of vindictive
retribution
- NO. sufficient provocation or threat. "Umalis ka na nga diyan baka
may mangyari pa sa iyo at baka ipayari kita dito"
 The provocation or threat, did not immediately precede the
shooting
  It was not accompanied by any overt act against accused and
nothing more happened during that night (24 hours before the
crime was committed)
- Yes. aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank
 accused was a clerk in the Civil Service Commission and the
victim was Assistant Chief of the Personnel Transaction of that
Office.
 accused made it very obvious that he recognized the deceased as
his superior officer
- YES Voluntary surrender: immediately after the shooting, the
accused having all the opportunity to escape, did not do so but instead
called up the Manila Police Department.
 when brought to the police station confided to the investigators
that he was "voluntarily surrendering" and "also surrendering the
fatal gun used in the shooting of the victim"

Bacabac v. People (Bullies inabangan)

Facts:

- Hernani Quidato (the victim) with Eduardo and Melchor and so was
Jonathan and Edzel
- Jonathan and Edzel left the dance hall. Not long after, the victim and
his companions also left and on their way home, they encountered
Jonathan and Edzel and the two groups had a misunderstanding
- Jesus who was also in the dance hall saw Melchor “hugging” Edzel and
“tying” Jonathan "with his hands". He also saw Hernani Quidato hit
Edzel with a "stick.
- Jesus told Hernani and his group that Edzel is the son of Councilor Jose
but he was told to go away for they might shoot him
- Jesus left and went to Edzel’s father, while Edzel and Jonathan
managed to flee
- Ricardo Bacabac (petitioner/uncle) and Councilor Jose were carrying M-
16 armalites, while Jonathan was carrying a stick, and Edzel a revolver
went to the corner of M.H. del Pilar where the culprits would pass by
and waited for the advent of the culprits
- Jesus pointed out the group of the victim as the one who manhandled
the 2 earlier
- The victim apologized, explaining that he and his companions mistook
Jonathan and Edzel for other persons
 - Jesus said “You are just bragging that you are brave. You are only
bullying small children."
- Ricardo fired his M16 into the air, while Jose fired his Armalite at the
victim and Eduardo even hitting Jonathan in the thigh
- Eduardo fell while Hernani in a kneeling position raising his hands in a
surrender was shot again
- Eduardo and Hernani was brought to the hospital but Hernani was DOA
while Eduardo died 2 hours later
- Charged: Two Informations for Murder against Jose, Edzel, Jonathan,
Jesus, and Ricardo
- RTC: convicted them of murder qualified by treachery
 no aggravating circumstances with one mitigating circumstance
(immediate vindication for Jose and Jesus; voluntary surrender for
Pat. Ricardo Bacabac)
 Edzel Talanquines and Jonathan Bacabac who are entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and the ordinary
mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave
offense
- CA: affirmed the trial court's decision.

Issue:

- Whether or not Ricardo should be credited with the mitigating

circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense, in the same
manner that the other Accused were so credited

Ruling:

- NO. Article 13, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, "committed in

the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing
the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degree." Is not present
 The offense committed on Edzel was "hitting" his ear with a stick
and cannot be classified as "grave offense".
 Edzel is petitioner's nephew, hence, not a relative by affinity
"within the same degree" contemplated in Article 13, paragraph 5
of the Revised Penal Code.
- There was conspiracy: determined by their intent, weapons used

US v. Hicks (soldier selos)

Facts:

- Augustus Hicks, an Afro-American, and Agustinal Sola, a Christian Moro

woman, illicitly lived together
- Trouble arose between them and Agustina separated from him went to
live with her brother-in-law, Lues Corrales
- A few days later she contracted new relations with another negro
named Wallace Current, a corporal in the Army who then went to live
with her in the said house
- On the 21st of December Augustus Hicks together with a soldier
named Lloyd Nickens called at said house to his old mistress
- the corporal appeared at the door of the room, and after a short
conversation, Current approached Hicks and they shook hands
- Hicks asked "Did I not tell you to leave this woman alone?," to which
Current replied: "That is all right, she told me that she did not want to
live with you any longer, but if she wishes, she may quit me, and you
can live with her." The accused then replied: "God damn, I have made
up my mind;"
- Hicks drew his revolver and fired at Agustina Sola who was close by in
the sala of the house. The bullet struck her in the left side of the
breast; she fell to the ground, and died in a little more than an hour
later.
- Corporal Current saw that Hicks, was drawing a revolver from his
trousers' pocket, he caught him by the hand, but the latter, snatching
his hand roughly away, said: "Don't do that," whereupon Current
jumped into the room, hiding himself behind the partition
- Upon hearing the shot t Edward Robinson went to render assistance
and wrested the weapon from the hand of the accused.
- Hicks fled and gave himself up to the chief of police asking him to lock
him up in jail
- Charged: Murder
- CFI: Guilty of Murder and sentenced to death
- Defense: Accident
 when he withdrew his hand from that of Current he fell backward
and when he got up again the said corporal threatened him with a
revolver thrust into his face; whereupon he also drew his revolver,
just as Edward Robinson caught him from behind, when his
revolver went off, the bullet striking the deceased

Issue:
Ruling:

- NO Accident. the shot that struck the deceased in the breast and
caused her death was not due to an accident but to a willful and
premeditated act on the part of the aggressor with intent to deprive
the victim of her life. There was premeditation
 Hicks asked leave from the former to be absent from the canteen
where he was working on the morning of the day
 Whited while drinking gin with Hicks saw the revolver, the
instrument of the crime, was lying on the table on which were
also several loaded cartridges, heard the accused repeatedly say
that her time had come, adding that he would rather see her
dead than in the arms of another man

US v. Dela Cruz

Facts:

- the convict, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who had
theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover) upon discovering her
in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance

Issue:

- Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation

is present

Ruling:

- YES. the impulse upon which defendant acted and which naturally
"produced passion and obfuscation" was not that the woman declined
to have illicit relations with him, but the sudden revelation that she
was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of
another
- As said by the supreme court of Spain n, this was a "sufficient impulse"
in the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the passion and
obfuscation which the law declares to be one of the extenuating
circumstances to be taken into consideration by the court.

People v. Gelaver (iniwan para sa kabit)

Facts:
 - Eduardo Galaver and his wife Victoria were seen having a heated
argument, thereafter, he held the neck of the victim, dragged her and
with a knife on his right hand, stabbed the latter three times on the
breast
- he was married to Victoria Pacinabao, with whom he begot four
children and lived together until when she abandoned her family to live
with her paramour
- he was informed by his daughter that his wife and paramour were
living at a house in front of the Sto. Niño Catholic Church, appellant
immediately repaired to that place
- he saw his wife lying on her back and her paramour on top of her,
having sexual intercourse
- Her paramour immediately stood up, took a knife placed on top of the
bedside table and attacked appellant The latter was able to wrest
possession of the knife and then used it against the paramour, who
evaded the thrusts of the appellant by hiding behind the victim. Thus,
it was the victim who received the stab intended for the paramour.
- Defense: passion and obfuscation
 admitted killing his wife but claimed that he did so after catching
her having carnal act with her paramour
- RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide

Issue:

- Whether or not passion and obfuscation can be appreciated

Ruling:

- NO. The Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court with modification
- it is necessary to establish the existence of an unlawful act sufficient to
produce such a condition of mind. The crime was committed almost a
year after the victim had abandoned the conjugal dwelling.
 several contradictions in appellant's testimony. Appellant claimed
that he chased the paramour but was unable to overtake him and
at the same time, he testified that the paramour stayed in the
room and used the victim as a shield against appellant's attack
with the knife. Appellant also claimed that upon entering the gate
of the fence, he saw his wife and her paramour having carnal act
and at the same breath, he testified that he saw his wife and her
paramour only when he opened the main door of the house
- The trial court was correct in finding the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities. Appellant,
 immediately after committing the offense, voluntarily placed himself at
the disposal of the police authorities as evidenced

People v. Bello

Facts:

- accused Guillermo Bello took a young peasant lady named Alicia

Cervantes, about 24 years old, as his common-law wife and lived
together in blissful harmony as man and wife having no child,
- on May 15, 1958, the accused who had no means of substantial
livelihood except that of making "kaingin" and who apparently was
then in financial straits induced Alicia Cervantes to accent an
employment as entertainer in a bar and restaurant establishment
known as Maring's Place
- the accused being infatuated with his young bride used to watch her
movements in Maring's Place everyday
- on May 15 he saw Alicia enter the Gumaca theater in Gumaca with a
man whom the accused found later was caressing his common-law
wife inside the movie house
- on May 20, 1958 the accused went to Maring's Place to ask for some
money from Alicia but the owner told him to forget Alicia completely
because he was already an old man
- having failed to obtain financial assistance from his paramour he left to
go home
- on his way home he met the brothers Justo Marasigan and Luis
Marasigan who greeted the accused, Luis saying to his brother Justo
the following: 'So this is the man whose wife is being used by Maring
for white slave trade'
- these remarks of Luis Marasigan naturally brought grief to the accused,
to drown which he sought Paty's place in Gumaca where he drank 5
glasses of tuba
- he went to Realistic Studio which is in front of Maring's Place and from
there watched the movements of Alicia
- about 9:00 o'clock that night he entered Maring's Place and without
much ado held Alicia from behind with his left hand in the manner of a
boa strangulating its prey and with his right hand stabbed Alicia
several times with a balisong
- He fled and surrendered himself to the police of Gumaca
 - Charges filed: Murder with four (4) aggravating circumstances, namely:
treachery, evident premeditation, night-time, and superior strength
- CFI: Guillermo Bello guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder with four (4) aggravating circumstances, namely: treachery,
evident premeditation, night-time, and superior strength and
sentences him to DIE by electrocution

