ART4 #7

CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. ESTRADA [333 SCRA 699 (2000)]

Nature: Automatic review of the death penalty
Facts: December 27, 1994, at the St. Johns Cathedral, Dagupan City, while
the sacrament of confirmation was being performed by the Bishop, a man
from the crowd walked towards the center of the altar and sat on the
Bishops chair. Crisanto Santillan, who was an assistant saw this. He
requested the accused to vacate, but the latter refused. They called on the
guard. Despite repeated request, he did not move. As the guard was
attempting to strike the victim with his nightstick to make him leave
accused-appellant drew a knife and stabbed Mararac. He repeated it a lot.
After, he got up and shouted via the mic; No one can beat me here! SPO1
Francisco saw a man, with red stains on his shirt and a knife in one hand
sitting on a chair. He advised him to drop the knife. Accused-appellant
obeyed, Mararac, the security guard, was brought to the hospital where he
expired a few minutes upon arrival.
Accused-appellant, filed a Demurrer to Evidence where he claims that:
prosecution failed to prove murder; that there was unlawful aggression by
the victim; and that accused-appellant was of unsound mind. Inspector
Valdez (Jail warden) requested the court to allow accused-appellant, to be
treated at the Baguio General Hospital to determine whether he should
remain in jail or be transferred to some other institution. While motion for
reconsideration was pending, counsel for accused-appellant filed a Motion
to Confine Accused for Physical, Mental and Psychiatric Examination.
Appellants counsel informed the court that accused-appellant had been
exhibiting abnormal behavior for the past weeks. There were 2 letters of the
warden requesting the same. The trial court denied reconsideration of the
order denying the Demurrer to Evidence. Dr. Maria Soledad Gawidan, a
resident physician in the Department of Psychiatry at the Baguio General
Hospital, testified to the accused being confined and diagnosed with
Schizophrenic Psychosis, Paranoid Typeschizophrenia, paranoid, chronic,
paranoid type.
The trial court rendered a decision on June 23, 1997. It upheld the
prosecution evidence and found accused-appellant guilty of the crime
charged and thereby sentenced him to death,
Issue: WON he was indeed insane
Held: When a person commits a felonious act the act is presumed to have
been done voluntarily. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the law

presumes that every person is of sound mind and that all acts are voluntary.
An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he has acted during
a lucid interval. In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality
of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. Since the presumption is
always in favor of sanity, he who invokes insanity as an exempting
circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. There are certain
circumstances that should have placed the trial court on notice that
appellant may not have been in full possession of his mental faculties e.g.
when he attacked Mararac, then went up the microphone. Accusedappellants history of mental illness was brought to the courts.
To test whether the accused would have a fair trial there are two distinct
matters to be determined (1) whether defendant is coherent to provide his
counsel with information necessary (2) whether he is able to comprehend the
significance of the trial and his relation to it. To put a legally incompetent
person on trial or to convict and sentence him is a violation of the
constitutional rights to a fair trial. The determination of whether a sanity
investigation or hearing should be ordered rests generally in the discretion of
the trial court. In the case at bar, when accused-appellant moved for
suspension of the arraignment on the ground of accuseds mental condition,
the trial court denied the motion after finding that the questions propounded
on appellant were intelligently answered by him. The fact that accusedappellant was able to answer the questions asked by the trial court is not
conclusive evidence that he was competent enough to stand trial and assist
in his defense. The trial court took it solely upon itself to determine the
sanity of accused-appellant. The trial judge is not a psychiatrist or
psychologist or some other expert equipped with the specialized knowledge.
If the medical history was not enough to create a reasonable doubt in the
judges mind of accused-appellants competency to stand trial, subsequent
events should have done so. One month after the prosecution rested its
case, there were letters requesting that accused be confined in hospital, as
well as the counsels filing of motion. And despite all the overwhelming
indications of accused-appellants state of mind, the judge persisted in his
personal assessment and never even considered subjecting accusedappellant to a medical examination. To top it all, the judge found appellant
guilty and sentenced him to death!
Judgment: At this late hour, a medical finding alone may make it impossible
for us to evaluate appellants mental condition at the time of the crimes
commission for him to avail of the exempting circumstance of insanity.
Nonetheless, under the present circumstances, accused-appellants
competence to stand trial must be properly ascertained to enable him to
participate in his trial meaningfully. Remanded to the court a quo for the
conduct of a proper mental examination on accused-appellant, a
determination of his competency to stand trial, and for further proceedings.