Issue:

- Whether passion and obfuscation can be appreciated

Ruling:

- YES. The Supreme Court ruled that Guillermo Bello is only guilty of
Homicide attended by two (2) mitigating circumstances: (a) passion
and obfuscation, and (b) voluntary surrender
 Refusal to leave her job and renew her liaison with the accused
 Her loose conduct was forcibly driven home to the accused by
Marasigan's remark on the very day of the crime that the accused
was the husband "whose wife was being used by Maring for
purposes of prostitution", a remark that so deeply wounded the
appellant's feelings
- Since the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, which could have
qualified the crime as murder, were not present, and since the generic
aggravating circumstances of night-time and abuse of confidence and
obvious ungratefulness have not been established, the accused can
only be liable for homicide
- No. Treachery
- No premeditation
 carrying a balisong with him for a long time as a precaution
against drunkards and without any present plan or intent to use it
against his common-law wife
- No superior strength
 The physique of the aggressor ought also to be considered, he
was old and baldado (invalid), while Alicia was in the prime of her
youth, and not infirm
- crime was committed at night-time, but the accused did not seek or
take advantage of it the better to accomplish his purpose
 Maring's Place was bright and well-lighted; hence, the
circumstance did not aggravate the crime
People v. Amaguin (brothers surrender)

Facts:

- in the afternoon of 24 May 1977, he and his brothers Diosdado and

Danilo, brother-in-law Rafael Candelaria, an first cousin Sergio were
invited by their eldest brother Pacifico o to the latter's house for a
small gathering to celebrate the town fiesta
- after partaking of the meager preparations put together by Pacifico, he
(Hernando) and his companions decided to leave
- On their way, Pacifico was called by accused Celso Amaguin: "Pare,
come her." But Pacifico answered: "Pare, not yet because I have to
conduct my guests first."
- Celso, with a butcher's knife in hand, rushed towards Pacifico and
Celso's younger brother, with a knife tucked to his waist, followed with
a slingshot known as "Indian pana" or "Indian target" while Willie
appeared later with a handgun, shooting Pacifico, Diosdado, and Danilo
Oro.
- Diosdado, own kneeling, gasping for breath and pleading for his life,
was again shot by Willie who next fired anew at Pacifico. Meanwhile,
Gildo and Celso repeatedly stabbed Pacifico who already lying
prostrate and defenseless
- Defense: Oro brothers instigated the fight and that the Amaguin
brothers acted in self-defense
 a companion of Pacifico came forward, held Celso by the shoulder
and said: "This is the bravest man in Divinagracia Street, the
Amaguin." Meanwhile, another companion of Pacifico gave Celso
a flying kick that sent him reeling
- Charged: murder of the Oro brothers Pacifico and Diosdado
- CFI: accused Gildo Amaguin, also known as "Tigib," guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and sentenced (him) to
Reclusion Perpetua

Issue:

- Whether or not the killings were properly qualified as murder due to

the presence of treachery, and whether mitigating or aggravating
circumstances should affect the penalty.

Ruling:
 - WILLIE AMAGUIN is found guilty of HOMICIDE
- GILDO AMAGUIN is found guilty of two (2) separate crimes of HOMICIDE
- YES. Voluntary surrender
 voluntary surrender should be appreciated in their favor. While it
may have taken both Willie and Gildo a week before turning
themselves in, the fact is, they voluntarily surrendered to the
police authorities before arrest could be effected
- For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance, the following elements must be present: (a) the offender
has not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to
a person in authority; and, (c) the surrender must be voluntary
- The killing of Pacifico and Diosdado cannot be qualified by treachery.
 aggressors did not employ means tending directly and specially
to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves
arising from the defense which the offended parties might take.
- YES. Conspiracy
 Celso and Gildo simultaneously assaulted the Oro brothers. it is
evident that Gildo and Celso acted in unison and cooperated with
each other toward the accomplishment of a common felonious
objective.
 it was error to rule that accused Willie was an accomplice to his
brothers. There being no sufficient evidence to link him to the
conspiracy,

People v. Dela Cruz (umamin sa huli)

Facts:

- accused Francisco de la Cruz, Fernando Legaspi and three other

persons s whose identities are still unknown with fists on the face and
other parts of the body assault Yu Wan and afterwards stole Twenty-six
(P26) pesos in cash
- Charged: Robbery
- During the trial and after two witnesses for the prosecution had
testified, the accused withdrew for the prosecution had testified, the
accused withdrew their plea of not guilty, substituting it by that of
guilty

Issue:

- Whether or not admission of guilt can be appreciated

Ruling:

- NO. eliminating the additional penalty by reason of habitual

delinquency, considering the presence of an aggravating circumstance
in the commission of the crime without any mitigating circumstance,
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant is
sentenced to the penalty of from six months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to six years, ten months and one day of prision mayor, as
maximum, affirming the appealed sentence in all other respects, with
the costs
- NO to admission of guilt
 requires that this plea be spontaneous and that it be made prior
to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution
 an act of repentance and respect for the law, it indicates a moral
disposition in the accused favorable to his reform
 benefits are not deserved by the accused who submits to the law
only after the presentation of some evidence for the prosecution,
believing that in the end the trial will result in his conviction by
virtue thereof.
- No to habitual
 allegations of the information with respect to the appellant
Francisco de la Cruz are not sufficient to consider him a habitual
delinquent However, the facts alleged in this respect constitute
the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

Canta v. People (cow)

Facts:

- Narciso Gabriel acquired from his half-sister Erlinda Monter a cow

which remained under the care of Erlinda Monter for some time
- Narciso gave the care and custody of the animal, first, to Generoso
then to Maria Tura and lastly, to Gardenio Agapay when it was lost
 Agapay took the cow to graze in the mountain of Pilipogan in
Barangay Candatag, about 40 meters however when he came
back Agapay found the cow gone
- He found hoof prints which led to the house of Filomeno Vallejos. He
was told that petitioner Exuperancio Canta had taken the animal to the
house of his father
 - On the other hand, petitioner claimed he acquired the animal under an
agreement which he had with Pat. Diosdado Villanueva, that petitioner
take care of a female cow of Pat. Villanueva in consideration for which
petitioner would get a calf if the cow
 cow in question was his share
- Defense: Good faith believing it was his
 claimed that it was his and that it was lost on December 3, 1985.
He presented two certificates of ownership
 brought the mother cow to Pilipogan to see if the cow in question
would suckle to the mother cow, thus proving his ownership of it
 compared the cowlicks of the subject cow to that indicated in the
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle
 immediately turned over the cow to the barangay captain, after
taking it, and later to the police authorities, after a dispute arose
as to its ownership
- RTC: guilty of violation of P.D. No. 533, otherwise known as the Anti-
Cattle Rustling Law of 1974
 taking of the cow by the accused was done with strategy and
stealth considering that it was made at the time when Gardenio
Agapay was at his shelter-hut
- CA: affirmed the decision

Issue:

- Whether or not voluntary surrender should be appreciated

Ruling:

- The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and suffer a
prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional
maximum, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor maximum, as maximum.
- accused-appellant should be given the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender
 (1) the offender has not actually been arrested - Exuperancio
Canta had not actually been arrested. In fact, no complaint had
yet been filed against him when he surrendered the cow to the
authorities
 (2) the offender surrenders to a person in authority or to the
latter's agent voluntarily took the cow to the municipal hall and
unconditionally in the custody of the authorities
 (3) surrender is voluntary
 - All elements of P.D. No. 533 is present
 (1) large cattle is taken - no question that the cow belongs to
Narciso Gabriel, (2) it belongs to another, (3) taking is done
without the consent of the owner, (4) the taking is done by any
means, methods or scheme; (5) the taking is with or without
intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without
violence or intimidation against person or force upon things

MODULE 8: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

People v. Legaspi (Babalu face)

Facts
- On Feb 11, 1997 Honorata Ong was sleeping when she was awakened by a man who had
his pants and brief down and pointing a knife at her daughter
- Them instructed her to lie down, he removed her panties, and had sex with her and after
asked for money
- The man threatened to kill her and her daughters with death is she reported the incident
- Honorata told her SIL who exclaimed that she knew a person fitting the description
 Babalu face and Mole
- That afternoon Honorata and her husband went to the brgy capt. Who with 2 tanods
managed to grab a person fitting the description and upon bringing to the brgy hall was
identified as Edgar Legaspi y Libao
- NBI medical exam = no evident signs of extra-genital physical injuries
- Defense: Alibi (home sleeping)/Insanity
 he had been previously convicted of homicide and Roberto Eugenio the victim
lived at the same address as Horata (conspired to get rid of him)
 confinement at the National Center for Mental Health prior to the incident in
question
- Charged: rape and robbery
- Trial Court: GUILTY of of RAPE aggravated by dwelling and nighttime, and of
ROBERRY aggravated by dwelling and sentence to DEATH
 Alibi is weak, unrealiable, easily fabricated
 No proof of insanity only that he had been confined (discharged from the Center
prior to the incident.)
Issue
 - Whether or not the Trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime and dwelling in the case of rape even though it was not alleged although
proved
Ruling
- For the crime of RAPE Edgar Legaspi is GUILTY with MODIFICATION (lower instead
of death) penalty of reclusion perpetua
- Justice Melo in En Banc case on June 20, 2000 “aggravating circumstance cannot be used
to increase the penalty if it was not alleged even if proved”
- aggravating circumstances to be expressly and specifically alleged in the Complaint or
Information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proved during
the trial.

People v. Capalac (revenge for brother)

Facts
- Moises Capalac was stabbed by Jimmy Mag-aso
- His brothers, Mario and Jesus Capalac along with companions in revenge hunted Jimmy
in a cockpit
- Jimmy attempted to board a jeep but was unsuccessful as he was alighted by 2 shots fired
- Jimmy raised his hand in surrender but was pistol-whipped by Mario and once fallen was
stabbed by Jesus on the chest 3-4 times
- Trial Court: convicted of MURDER with evident premeditation and treachery with the
accused taking advantage of his position as a police officer and employing means which
added ignominy to the natural effects of his fact and sentenced to the death penalty
-

Issue
- Whether or not the Lower court erred in appreciating aggravating circumstances to his
disadvantage (PARTIALLY YES)
Ruling
- Guilty of Murder with qualifying circumstance of treachery being present (assisted by 3
others/victim’s hands were raised in surrender) no longer death
- NOT PROVED: evident premeditation, add ignominy to the natural effects of the act, and
taking advantage of his official position
 No Evident premeditation: no planning, what is required s that the offense was "the
result of cool and serene reflection."
  No added ignominy: They did what they felt they had to do to redress a grievance.
It cannot be said, therefore, that they deliberately employed means to add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act. It is quite apparent that all they were
interested in was to assure that there be retribution for what was done to their
brother
 No public position: He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had his pistol with
him. It came in handy, and he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman is of no
relevance in assessing his criminal responsibility.

People v. Gapasin (Soldiers tanim baril)

Facts
- accused CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO
SORIANO,AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, and
NICK SALUDARES attack and shoot Jerry Calpito, with an Armalite rifle duly
issued to the accused PC soldier and later step and kick (sic) the victim several
times
- According to prosecution witness Alberto Carrido he and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of
Enteng Teppang after attending a pamisa and While they were walking along the
barangay road, Calpito was shot by appellant with an armalite rifle
- Thereafter, accused Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand of
Calpito
- Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito ran to succor her fallen husband
- Accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina while accused Soriano fired his
gun upwards. Saludares warned that he would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito who
would come near him. Faustina and the other relatives of the victim scampered away as
the Saludares' group chased them
- Defense: Self Defense
 issued a mission order to investigate a report regarding the presence of unidentified
armed men
 witnesses were all relatives
- aggravating circumstances of (1) ignominy, the accused having stepped and kicked the
body of the deceased; (2) abuse of superior strength, and (3) taking advantage of public
position, with respect to the accused CIC Loreto Gapasin who is a PC soldier"
- RTC: MURDER qualified by treachery, with the attendance of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, and the aggravating circumstances of taking
advantage of public position and evident premeditation
Issue
 - Whether or not aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position can be
appreciated
Ruling
- YES. Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an
armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission order

People v. Tiongson (escapee no aggravating)

Facts
- accused Rudy Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail with George de la Cruz and
Rolando Santiago,
- While escaping Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police force
who was guarding the said accused, and PC Constable Aurelio Canela who pursued them
- Charged: Murder in 2 separate informations qualified by the circumstance of treachery,
and aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with
insult to the public authorities and with abuse of superior strength
Issue
- Whether or not aggravating circumstances can be appreciated

Ruling
- Rudy Tiongson is only guilty of HOMICIDE
- NO treachery: PC Constable Canela had been sufficiently forewarned of the presence of
the appellant in the vicinity and that he was not completely deprived of an opportunity to
prepare and repel or avoid the aggression, treachery cannot be appreciated
- NO Evident Premeditation: only ten minutes since escaping, here was no lapse of time
during which he could have deliberately planned the killing
- NO Insult to the public authorities: Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are
not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority
- NO uninhabited place: place was intentionally sought by the accused to facilitate the
commission of the crime
 In order that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime in an
uninhabited place may be considered, it is necessary that the place of occurrence
be where there are no houses at all, a considerable distance from the village or
town, or where the houses are a great distance apart
  Only 700 meters away from the Municipal Building of Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro
- NO superior strength: accused was then a detainee and was unarmed while Pat. Gelera
had his service pistol with him & accused was alone against three armed pursuers

People v. Magdueño (Paid Killer for Fiscal)

Facts
- Fiscal upon seating on the driver side seat of his jeep was shot 2 times by later identified
Hermogenes Magdueño with an unlicensed 9mm pistol
 Identified by 3 witnesses
- Magdueño confessed hat he killed Fiscal Dilig for a price or reward and implicated
Leonardo Senas and Mauricio de Leon to the commission of the crime
 Dropped for lack of prima facie evidence
- RTC: guilty of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and aggravated
by price or reward and by the crime being committed in contempt of/or with insult to
public authority suffer death
Issue
Ruling
- The Court Affirmed the decision of the lower court
- YES Treachery: appellant fired two successive shots at the defenseless Fiscal Dilig
while the latter was still seated in his jeep (Adopted means and ways of committing the
crime and insured its execution without risk to himself arising from any defense Fiscal
Dilig might make)
- YES Price or Reward: appellant is shown by the records as a heartless contract killer.
Upon being paid for a job, he had no compunctions about traveling all the way to
Palawan from Manila, stalking and liquidating an unwary victim whose only fault was to
perform his duties faithfully
 Prosec witness: Magdueño AKA Mande" was a leader of the Sputnik Gang and
was known as a TIRADOR
- NO insult to public authority: Fiscal Dilig, the public authority involved in the crime,
was the victim
 crime was committed in the presence of the public authority but also that the crime
was not committed against the public authority himself.

People v. Tac-an (classmates gang gang)

Facts
- Renato Tac-an then 18 years and 7 months old and Francis Ernest Escaño III was 15
years old were classmates and members of the same bronx gang
- Francies withdrew from the gang on the advice of her mom who noticed Renato had a
gun
- Renato and Francis’ relationship turned sour resulting in a fight wherein Francis lifted
Arnold a friend of Renato of the ground
- Francis learned that Renato and the Bronx gang was looking for him to beat him up
- when a graffiti appeared calling Renato and the gang “bayot” which they suspected
Francis of doing
- On December 14 Renato entered the room and placed his scrapbook on his chair while
asking a question when he returned he saw Francis sitting on it prompting Renato to kick
the chair almost causing a fist fight
- While class was sill ongoing Renato slipped out of the classroom and went home to get a
gun and was shouting “where’s Francis”
- Renato proceeded to fire and on the 4th time hit Francis in the head. Renato left the room
but later returned when he learned Francis was still alive and aimed the gun on the chest
of Francis and fired once more
- Renato proceeded to the faculty room and took the teachers hostage and reloaded his gun
- After he was surrounded he was convinced by his brother to surrender and the gun a
SMITH & WESSON Airweight caliber .38 revolver with 5 live ammo was taken
- Defense: Self-Defense/incomplete self defense
 Francis had told him to get his gun and he will get his and if he doesn’t francis will
go to his house and kill him and his family
- RTC: Qualified illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition and MURDER and
imposing the death penalty
 With aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and of having acted with
contempt of or insult to the public authorities and pecial aggravating circumstances
of acting while under the influence of dangerous drugs and with the use of an
unlicensed firearm
Issue
- Whether or not aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and of having acted
with contempt of or insult to the public authorities as well as special aggravating
circumstances of acting while under the influence of dangerous drugs and with the use of
an unlicensed firearm can be appriciated
Ruling
- The Court modified the decision of the Trial Court
 - NO Evident Premeditation: barely fifteen (15) minutes had elapsed from the time
Renato left his English III class and the time he returned with a gun
 In order that evident premeditation may be taken into account, there must be proof
of (a) the time when the offender formed his intent to commit the crime; (b) an
action manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination to
commit the crime; and (c) of the passage of a sufficient interval of time between
the determination of the offender to commit the crime and the actual execution
thereof, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
- No contempt of or with insult to the public authorities: a teacher or professor of a
public or recognized private school may be regarded as a "public authority" within the
meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code
- NO Under influence of Drugs: absence of competent medical or other direct evidence of
ingestion of a dangerous drug
- NO use of an unlicensed firearm. There is no law which renders the use of an
unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in homicide or murder. The essential
point is that the unlicensed character or condition of the instrument used in destroying
human life or committing some other clime, is not included in the inventory of
aggravating circumstances set out in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code
- YES Treachery: The attack upon Francis had been carried out in a manner which
disabled Francis from defending himself or retaliating against Renato. Finally, the
circumstance that Renato, having been informed that Francis was still alive, re-entered
Room 15 and fired again at Francis who lay on the floor
 No warning shots just bad aim
- NO voluntarily surrender: (1) Renato surrendered his gun, not himself, (2) surrendered
the gun to his brother, who was not in any case a person in authority, (3) did not surrender
himself: he was arrested