ART 4 #8
People v. Ortega (276 SCRA 166)
Facts :
In 1992, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia and a certain John Doe
were changed with murder for the killing Andre Man Masangkay. As narrated
by a witness, the victim answered the called of nature and went to the back
portion of the house where they were having a drinking spree. Accused
Ortega followed him and later they heard the victim shouting for help and
when they ran towards the scene he saw the accused on top of the victim
and stabbing the latter with a long bladed weapon. Thereafter, Ortega and
Garcia brought the victim to a well and dropped him and placed stones into
the well. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused appealed averring that the trial court erred in holding them
criminally liable because at the time the victim was dropped into the well, he
was still alive.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused may be held criminally liable for the death
of the victim which is not attributable to the stab wounds but due to
drowning?
Decision:
A person who commits a felony is criminally liable for the direct natural
and logical consequences of his wrongful act even where the resulting crime
is more serious than that intended. The essential requisites for this criminal
liability to attach are as follows :
1. the intended act is felonious ;
2. the resulting act is likewise a felony; and

3. the unintended graven wrong was primarily caused by the actors

wrongful acts.

ART 4# 10
CASE:
People v Toling
DATE:
January 17, 1975
PONENTE:
Aquino, J.
Topic in Syllabus: Art. 48

Complex Crimes
FACTS:
Antonio Toling and Jose Toling (both the accused), twins, both married,
are natives of Barrio Nenita Samar. They are illiterate farmers tilling their
own lands. Antonio's daughter, Leonora, was working in Manila. Jose's three
children had stayed in Manila also since 1964. Antonio decided to go to
Manila after receiving a letter from Leonora telling him that she would give
him money. To have money for his expenses, Antonio killed a pig and sold the
meat to Jose's wife for sixty pesos. Jose decided to go with Antonio in order
to see his children. He was able to raise eighty-five pesos for his expenses.
Leonora gave her father P50. Antonio's grandson, gave him P30. Antonio
placed the eighty pesos in the right pocket of his pants.
After buying their tickets home, they boarded the night Bicol express train at
about five o'clock in the afternoon. The train left at six o'clock that evening.
The twins were in coach No. 9. Each seat in the coach faced an opposite
seat. An aisle separated the two rows. The brothers were seated side by side

on the fourth three-passenger seat from the rear, facing the back door. Jose
was seated between Antonio, who was near the window, and a three-year old
boy. Beside the boy was a woman breast-feeding her baby who was near the
aisle. That woman was Corazon Bernal. There were more than one hundred
twenty passengers in the coach. Some passengers were standing on the
aisle.
Sitting on the third seat and facing the brothers were two men and an old
woman who was sleeping with her head resting on the back of the seat. On
the two-passenger seat across the aisle in line with the seat where the
brothers were sitting, there were seated a fat woman, who was near the
window, and one Cipriano Reganet who was on her left. On the opposite seat
were seated a woman, her daughter and Amanda Mapa with an eight-month
old baby. They were infront of Reganet.
The train stopped at Cabuyao, Laguna, and not long after it resumed regular
speed, Antonio stood up and stabbed the man sitting directly in front of him
with scissors. Jose stabbed the sleeping old woman sitting in front of him
with a knife.
The twins ran amuck and started stabbing the people in the coach. They
were finally stopped when Constabulary soldiers aboard the train heard
about the incident. At that time, Constabulary Sergeant Vicente Rayel was
not on duty and was simply taking his wife child to Quezon. He was at the
dining car when the incident happened. Constabulary Sargeant Vicente Aldea
was in the dining car as well.
The dead amounted to twelve. Eight suffered from stab wounds while others
died after they jumped off the train, apparently trying to escape the violence.
Seven were injured, though one of them was reported to have died as well.
RULING:
Antonio Toling and Jose Toling were found guilty, as co-principals, of eight (8)
separate murders and one attempted murder. Eight (8) reclusion perpetuas
for the eight murders and to an indeterminate penalty of one (1) year
of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as maximum for the attempted murder.
Pay solidarily an indemnity of P12,000 to each set of heirs of the seven
victims named in the dispositive part of the trial court's decision and of the
eight victim, Susana C. Hernandez, or a total indemnity of P96,000, and an
indemnity of P500 to Amanda Mapa.
The forty-year limit fixed in the penultimate paragraph of article 70 of the
Revised PenalCode was to be observed.

HELD:
On defenses attempt to put up a theory of self -defense
No evidence to corroborate the story of the twins that they were being held
up and that they only began stabbing people as a form of retaliation. They
were caught in flagrante delicto.
Their testimony, as well as that of the witnesses, confirm them as authors of
the killings
Injuries they sustained could be attributed to the blows which the other
passengers inflicted on them to stop their murderous rampage
On defenses contention that they should only be liable for two
homicides (for the victims
they admitted to killing)
The heirs of the eight persons who died because of stab wounds must be
indemnified.
To the four persons who died from traumatic, conjecture that may be made is
that
they jumped from the train to avoid the wrath of the brothers. However, the
absence of eyewitness-testimony as to the jumping precludes the imputation
of criminal responsibility to the appellants for the ghastly deaths of the said
victims.
On whether it was a complex crime
Perpetrated by means of different acts Cannot be regarded as constituting a
complex crime under article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which refers to
cases where "a single act constitutes two or more grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other".
"Concurso formal o ideal de delitos reviste dos formas: (a) cuando un solo
hechoconstituye dos o mas delitos (el llamado delito compuesto); (b) cuando
uno deellos sea medio necesario para cometer otro (el llamado delito
complejo)."
According to Google Translate: Formal or ideal contest (?) takes two formsof
crime: a) when a single act constitutes two or more offenses (offensescalled
composite); and b) when one of them is a necessary means to commitother
(so-called complex crime)
En al concurso real de delitos", the rule, when there is "acumulacion
material de las penas",
is that "si son varios los resultados, si son varias las acciones, estaconforme
con la logica y con la justicia que el agente soporte la carga de cadauno de
los delitos
-

According to Google Translate: In the competition (?) of real crimes, the rule,
when there is material accumulation of penalties, is that if there are several
results where there are several actions that conform to the logic and justice
that the support agent load of each of the crimes (?)
Twins are thus liable for eight (8) murders and one attempted murder

ART 5 #2
FACTS:
On August 2, 1994, four accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape
with homicide of a seven year old girl in the RTC presided by Judge Lorenzo P.
Veneracion. Respondent judge however, refused to impose the corresponding
penalty of death and he rather imposed reclusion perpetua to each of the
accused. The city prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the penalty
of death be imposed upon the four accused. The respondent judge refused to act.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent judge can impose penalty lower than that prescribed by law.
HELD:
The Supreme Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should
impose the proper penalty provided for by the law on the accused regardless of his own
religious or moral beliefs. In this case the respondent judge must impose the death
penalty. This is consistent in the rule laid down in the Civil Code Article 9 that no judge
or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity, or
insufficiency of the laws.