People v. Diaz (Diaz brothers bardog)

Facts
- Remegia Carasos (14) and her cousin Anita Pacaira (11) were gathering camotes when
Francisco Diaz (24 unmarried) embraced Remegia from behind and held her breast
- Remegia asked for help and Anita with the a bolo, struck Francisco on the head and
hands resulting in juries which were later treated
- The 2 girls went to the house of Tadia their grandfather and reported the incident to the
brgy lieutenant
- The following day Tadia with his granddaughters were ascending a hill when Francisco
and Gerardo Diaz (21) appeared on the crest of the hill
 - Gerardo fired shot Tadia with a “bardog” a locally made shotgun causing Tadia to roll
down the lower part of the cliff
- Gerardo told his brother: "Go ahead, Francisco, stab that fellow". Francisco armed with
an itak repeatedly stabbed him in different parts of his body
- Remegia ran home and told her father and the people of the brgy what happened while
Anita hid in the bushes where she saw Gerardo hiding the bardog on a moss-covered
stone
- Gerardo went home while Francisco surrendered to the authorities
- On September 6, 1963 Gerardo Diaz who did not resist and was physically healthy was
arrested in Barrio Perito by Policemen
- Charged: MURDER
- Defense: Self-Defense
 When he refused Tania’s request for a pig the latter allegedly hacked Francisco
with his bolo where he retreated but was cornered thus "he pulled the trigger of"
his shotgun, causing Tadia "to release his bolo". He picked it up and repeatedly
stabbed Tadia
- CFI: MURDER
 Positive identification, manufactured alibi.
- Defense: Self-Defense

Issue
- Whether or no treachery and evident premeditation should qualify the killing as murder

Ruling
- Francisco = MURDER but sentenced to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties
- Gerardo = MURDER but no generic aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be
considered in his case, he was properly sentenced by the trial court to reclusion perpetua
- YES treachery: brothers made a deliberate surprise or unexpected assault on Tadia. They
literally ambushed him. appellants resorted to means of execution which directly and
specially insured the killing without any risk to themselves
 YES abuse of superiority: Two armed young men unexpectedly assaulted an
unarmed sexagenarian (merged with treachery)
- YES evident premeditation: FOR FRANCISCO
 there was a sufficient interval of time, more than one-half day, within which
Francisco had full opportunity for meditation and reflection and to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will
- NO evident premeditation: FOR GERARDO
 he participated in the assault in order to help his elder brother who exercised some
moral ascendancy over him
People v. Arizobal (Baguio renter dwelling)
Facts
- Margarita Paleng was a first-year high school student temporarily boarding at a house in
Baguio City
- "On September 20, 1965 Margarita was waiting inside a bus because it was raining when
Amado Daniel alias "Amado Ato” started molesting her by inquiring her name and
getting hold of her bag when she called for the driver and the conductor they did not help
as it seems they were scared of Amado
- Margarita left and boarded a jeep but she was followed by the accused
- When she got to her boarding house Amado rushed in and closed the door behind him
- He pulled out a dagger (8inch) and threatened her “'If you will talk, I will kill you' he
proceeded to instruct her to lie down in the bed and covered her mouth with a
handkerchief
- She attempted to escape but was unsuccessful because she was only 4’8 and weighed 90-
100 pounds while the accused was 5’7 and 126 pounds
- He succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Margarita who lost consciousness. When
she recovered, he was already gone
- The next day she confided with her father when he came to visit of what happened and
they went to Baguio General Hospital where she was examined
- DR. Micu found evidence that "defloration was recent"
- Defense: with consent
 acquainted with each other since 1963 and it was the second time he had carnal
knowledge with her
- CFI: Amado guilty of RAPE of 13-year old Margarita Paleng with aggravating
circumstance that it was committed in the dwelling of the offended party suffer "not more
than TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal and not less than
SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor
- COA: Guilty of RAPE and penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment
 "Republic Act No. 4111 - Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of
a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death
Issue
- Whether or not aggravating circumstance of committed in the dwelling of the offended
party is present
Ruling
- The Court affirm the judgement or the crime of rape as charged and sentence to eclusion
perpetua
 - YES Committed in the dwelling: Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in
a boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a "dwelling"
 not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns the place where he lives or
dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity
of which the law seeks to protect and uphold

People v. Daniel (inconsistent pleadings of guilt)

Facts
- Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., alias Junior, Rodulfo Huiso and Felipe Quimson along with 5
others armed with different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons
enter, by means of violence, the dwelling house of the spouses Honorato Miano and
Antonia Miano and attack Geronimo Miano and Noberto Aton
- The accused also carried away P322.00
- Aggravating circumstances: (1) crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended
parties without any provocation from the latter, (2) nighttime was purposely sought, (3)
advantage was taken of superior strength
- Apduhan would change his former plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty with the request,
however, that the death penalty be not imposed
- CFI: Guilty of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to death
 use of unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance
- The Lower Court found that the accused's plea of guilty was ambiguous
- Art. 294 (1) The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of
the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed
Issue
- Whether or not the plead of guilt can be appreciated

Ruling
- Guilty of Robbery with Homicide BUT reduced sentence to reclusion perpetua
- No plead of guilt: his initial plea was one of not guilty. Later, he changed his plea but
with the persistent condition that he be sentenced to life imprisonment, not death. It was
only after much equivocation that he finally decided to "just" plead guilty
People v. Apduhan
Facts
Issue
Ruling

People v. Mandolado
Facts
Issue
-

Ruling

People v. Garcia
Facts
- Mrs. Corazon Dioquino Paterno was staying in Pasay with her husband and child
- Her brother Apolonio visited them about 20 times
- Her husband saw Apolonio engaged in a drinking spree with his gang
- Corazon obtained permission to leave the house at 3:00 a.m. so she could fetch her
brother to escape the untoward influence of his gang
- She saw Apolonio being chased led by Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso with
Antonio carrying a long sharp instrument. She heard gunshots and hid
- she saw the group catch up with her brother and maltreat him. Some beat him with pieces
of wood, while others boxed him. Antonio was stabbing Apolonio in the back with his
knife causing her brother to die
 Stabbed 22 times
- Defense: Alibi
 Antonio = he was at a place called Pacita's Canteen
 Reynaldo = performing his duties as a bus conductor
- Circuit Criminal Court: guilty of MURDER and sentenced them to the death
 aggravating circumstances of nighttime; superior strength; and treachery cannot be
offset by said voluntary surrender to a person in authority of his agent
Issue
 - Whether or not aggravating circumstances can be appreciated

Ruling
- Antonio Garcia y Cabarse and Reynaldo Arviso y Rebelleza are guilty of HOMICIDE
sentenced to undergo an indeterminate imprisonment of 10 years as minimum to 18 years
as maximum
 information alleges that the crime of murder was attended by the two qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Neither of these qualifying
circumstances was proved; hence, the killing can not be qualified into murder, and
constitutes instead the crime of homicide
- NO treachery: attack was not sudden nor unexpected, and the element of surprise was
lacking. The victim could have made a defense; hence, the assault involved some risk to
the assailants
 alevosia was not appreciated because it was deemed included in abuse of
superiority.
- YES Superiority: multiple people attacked him
- Nighttime: passed Objective failed Subjective
- no showing that the accused purposely sought the cover of nighttime
 2 tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance (1) objective test = nocturnity
is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the offense, and (2)
nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender
 Objective - criminal assault on the victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by nocturnal
cover, which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and encouraged impunity by
persuading the malefactors that it would be difficult to determine their identity
 Subjective – nighttime was not sought