PEOPLE v. VENERACION [249 SCRA 244 (1995)]

Nature: Petition for certiorari to review a decision of RTC of Manila
Aug 2, 1994 - cadaver of a young girl identified as Angel Alquiza was seen
floating along Del Pan St. near the corner of Lavesares St., Binondo, Manila.
She was wrapped in a sack & yellow table cloth tied with a nylon cord with
both feet & left hand protruding from it was seen floating along. Abundio
Lagunday, a.k.a. Jr. Jeofrey and Henry Lagarto y Petilla were later charged
with the crime of Rape with Homicide in an Information dated August 8, 1994
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region
Trial Court - rendered a decision on January 31, 1995 finding the defendants
Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y Maristela guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentenced both
accused with the "penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories
provided for by law."
February 8, 1995 City Prosecutor of Manila filed a Motion for
Reconsideration praying that the Decision be "modified in that the penalty of
death be imposed" against respondents Lagarto and Cordero, in place of the
original penalty (reclusion perpetua). Feb. 10, 1995 the motion was denied
by the court.
Issue: WON the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and
in excess of jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to impose the
mandatory penalty of death under RA 7659, after finding the accused guilty
of the crime of Rape with Homicide.
HELD: YES. No question on the guilt of the accused. A government of laws,
not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those
acting under its authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule
of Law, and ought "to protect and enforce it without fear or favor," resist
encroachments by governments, political parties, or even the interference of
their own personal beliefs. The RTC judge found the accused beyond
reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape and homicide. 11 of RA No. 7659 provides: Article 335 of
the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented. The crime of
rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. 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.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
become insane, the penalty shall be death. When the rape is attempted or
frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the
occasion of the rape, a homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be death. . . .
Under the law the penalty imposable for the crime of rape with homicide is
NOT reclusion perpetua but Death. The law provides that when by reason or
on the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
A court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety

of the sentence, where the law itself provides for the sentence of death as a
penalty in specific & well-defined instances.
People vs. Limaco - as long as that penalty remains in the statute books, and
as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases, it is
the duty of judicial officers to
respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions. It is a well
settled rule that the courts are not concerned w/ the wisdom, efficacy or
morality of laws. Rules of Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt,
the judge should impose the proper penalty and civil liability
provided for by the law on the accused.

Art. 6: Murder
People vs. Borinaga
Facts: Accused: Basilio Borinaga, associated with Juan Lawaan, a maker of
fish corral Victims: Harry H. Mooney, American, resident of Calubian Leyte.
Prior to March 4, 1929, Mooney contracted with Juan Lawaan for the
construction of a fish corral. On March 4, despite the corral being only 2/3
finished, Lawaan, with some of his men, visited Mooney and attempted to
collect the whole amount in their contract. Upon Mooneys refusal to pay,
Lawaan warned and threatened him that something would happen to him
(Mooney).On the evening of the same day, Mooney was in the store of his
neighbor, Perpetua Najarro, sitting in front of Najarro, with his back towards a
window. Suddenly, Borinaga, from the window, struck with a knife at Mooney.
The knife imbedded on the back of the seat though. Mooney fell off from the
impact but was not injured. Borinaga left the scene and ran for the market
place, where he was heard prior to the incident to say he would kill Mooney,
and now saying that he apparently hit the chair instead of Mooney. After ten
minutes, Borinaga returned to have another attempt at Mooney but was
warded off by Mooney and Najarro frightening him by turning a flashlight on
him.
Issue: Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder.
Held: YES. The Court affirms the judgment of the RTC.As an essential
condition of a frustrated crime, Borinaga performed all the acts of execution,
attending the attack. There was nothing left that he could do further to
accomplish the work. The cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by
reason of forces independent of his will. Borinaga also voluntarily desisted
from further acts. The subjective phase of the criminal act was passed.
Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real:

The acts of execution perfomed by [Borinaga] did not produce the death of
Mooney as a consequence not could they have produced it because the blow
did not reach his body; therefore, the culprit did not perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the felony. There was lacking the infliction
of the deadly wound upon a vital spot of the body of Mooney.
What the back of the chair prevented was the wounding of Mooney, not his
death. It is the preventing of death by causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator, after all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
as a consequence had been performed, that constitutes a frustrated felony,
according to the law, and not the preventing of the performances of all the
acts of execution which constitute a felony, as in the present case.
Attempted murder only

ART 6 #3
CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. ERIA [50 Phil. 998 (1927)]

Facts: Julian Eria charged of raping 3 yrs & 11 mo. old child. Doubt on
whether actual penetration occurred. Physical exam showed slight
inflammation of exterior parts of organ indicating effort to enter vagina. Mom
found childs organ covered with sticky substance

Issue: WON crime is consummated?

Held: No. Frustrated only

1. Possible for mans organ to enter labia of a 3 years and 8 months old child
(Kennedy v. State)
2. No conclusive evidence of penetration so give accused benefit of the
doubt. Frustrated.

ART 6 #4
Valenzuela v. People
G.R. 160188
Petitioner Valenzuela and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club,
a supermarket, by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard who was then manning his
post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who
was wearing an identification card with the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit
(RDU), hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the well-known Tide
brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where
Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and
after five (5) minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and
again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space.
Petitioner then left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab
and directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting.
Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded
the vehicle. All these acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi
as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a
receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on
foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the
incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the
stolen merchandise recovered. The filched items seized from the duo were
four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three
(3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate value of
P12,090.00.
The Regional Trial Court convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime
of consummated theft. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that he
should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at the time he was
apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the
articles stolen. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention and affirmed
petitioners conviction. Hence the present Petition for Review.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner should be convicted of frustrated theft rather than
consummated theft.
HELD:
The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or consummated

necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts of execution have been
performed by the offender. The critical distinction instead is whether the
felony itself was actually produced by the acts of execution. The
determination of whether the felony was produced after all the acts of
execution had been performed hinges on the particular statutory definition of
the felony.
The following are elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, namely: (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;
and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Theft is already produced
upon the taking of personal property of another without the latters
consent.
U.S. v. Adiao apparently supports that notion, where, in support of its
conclusion that the theft was consummated, the Court cited three (3)
decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain. In those cases, the criminal actors
had been able to obtain full possession of the personal property prior to their
apprehension. Synthesis of the 3 decisions is in order. The determinative
characteristic as to whether the crime of theft was produced is the ability of
the actor to freely dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only
momentary. Such conclusion was drawn from an 1888 decision of the
Supreme Court of Spain which had pronounced that in determining whether
theft had been consummated. No legal reference or citation was offered for
this averment, whether the Spanish cases or authorities who may have
bolstered the conclusion. For such reasons, the Spanish cases/ authorities
cannot be considered. Even if such were offered, given that there has been
no reaffirmation by the SC, such rulings cannot be applied.
Accordingly, it would not be intellectually disingenuous for the Court to
look at the question from a fresh perspective, as the SC is not bound by the
opinions of the respected Spanish commentators, conflicting as they are, to
accept that theft is capable of commission in its frustrated stage. With such
considerations, the SC can only conclude that under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be
attempted or consummated.
The petition must be denied. The SC declines to adopt said rulings in
Philippine jurisdiction.

Valenzuela vs. People

G.R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007
Petitioner: Aristotel Valenzuela
Respondents: People of the Philippines and Hon. Court of Appeals
Ponente: J. Tinga
FACTS:
While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the
accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them
where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket,
and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started
loading the cartons inside. As the taxi was about to leave, the security guard asked Valenzuela for the
receipt of the merchandize. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently
apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of
consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be
convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage.
HELD:
No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the
following elements should be present: (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; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The Court held that theft is
produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is
immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has
already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued
from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or
consummated.

Art 6 #8
CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE V. LIZADA [January 24, 2003]
November 10, 2010

Facts:
Freedie Lizada was accused of raping his step daughter Analia Orilloso in four
instances in their house in Tondo, Manila, sometime in August 1998, on or
about Nov. 5, 1998, on or about Oct. 22, 1998 and on or about September
15, 1998. Physical examination showed no extragenital physical injuries.
Hymen intact.

Issue:
WON Nov. 5, 1998 is consummated rape?

Held:
No. Attempted rape only
1.