People v. Rodas
Facts
- On 9 August 1996 Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot were on a fence watching a benefit
dance when Charlito Rodas, Armando Rodas, Jose Rodas, Jr., and Jose Rodas, Sr.
surround Titing Asenda and stabbed him in the back with a hunting knife and Armando
clubbed him wwhich caused him to fall where ose Rodas, Sr. handed to Jose Rodas, Jr. a
bolo which the latter used in hacking Titing
- Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggot tried to help Titing but Armando Rodas prevented
them by pointing a gun at them and firing it towards the sky
- Defense:
 Jose Rodas, Sr was at home with wife and infant granddaughter
  only Charlito Rodas and Jose Rodas, Jr. killed Titing
 Charlito Rodas arrived and admitted he killed somebody. Jose Sr brought him to
sorrunder
- Charged: MURDER with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of
superior strength
- Pleaded not guilty but later changed to GUILTY FOR LESSER CRIME OF HOMICIDE
- RTC: Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Sr guilty of MURDER
 gave credence to the testimonies of eyewitnesses Alberto Asonda and Ernie Anggo
- COA: affirmed the decision of the RTC

Issue
Ruling
- The Court found Appellants Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Sr guilty of MURDER
BUT ONLY SUFFER the penalty of reclusion perpetua
- YES Treachery: suddenness of the attack, the number of the accused and their use of
weapons against the unarmed victim prevent the possibility of any defense or retaliation
by the victim
- NO Evident Premeditation: prosecution failed to show the presence of preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space
of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
- NO nocturnity: crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax which led to the
identification of all the accused
- YES superior strength: glaring disparity of strength between the victim and the four
accused. The victim was unarmed while the accused were armed with a hunting knife,
chako and bolo.
 HOWEVER this is absorbed by treachery

People v. Damaso
Facts
- Donata Rebolledo and her son-in-law, Victoriano de la Cruz heard the barkings of dogs
outside their house
- 2 men armed with guns entered pointed their guns at them and tied them up
- The 2 men ordered Donato to open an "aparador" from which the two men took valuables
like jewelry, clothing, documents, and cutting instruments in addition P15 from store
- After a while Donato untied Victoriano to look for her daughters when they couldn’t be
found he reported the incident to the barrio lt.
- On the same night policemen and a handful of civilians went out in search for the Sabado
sisters. They were found the following morning
 - held and brought Catalina Sabado and Susana Sabado, daughters of the said Donata
Rebolledo, to a sugarcane field which is a secluded and uninhabited place
- Accused proceeded to stab the said Catalina Sabado and Susana Sabado on different parts
of their body and cut their necks with a sharp pointed instrument (scythe)
- Donata identified Fausto Damaso from a police line-up. She had recognized him because
of light from kerosene lamp
 PC rounded up four other suspects in the persons of co-accused Gregorio, Eugenio,
Alviar and Espejo
- Defense: Gregorio and Eugenio who actually did the killing while he, Alviar and Espejo
merely stood by
 motivated by the failure of the older woman (Catalina) to pay for a carabao bought
from Gregorio; and that on that evening, Gregorio, Eugenio, Alviar and Espejo
were carrying caliber .45 pistols while he was unarmed
- CFI: guilty of "robbery with double homicide" and sentenced to death
 "for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition" involving only the accused,
Lorenzo Alviar
 armed band, treachery and uninhabited place
Issue
- Whether or not aggravating circumstances can be appreciated

Ruling
- The Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts and held that robbery was committed
by a band, with treachery, and in an uninhabited place. And additional aggravating
circumstance that the robbery was committed in the dwelling of the victim
- YES Band: at least three of the accused-appellants, namely Eugenio, Alviar, and
Gregorio, were armed during the commission of the crime
 22 paltik revolver X2, 30 Springfield rifle
- YES Treachery: their arms tied behind their backs as well as the admission of Gregorio
in his confession that he killed the sisters while their arms were held by Eugenio and
Damaso
- YES uninhabited place: brought the victims to the sugarcane field although they could
have disposed of them right in the house of Donata
 sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and
passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any
assistance

People v. Baldera (Bus holdup)

Facts
 - A casa Manila bus was held up by a group of five or six armed men
- Pedro Baldera later identified was armed with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, and this
was followed by a hail of bullets coming from different directions
- As a result, several passengers, among them Jose Cabrera, Jose Pastor and Francisco
Mendoza, were wounded.
- They took P90 for Jose Pastor, P34 from Ponciana Villena, and P3 from Francisco
Mendoza
- After the bus proceeded to the municipal building of San Jose and there reported the
incident to the authorities and the wounded were taken to a hospital
 Jose Cabrea died, Jose Pastor and Francisco Mendoza were eventually recovered
- Pedro was arrested in connection with the theft of a radio
 made a confession, which was reduced to writing admitting his participation in the
crime
 identified by Ponciana
- Defense: he passed the night in question in a house of prostitution in Batangas
 appellant's confession was taken through force and intimidation,
- CFI: found Pedro Baldera and Miguel Blay guilty of robbery in band with homicide and
serious and less serious physical injuries and sentenced to death
 Pedro = capital punishment
 Miguel = life imprisonment
Issue
- Whether or not the aggravating circumstances can be appreciated

Ruling
- The Court found Pedro Baldera guilty of ROBERRY WITH HOMICIDE and serious and
less serious physical injuries and sentence to life imprisonment only but increasing the
indemnity to be paid by him to the heirs of the deceased Jose Cabrera to P6,000
- NO voluntary confession: was made on a promise to render him protection from his co-
accused and also to utilize him as a government witness
 Failed to keep his part of the agreement, his confession made under such promise
may then be used against him
- NO Band: no sufficient proof that the perpetrators thereof numbered more than three
armed men
- NO recidivism: m by reason of his previous conviction for theft, it appearing that that
crime was committed on or about December 30, 1947, while the offense now charged
took place seven days before that date

People v. Melendrez
Facts
Issue
Ruling

US v. Manalinde (random killing in exchange for pretty woman)

Facts
- while Juan Igual, a Spaniard was seated he suddenly received a wound on the head
delivered from behind and inflicted with a kris
- Choa a Chinaman who was passing along the street, was attacked by the same weapon
and later died
- Both attacks were done by Moro Manalinde who had entered the town carrying his
weapon wrapped up in banana leaves and escaped after the attacks
- Moro committed the crime because Datto Rajamudah Mupuck directed him to go
juramentado in Cotabato in order to kill somebody promising a pretty woman on his
return
- Charged: MURDER
- Trial Court: Guilty of MURDER and sentenced him to penalty of death
 3 aggravating circumstances: (1) promise of reward, (2) premeditation, and (3)
Treachery
Issue
- Whether or not aggravating circumstance can be appreciated

Ruling
- The Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court
- YES Treachery: Chinaman was unable, not only to defend himself, apart from the fact
that he was unarmed, but even to flee from the danger,
- YES promise of reward: promise that if he escaped punishment he would be rewarded
with a pretty woman
- YES premeditation: provided himself with weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and
started on a journey of a day and a night for the sole purpose of taking the life of two
unfortunate persons

People v. Ilaoa (inuman pinugutan)

Facts
 - deceased Nestor de Loyola was seen n a drinking session with his compadre Ruben Ilaoa,
ulius Eliginio, Edwin Tapang and a certain "Nang Kwang"
- they had an argument wherein Nestor was kicked and mauled by Ruben and his brother
- Ruben Ilaoa and Julius Eliginio borrowed Alex Villamil's tricycle alleging it was for a
neighbor giving birth but was seen with a sack which looked as though it contained a
human body
- The tricycle was returned with bloodstains, and Ruben was found with blood and his hair
near his right forehead was found partly burned and his shoes were splattered with blood
- Nestor de Loyola, was found in a grassy portion thereof. Apart from the decapitation, the
deceased bore forty-three (43) stab wounds in the chest as well as slight burns all over the
body. The head was found some two (2) feet away from the corpse.
- 5 persons were charged but only brothers Ruben and Rogelio stood trial since the other
accused escaped
- RTC: guilty of murder with the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse
of superior strength and cruelty, and imposed upon them the penalty of "life
imprisonment."
- Rogelio’s conviction was reversed: alleged dragging of the deceased to his brother's
apartment, is totally inadequate for a conviction, having miserably failed to meet the
criteria
- Ruben: unbroken chain of circumstances which culminated in the discovery of
Nestor de Loyola's decapitated body
- Defense: sack contained buntot ng pusa, a local term for marijuana, not a human body
 It was vomit not blood being cleaned
Issue
- Whether or not premeditation, abuse of superior strength and cruelty can be appreciated

Ruling
- The Court found that Ruben is only guilty of HOMICIDE qualifying circumstances
alleged, abuse of superior strength, cruelty and evident premeditation, were not
sufficiently proved to be appreciated
- NO Abuse of Superior Strength: no evidence whatsoever that appellant was physically
superior to the deceased
- No Cruelty: no showing that appellant Ruben Ilaoa, for his pleasure and satisfaction,
caused Nestor de Loyola to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary
physical and moral pain
- NO Evident Premeditation: nothing in the records to show that appellant, prior to the
night in question, resolved to kill Nestor de Loyola, nor is there proof to show that such
killing was the result of meditation, calculation
 no interval of time separating them for calculation and meditation
People v. Bibat (Smahanag Illocano frat)
Facts
- Nona Avila Cinco witnessed a person talking to the accused stating "O pare, anduon na.
Puntahan mo na. Siguruhin mo lang na itumba mo na." to which the accused answered:
"Oo ba. Ganito ba, ganito ba?"
- Lloyd del Rosario was on his way to school waiting for a ride when Gari Bibat who took
out a pointed object from a notebook then stabbed the victim in the left chest
- Gari left but upon hearing Lloyd’s screams he returned and d stabbed the victim again in
the middle part of the chest.
- Witness Rogelio Robles
 The goup (samahang Ilocano fraternity) of the accused was planning to take
revenge against the victim, Lloyd del Rosario for a rumble in school whereby
somebody died
- Defense: Bday Mom, studying and had an oral exam
 Did not why witness would testify against him
- RTC: MURDER with aggravating circumstance of premeditation sentences him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua
 Alibi is weak
Issue
- Whether or not the trail court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation
Ruling
- The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court
- YES Evident Premeditation: prosecution witness Nona Cinco personally heard the plan
to kill someone. aw the appellant hurry towards the victim, take a pointed thing from a
notebook and with the use of such weapon, stab the victim on the chest
 In the case under examination, two hours had elapsed from the time appellant
clung to his determination to kill the victim up to the actual perpetration of the
crime.
  in the case of People v. Dumdum "the killing of the deceased was aggravated by
evident premeditation, because the accused conceived of the assault at least one
hour before its perpetration."