No proof of introduction of penis into pudendum of childs vagina

2.
Not act of lasciviousness, Lewd is obscene, lustful, indecent, and
lecherous
3.

RPC Art. 6 attempted is based on 4 elements (reyes)

4.
Not preparatory (devise means or measure to accomplish desired
end). Attempt should be equivocal. No need to complete all acts, just need to
start act w/ causal relation to intended crime.
5.
Acts must be directly related to consummation of act and
ascertainable from facts (People v. Lamahang)
6.
Accused had intended to have carnal knowledge of complainant. Acts
not preparatory, he commenced execution but failed to finish due to
presence of 3rd party, not spontaneous desistance.

Art 6 #11
CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. CAMPUHAN [March 30, 2000]
Facts:
Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four year old Crysthel Pamintuan.
Campuhan was caught by childs mother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm in
their house. Campuhan, helper of Corazons brother was allegedly kneeling
in front of the child with both their pants downa dn child was crying ayoko,
ayoko while Primo forced his penis into childs vagina
Issue: WON crime is rape?
Held: No. Modified to attempted rape
1.
Consummated rape: perfect penetration not essential. Slight
penetration is equivalent to rape. Mere touching of external genitalia
considered when its an essential part of penetration not just touching in
ordinary sense (People v. Orita). Labia majora must be entered for rape to be
consummated (People v. Escober)
2.
Attempted no penetration or didnt reach labia/mere grazing of
surface
3.
Failed to prove that penetration occurred. Mothers testimony
questionable with regards to her position relative to Primo and child. They
failed to establish how she could have seen actual contact in her position
4.
Mans instinct is to run when caught. Primo could not have stayed or
to satisfy his lust even if .. seeing Corazon
5.
Child denied penetration occurred
6.
People v. Villamor consummation even when penetration doubted:
pains felt, discoloration of inner lips of vagina or red labia minora or
hymenal tags not visible. Now seen in case, Medico legal officer, though
penetration not needed to prove contact, no medical basis to hold that there
was sexual contact. Hymen intact
People v. Campuhan
Facts:
Defendant Primo Campuhan was a helper of Conrado Plata Jr. brother of
Corazon Plata Pamintuan. One afternoon when Corazon, mother of the victim
Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from second floor on their house to prepare
MILO chocolate drinks for her 2 daughters heard one of her daughter cries:
"Ayo'koAyo'ko" When she rush upstairs, she saw Primo inside her children's
room kneeling before Chrysthel whose pajamas and panty were already
removed, while his short pants were down to his knees. She ran out and

called for help. Primo was apprehended by her brother and a certain cousin
and was brought to barangay officials.
Primo asserted his innocence contending that the 4 year yr old child was in a
playing mood and wanted to ride on his back, when he suddenly pulled the
child down causing both of them to
fall down on the floor. It was that fallen position which the mother of the
victim saw. He claims that it was very truly inconceivable that Corazon could
give vivid description of the alleged sexual contact and the touching of the
sexual organs of the victim. He asserts that the absence of any external
signs of physical injuries or of penetration of Crysthel's private parts more
than bolsters his innocence. Such assertion was manifested by the physical
examination of the victim yielded negative results. No evident sign of extragenital physical injury was noted by the medico legal officer on victim's body
as her hymen was intact and its orifice was only 0.5
cm in diameter. The trial court then found the accused guilty of statutory
rape and sentenced him to death penalty with moral and exemplary
damages. Hence, an automatic review for the Supreme Court
Issue/s:
Whether the act of Primo constitutes consummated rape?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that it is necessary to carefully ascertain whether
the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial threshold of the female
organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated. It was supported
by the physical examination results that there were no external signs of
physical injuries to conclude in a medical perspective that penetration had
taken place. Although the absence of complete penetration of the hymen
does not negate the
possibility of contact, Medico legal officer clarified that there was no medical
basis to hold that there was sexual contact between the accused and the
victim. Under Art.6 RPC provides that rape is attempted when the offender
commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime by reason
of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. All
the elements of attempted rape are only present; hence the accused should
be punished for this.
The lower court decision was modified and the accused was found
guilty for ATTEMPTED RAPE.