People v. Empacis (sardinas store)

Facts
- Fidel Saromines and his wife, Camila were about to close the store when Romualdo and
Crisologo asked to buy some sardines and rice and after eating asked for cigarettes
- As Fidel was handing over the cigarettes, Romualdo announced a "hold-up" and
commanded Fidel to give up his money
- Fidel had 12K wrapped in cellophane and while giving up the money decided to fight
- A struggle followed in the, course of which Romualdo stabbed Fidel about three times.
Crisologo joined and stabbed
- Carlito Antiga fired gunshots and A voice was heard from below saying, "Stab him!" to
which Langomez replied, "I already stabbed (him)."
- Fidel asked the helped of his 13 year old son who took a "pinuti" (a long bolo) and struck
Crisologo and inflicted two wounds on him
- Romualdo and Crisologo jumped out of the house and fled, with the sound of Peter's
defiant shout trailing them, "Come back, if you are brave!"
- Crisologo repaired to the clinic claiming he was assaulted without warning by a young
man, who injured him with a bolo.
- Police arrested Crisologo was arrested
- Defense: denies having Joined Romualdo in attacking Fidel
 Zacarias Solis and Bebe Antiga, denied any participation whatever in the crime
- RTC: ONLY Crisologo Empacis guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to
reclusion perpetua
 Caring Solis and Bebe Antiga are hereby acquitted of the charges against them,
their guilt not having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt
 accorded superior credit to the evidence of the prosecution i
Issue
- Whether or not aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud can be appreciated

Ruling
 - The Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court with increase of indemnity for death
payable
- YES craft or fraud: He and Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers of the
victim's store and on this pretext gained entry into the latter's store
- YES nighttime: nocturnity was deliberately sought by the robbers and did in reality
facilitate the perpetration of the felony.
- YES superior strength: he and his companion took advantage of their combined
strength and their bladed weapons to overcome their unarmed victim and assure the
success of their felonious design to make off with his money
- YES committed in the dwelling of the offended party

People v. Bigcas
Facts
- Rosito Doydoy saw Butron strike Ambrocio Palapar two times with a piece of wood on
the latter's back.
- Palapar tried to run but was chased Bigcas who, upon catching up with the former
stabbed him twice with a bolo at the back. The chase continued until Bigcas was able to
stab the victim again at the back of the latter's right knee
- Palapar fell on the ground, Butron hit him twice with a piece of wood on the right jaw.
Bigcas, on his part, stabbed the supine victim several times
- Butron telling Bigcas. "You own the killing and these two bolos and I will be with you
anywhere."
- Defense: Self-Defense
 Palapar, who was apparently already intoxicated, arrived and drank `tuba' with the
group of Bigcas and Butron
 When Butron refused as he had no more money. Palapar got angry and called
Butron stingy
 Palapar challenged him to a fight and later grabbed the knife of Butron and
challenged everybody to fight.
 He was later stopped by police and told him to go home, but required Bigcas and
Butron to stay a while and let Palapar leave ahead
 Upon leaving Butron saw Palapar standing in the middle of the road. He greeted
Palapar by his nickname "Boyax" but received no answer. As he was passing by
Palapar, the latter suddenly stabbed him with a bolo, hitting his stomach.
 The two wrestled and got a hold of the bolo then repeatedly stabbed Palapar until
the latter fell
 he went to the police, he also surrendered the bolo used in the alleged killing
- Charged: MURDER
 - RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER one Ambrocio Palapar and imposed
on them the penalty of "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment"
- Bigcas: contends that the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity
Issue
- Whether or not aggravating circumstance of nocturnity can be appreicated

Ruling
- The Court found them guilty of HOMICIDE with due extenuation by voluntary surrender
serve an indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum
- NO nocturnity: he moon was shining brightly. The light was bright enough to see what
was going on and to recognize the assailants.
 nocturnity neither facilitated the commission of the crime nor was it purposely
sought by appellants in order to afford impunity
- NO TREACHERY: no evidence that in the commission of the crime they deliberately
adopted means, methods or forms considered in law as treacherous

People v. Sangalang
Facts
- Ricardo Cortez left his wife Flora in their nipa to gather tuba from a coconut tree nearby
- While on top of the tree he was suddenly shot by 5 men each armed with a long firearm
causing him to fall
 Garand carbine
- Flora recognized Laureano Sangalang, Conrado Gonzales, Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel
and Eleuterio Cuyom the assailants
- Flora ran towards her husband shouting "Bakit Ninyo pinagbabaril ang aking asawa"
when the 5 men shot at her forcing her to find cover
- She heard shots and after 5 mins she went to see her husband dead
- Flora and her brother Sarno who also witnessed the murder of her BIL reported the
incident to the police
- Sangalang was arrested but posted bail. The other accused have not been apprehended.
- Charged: Murder
- Defense: Went to Manila to borrow money at the time of the crime
- CFI: guilty of MURDER sentencing him to reclusion perpetua

Issue
 - Whether or not treachery can be established

Ruling
- YES Treachery: The victim was shot while he was gathering tuba on top of a coconut
tree. He was unarmed and defenseless. He was not expecting to be assaulted. He did not
give any immediate provocation. The deliberate, surprise attack shows that Sangalang
and his companions employed a mode of execution which insured the killing without any
risk to them arising from any defense which the victim could have made
- Treachery absorbs the aggravating circumstance of band
- Evident premeditation, which was alleged in the information, was not proven

People v. San Pedro

Facts
- The lifeless body of Felimon Rivera was discovered and after the autopsy it was
determined that the cause of death was profuse hemorrhage due to 23 lacerated and stab
wounds
- On June 2, 1970, Felimon Rivera, a jeepney driver, was murdered after being chased and
attacked by Luisito San Pedro and Salvador Litan. Rivera attempted to flee but was
stabbed multiple times with a dagger, resulting in his death from profuse hemorrhage due
to 23 stab wounds.
- The accused then stole Rivera's jeepney and sold it for P2,000.
- Charged: robbery with homicide
- Trial Court: found San Pedro and his co-accused guilty of robbery with homicide,
imposing the death penalty
Issue
- whether or not the aggravating circumstance of craft is absorbed by treachery, and
whether the resulting single aggravating circumstance of treachery should be offset by the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction,
Ruling
- The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, affirming the death penalty imposed on
San Pedro and his co-accused. The Court found no errors in how the lower court
evaluated the evidence or in its application of aggravating circumstances
- The Court noted that there was no substantial basis for reducing the penalty as requested
by the defense.
 in the case of U.S. vs. Gampoña, et a - the crime was killing alone, which has a
weightier rationale for merging the two aggravating circumstances, than when, as
 in the crime of robbery with homicide, craft has a very distinct application to the
crime of robbery, separate and independent of the homicide
 In People vs. Malig craft which consisted in luring the victim to another barrio,
was considered absorbed by treachery. This may be so because craft enhanced the
effectiveness of the means, method or form adopted in the execution of the crime,
one against persons
 offense charged was one solely against persons
- NO craft being absorbed by treachery, as nighttime and abuse of superior strength may be
so absorbed
 craft was employed directed actually towards facilitating the taking of the jeep in
the robbery scheme as planned by the culprits

People v. Castillo
Facts
- On May 25, 1993, Antonio Dometita was fatally stabbed by Robert Castillo at the Cola
Pubhouse in Quezon City.
- Witnesses, including Eulogio Velasco, testified that Castillo suddenly attacked Dometita
without provocation, inflicting a fatal stab wound to the chest and additional injuries as
Dometita attempted to escape.
- Defense: Asleep at home at the time of the crime
- Charged: MURDER with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation, treachery, and
the use of superior strength.
- RTC: Guilty of MURDER and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua
 treachery was present due to the suddenness of the attack, which left Dometita no
opportunity to defend himself.
Issue
- Whether or not

Ruling
- The Court agrees with the trial court that appellant is guilty of murder
- NO Evident Premeditation: elements of EP were never established
- NO abuse of superior strength: prosecution did not demonstrate that there was a
marked difference in the stature and build of the victim and the appellant which would
have precluded an appropriate defense from the victim.
- YES Treachery: accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed
the victim just as he was bidding goodbye to his friend,
  presence of "defense wounds" does not negate treachery because, as testified to by
Velasco, the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest. The incised
wounds in the arms were inflicted when the victim was already rendered
defenseless

People v. Arizobal
Facts
- On March 24, 1994, Laurencio Gimenez and his son Jimmy were murdered during a
robbery at their home in Tuybo, Cataingan, Masbate
- The prosecution presented evidence from several witnesses, including Clementina
Gimenez, Laurencio's wife, who testified that three armed men entered their house while
they were asleep. She recognized two of the assailants as Clarito Arizobal and Erly
Lignes.
- The victims were subsequently killed during the robbery, and their property was taken.
 P8,000
- Before leaving they ordered Laurencio to go with them to Jimmy's house because "we
have something to talk about." Clementina recalled that shortly after the group left she
heard a volley of shots.
- Erlinda Gimenez, wife of Jimmy Gimenez, narrated that on 24 March 1994, three (3)
men suddenly appeared pushed her to the ground, tied Francisco and Jimmy as they
whipped the latter with an armalite rifle
- The robbers consumed food and cigarettes and took 1K from their sari sari store and told
them to produce 100K in exchange for Jimmy's life.
- Since they could not produce 100K they offered their certificate of large cattle which the
3 men refused
- The 3 men dragged Jimmy and Laurencio outside and after she was informed that her
husband and father-in-law had been killed for trying to escape which caused her to faint
- Charged: Robbery in Band with Homicide
- Defense: attending a house blessing in San Pedro, Cataingan, Masbate
- RTC: found both Arizobal and Lignes guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced
them to death
 rejected the alibi presented by Lignes, considering it unconvincing compared to the
direct evidence provided by prosecution witnesses.
Issue
Ruling
- GUILTY of Robbery with Homicide and imposing upon both of them the penalty of
DEATH
 - YES Dwelling: robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability of the
victims' abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses, intimidated and
coerced their inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their
hands before dragging them out of the house to be killed
- NO Treachery: robbery with homicide is primarily classified as a crime against property,
and not against persons, homicide being merely an incident of robbery with the latter
being the main purpose and object of the criminals. As such, treachery cannot be validly
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
- NO Band: Nowhere in the records can we gather that more than three (3) of the robbers
were armed. Hence, "band" cannot be aggravating where no proof is adduced that at least
four (4) of the five (5) perpetrators involved in this case were armed.
- NO Nighttime: Nowhere can we infer from the records that the malefactors sought the
cover of darkness to facilitate the accomplishment of their devious design. On the
contrary, the locus criminis was well lighted and nighttime was merely an incidental
element to the whole drama.

People v. Escote
Facts
- On September 28, 1996, at around midnight, a Five Star Passenger Bus traveling from
Manila to Bolinao was held up in Plaridel, Bulacan.
- Two armed men, later identified as Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan,
announced a robbery and began collecting money and valuables from the passengers.
- During this incident, they shot and killed SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., who had pleaded for
mercy. The bus driver, Rodolfo Cacatian, and the conductor, Romulo Digap, positively
identified Escote and Acuyan as the perpetrators of the crime.
- Charged: Robbery with Homicide
- Defense: he worked as a tire man in the vulcanizing shop
- RTC: found both accused guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to death

Issue
-

Ruling
- The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling but modified the penalty to reclusion
perpetua instead of death. The Court found that the identification by Rodolfo and Romulo
was reliable; they had a clear view of the assailants during the crime. The Court also
ruled that any alleged violation of cross-examination rights was waived by the appellants
since they did not take action to assert this right during trial.
 - In its decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that treachery was present in the
commission of the crime but noted that it could not be considered as an aggravating
circumstance since it was not explicitly alleged in the information filed against them. The
Court concluded that despite this, both accused were guilty as principals in robbery with
homicide due to their active participation in planning and executing the crime. Thus,
while affirming their conviction, it imposed a lesser penalty in accordance with legal
provisions regarding aggravating circumstances.

People v. Villonez
Facts
- Edgar was informed that his friends Gerardo Longasa and Rudy AKA Dede had a
fistfight thus he ran to mediate
- At Javier II Street, a group of seven armed men, including accused-appellants, attacked
Edgar. RUEL hit Edgar on his forehead and back with a bottle
- While fleeing he saw his friend Longasa and asked for help but Longasa was attacked by
the armed men with a 2 x 2 inches piece of wood while Regando and Ruel struck
Longasa with bottles
- Rudy Santos and Eddie Santos then stabbed LONGASA seven and eight times,
respectively, even as two other persons named Rey and Budda held LONGASA's arms
- Charged: Regando and Ruel of MURDER
 Regando and Ruel pleaded not guilty
- Charged: Emerlito, Eduardo, Reynaldo, Fernando, and Rudy with MURDER
 ONLY Emerlito was arrested
 Pleaded not guilty
- Defense: alibi and denial (Regando)
 He was having a conversation and was informed about the attack which he went to
but the victim was already dead
 He was arrested due to Edgar Jimenez’s identification. Edgar implicated him in the
crime because they had an altercation during a basketball game
- Defense: alibi and denial (Ruel) 16 years old at the time
 he was at his grandmother's house in Javier II changing clothes,
- Defense: alibi and denial (Emerlito)
 at the time of the incident he was at Javier II to borrow P500 from his mother
- RTC: Murder
 No teachery because Longasa was engaged in a fight with the accused before the
fatal attack and was, therefore, sufficiently warned of the assault against him
 Yes was engaged in a fight with the accused before the fatal attack and was,
therefore, sufficiently warned of the assault against him
Issue
Ruling
- REGANDO P. VILLONES, EMERLITO N. SANTOS, and RUEL L. SANTOS guilty of
MURDER sentencing the first two accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
the third accused, to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as
minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal
- YES Treachery: The overwhelming number of the accused, their use of weapons against
the unarmed victim, and the fact that the victim's hands were held behind him preclude
the possibility of any defense by the victim.
- NO abuse of superior strength: absorbed in treachery.
- RUEL: who was only 16 years old when the offense in question was committed, the trial
court correctly appreciated in his favor the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority

People v. Guzman
Facts
- Micheal was waling towards a grocery store when he was suddenly approached and
surrounded by Nicolas Guzman and two companions who were having a drinking spree
- Suddenly, they grabbed the shoulders of Michael drew out a knife and took turns
repeatedly stabbed Michael at the stomach
 Guzman also kicked Michael when the latter was already lying on the ground.
- Danilo, Michael's father testified that he saw the incident, ran after the group until they
hid in the house of Guzman’s relatives but was stopped, he carried his son to the hospital
but was informed of his death
- The next day Danilo went to report the incident. In an effort to settle appellant's wife and
daughter told Danilo that they would sell a bus which they owned and would turn over to
him the proceeds thereof. He also stated that Michael wanted to become a pilot so that, as
the eldest of the children, he would be the one to shoulder the education of his siblings
- Charged: Murder
 Pleaded not guilty
- Defense: he saw Danilo and Ronald pulling out Jesus de Guzman from his tricycle. Jesus
retaliated, leading to a rumble. Michael intervened, pacifying Danilo and calming him.
Edgardo threw stones at Michael, and Lemuel Grans Querubin tried to join the fight.
 Michael blocked Lemuel's way, and they both fell to the ground. Lemuel then
chased Danilo and Ronald, but they managed to escape. Danilo and two policemen
forcedly entered the appellant's house and searched for Lemuel and Jesus, who
were his bus conductor and driver. The appellant was held in custody.
- RTC: Nicolas Guzman y Bocbosila guilty of MURDER sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua
  there was treachery in the killing of Michael since the latter was unarmed,
unsuspecting and very young at the time of the attack
- CA: Nicolas Guzman y Bocbosila guilty of MURDER

Issue
Ruling
- Nicolas Guzman y Bocbosila guilty of MURDER suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
- YES Treachery: the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of appellant and his
two companions rendered Michael defenseless, vulnerable and without means of escape.
It appears that Michael was unarmed and alone at the time of the attack
 Only 17 no match against adults who also outnumbered him
- NO Evident Premeditation: there is no evidence to show that appellant and his two
companions had previously planned and reflected in killing Michael.

People v. Torriefel
Facts
- On January 24, 1946, a robbery occurred at the house of a certain Vicente Torres in San
Pablo City. During the crime, the accused, Francisco Torriefel and his companions,
entered the premises armed with firearms and threatened the occupants. They forcibly
took money and valuables. In the course of the robbery, they shot and killed Vicente
Torres. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified to the events of the robbery
and identified Torriefel as one of the perpetrators.
- Charged: Francisco Torriefel was charged with robbery with homicide
- RTC: guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death

Issue
Ruling
- The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and affirmed the death sentence imposed by
the trial court.
- YES Treachery: Torres was shot without warning while being threatened
 HOWEVER, Since it was not specifically mentioned in the charges against
Torriefel, it could not be used to enhance his penalty beyond what was already
prescribed for robbery with homicide.

People v. Jose
Facts
 - On June 26, 1967, Magdalena "Maggie" de la Riva, a movie actress, was forcibly
abducted while driving home in Quezon City. As she approached her house, a Pontiac
convertible driven by Basilio Pineda, Jr. and occupied by three accomplices (Jaime Jose,
Edgardo Aquino, and Rogelio Cañal) attempted to bump her car.
- After a brief confrontation, Pineda forcibly pulled her from her vehicle with the help of
the others. They then drove her to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, where they took turns
raping her while threatening her with violence and humiliation.
- Charged: Forcible Abduction with rape
- RTC: Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., Edgardo Aquino, and Rogelio Cañal—guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of forcible abduction with rape and sentenced to death
Issue
Ruling
- Jaime G. Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Edgardo P. Aquino are pronounced guilty of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each and every one of them is
likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of
them is hereby sentenced to four (4) death penalties
- YES Use of a motor vehicle: The crime was facilitated by using a car to abduct the
victim.
- YES Nighttime: The abduction occurred at night, which was intended to facilitate the
crime and hinder detection.
- YES Abuse of superior strength: The accused outnumbered and overpowered the
victim.
- YES Means employed that added ignominy: The use of threats and violence during the
abduction and rape added to the victim's humiliation
- YES

People v. Butler
Facts
- Butler and de la Cruz engaged in a heated argument over a five-peso bill that she had
allegedly taken from him without permission. This argument escalated into a physical
confrontation. During the struggle, Butler struck de la Cruz on the head with a figurine of
Jesus Christ that was located on the bedside table. The blow rendered her unconscious.
- After incapacitating her, Butler proceeded to suffocate de la Cruz by pressing her mouth
and nose against the mattress. Medical evidence later indicated that she died from
asphyxiation due to this action.
- He initially placed de la Cruz's body in a suitcase and left it in his room. However, he
later moved the body to a nearby vacant lot, where it was discovered by authorities days
 later. he made an extrajudicial confession detailing his actions leading up to and
following the murder.
- Charged: Murder
- Defense: Self-defense
 he believed de la Cruz was going to harm him.
- The autopsy indicated that Butler had engaged in sexual acts with her corpse after her
death. spermatozoa were found in the anal region of the victim, suggesting posthumous
sexual intercourse.
- CFI: Michael J. Butler guilty of MURDER qualified by abuse of superior strength, with
the attendance of aggravating circumstances of treachery and scoffing at the corpse of the
deceased, and sentenced to the penalty of death
Issue
Ruling
- YES Abuse of Superior Strength: The Court noted that Butler's physical advantage over
the victim (he was significantly taller and heavier) contributed to his ability to overpower
her easily.
 victim was slender, only 4'11" in height while the accused is about 6 feet tall and
155 lbs.; that the accused took advantage of this unequal physical condition when
he struck the victim with the figurine which made the victim unconscious, after
which he shoved and pressed the victim's mouth and nose against the bed mattress.
- YES Outraging or Scoffing at the Corpse: The trial court found that Butler had
engaged in acts that constituted an outrage against the victim’s corpse, which was
supported by medical evidence indicating posthumous sexual acts.
 the victim's anus was partly open and contained spermatozoa. He said that the anus
would have completely closed had the intercourse occurred while the victim was
still alive
- NO Treachery: evidence on record, however, is not sufficient to show clearly and prove
distinctly that treachery attended the commission of the crime since there was no
eyewitness account of the killing

People v. Saylan
Facts
- On January 23, 1971, Eutropia was going home with her daughter from the public market
and boarded a jeepney with a grade 1 student, a couple, and the appellant Rafael Saylan
AKA Pael
- The jeepney went only as far as Malinas citrus farm because the road to Barrio Malinao
was not passable by vehicles
 - While walking the couple separated and Pael joined the group
- when they reached the place where the road was plain Pael pulled out a dagger about
eight inches long and pointed it at Eutropia and said Do not shout, Nang, I will kill you!
- he dragged Eutropia at some distance and upon reaching the junction of the trail for men
and a trail for carabaos, he ordered everybody to stop and told the children to stay behind
- Pael proceeded to have 5 sexual acts with Eutropia (4th unusual way of the dog)
- "After the fifth intercourse, and after satisfying his sexual lust, appellant asked Eutropia if
she will tell her husband what he did to her and the latter answered, 'I will not tell"
- Afterwards, Eutropia and appellant returned to the place where the children were left
sleeping. Nilsonita who was sleeping was carried by the appellant and then they all
proceeded to Malinao
- After walking some distance Eutropia saw the house of her friend "Ben" and shouted for
hot water and for him to fetch her husband as she was feeling very bad
- When she woke up her husband was there and he informed her that Pael had already left
- She informed him of what happened and he convinced her to be examined
- Charged: Rape following aggravating circumstances: abuse of superior strength,
nocturnity, despoblado, ignominy, and reiteracion
 Plead of not guilty
- Defense: he copulated with her for three successive times in the early evening of January
23, 1972, but he claimed that it was with her consent
- CFI:

Issue
Ruling
- Suffer reclusion perpetua instead of death
- NO abuse of superior strength: it "is inherent in the crime of rape or is absorbed in the
element of force."
- NO nocturnity: "there being no evidence that the accused purposely sought it to
facilitate the commission of this rape."
- YES Despoblado/Uninhabited Place: The accused dragged the offended party, at the
point of a dagger, to the carabao trail, about 10 meters from the junction, but 40 to 50
meters below to better attain his purpose without interference, and to better secure
himself from detection and punishment
- YES ignominy: appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior,
female inferior, but also "The same position as dogs do" i.e., entry from behind.
- NO reiteracion: one of the offenses, namely Robbery in Band, for which the accused has
been penalized, was committed after the commission of this rape case, and the penalty
imposed on the other offense of Frustrated Homicide, is lighter than the penalty for rape."
- YES disregard of rank:
People v. Sultan
Facts
- Juditha M. Bautista was hold up by Fernando Sultan using a ice pick at her neck and later
took her to a house where she was molested
 watch, ring, earrings, and necklace the values of which are now reflected in the
Decision of the court a quo,and her cash of P130
 The coital encounter lasted for ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes
- After satisfying his lust, he tied her, went on a smoke break and came back and with
threat and intimidation sexually abused her
- He told her that he loved her and that he would answer for what he had done to her
- In her effort to escape she “agreed” to elope with him allowing her to to go home to get
her things
- She informed her sister and her brother Fernando M. Bautista, of what happened
- He told Juditha to return to the house so that he and his companions could stage an arrest.
- he was already waiting for her outside the store nearby. They went inside his house and
came out twenty (20) minutes later. They boarded a passenger bus
- SPO1 Bautista and his companions to board the bus mmediately approached accused-
appellant and boxed him before they could arrest him
- Charged: special complex crime of robbery with rape
- Defense: sexual congress of consenting adults
- Trial Court: Convicted of special complex crime of robbery with rape and sentenced him
to reclusion perpetua
Issue
Ruling
- The SC ruled that Fernando Sultan is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with
rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua
- in the recent case of People v. Regala the Court held that the additional rapes committed
should not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance despite a resultant "anomalous
situation" wherein robbery with rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple
rapes in terms of gravity.
- unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be
considered aggravating, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as
no person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.

People v. Ladjaalam
Facts
- On December 12, 1995, Abdul Ladjaalam, and his accomplices assault and murdered he
family members of a certain Mr. and Mrs. Castañeda.
- Ladjaalam and his group broke into the Castañeda residence armed with firearms. They
threatened the family members, demanding money and valuables.
- During the robbery, the accused displayed extreme violence. The victims were bound and
physically assaulted. The situation escalated when one of the family members attempted
to resist. The accused then resorted to lethal force, resulting in multiple stab wounds
inflicted upon Mr. Castañeda.
- Ladjaalam was apprehended shortly after the incident due to witness testimonies that
identified him as one of the assailants. During police questioning, he initially denied
involvement but later confessed to participating in the crime.
- Charged: robbery with homicide
- Defense:
 Ladjaalam was not present at the time of the crime and claimed he had an alibi
- RTC: Guilty of (1) Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, (2) Illegal Possession of
Firearm and Ammunition, (3) the crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted
Homicide sentenced him to death
Issue
Ruling
-
- guilty only of direct assault and multiple attempted homicide and maintaining a drug den
- NO illegal possession of firearms: if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of
any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Since
direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can
no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms

Celino v. Court of Appeals

Facts
- Charged: Violation of gun ban and illegal possession of firearm
 pleaded not guilty to the gun ban violation charge
- RTC:
- CA:

Issue
Ruling