ART. 8 #3
JOSE INGAL, PETITIONER VS PP
GR 173282, MAR 4, 2008
I. NATURE OF THE CASE: MURDER
II. FACTS: THE INCIDENT HAPPENED AT THE CARINDERIA IN TONDO, MANILA.
THE
VICTIM ROLANDO DOMINGO WAS EATING IN THE CARINDERIA WITH HIS
GIRLFRIEND WHEN
JOSE INGAL APPROACHED HIM, PULLED HIS HAIR AND REPEATEDLY STABBED
HIM. AFTER
PETITIONER STABBED THE VICTIM, HE JUST WALKED AWAY AS IF NOTHING
HAPPENED. THE
VICTIM SUSTAINED FOUR STABBED, TWO OF WHICH WERE PENETRATING
AND FATAL. THE
WEAPON USE BY THE PETITIONER WAS A TRES CANTOS. THE PRIMARY CAUSE
OF DEATH WAS
DUE TO PENETRATING STAB WOUND ON THE CHEST. THE TRIAL COURT FINDS
JOSE INGAL
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER. SINCE HE
WAS DETAINED IN
THE SERVICE OF HIS SENTENCED, HE SHALL BE CREDITED THE FULL PERIOD
OF HIS
TEMPORARY DETENTION.
III. ISSUES: WHETHER THE ACCUSED APPELLANT IS GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT PROOF TO
JUSTIFY HIS
CONVICTION?
IV. RULINGS/ HOLDINGS: THE PROSECUTION RELIES PRIMARILY ON THE
TESTIMONIES OF AIDA BONA, THE OWNER OF THE CARENDERIA WHO JUST
GIVE HER WRITTEN
STATEMENT AFTER YEARS OF INCIDENT AFTER THE APPREHENSION OF THE
SUSPECT AND
ROSALINDA TAN, THE HELPER IN THE CARINDERIA, WHO ALLEGEDLY
WITNESSED THE

STABBING OF THE VICTIM IN THE CARINDERIA THEY OPERATE. BUT

PETITIONER RAISES
THE DEFEND OF DENIAL AND ALIBI. HE CLAIMS HE WAS IN HIS PLACE OF
WORK WHEN THE
STABBING HAPPENED. THE DEFENSE TRY TO DESTROY THE CREDIBILITY OF
THE TWO
PROSECUTION WITNESS BY ARGUING THAT THEIR TESTIMONIES THAT
PETITIONER WAS ALONE
AT THE TIME WHEN HE STABBED THE VICTIM WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
THE TESTIMONY OF
SGT YANG THAT THERE WERE FOUR SUSPECTS IN THE KILLING OF THE
VICTIM. THERE BEING
STATEMENTS THAT THERE WERE ALLEGEDLY FOUR WITNESSES TO THE
STABBING OF VICTIM
DOES NOT DIMINISH THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TWO EYEWITNESSES. THE
COURT FIND THE
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION TO BE MORE CREDIBLE THAN THAT
ADDUCED BY THE
PETITIONER. IT DESERVES GREAT WEIGHT AND IS EVEN CONCLUSIVE AND
BINDING. THE
VICTIM WAS ATTACKED FROM BEHIND WHILE HE WAS EATING AND WAS NOT
ABLE TO DEFEND
HIMSELF OR RETALIATE BECAUSE THE ATTACK WAS SO SUDDEN AND
UNEXPECTED. SINCE
TREACHERY WAS PROPERLY ALLEGED IN THIS CASE, THE SAME CAN BE USED
TO QUALIFY THE
KILLING TO MURDER. WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE INTENTION OF THE
PETITIONER WAS TO KILL
THE VICTIM.
THUS, ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, THE DECISION OF THE CA IS
AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATION.

People v. Sitchon 378 SCRA 68(2002)

People v. Escote 400 SCRA 603(2003)

Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina 102 Phil.181(1957) OK!!

People V. Amigo 252 SCRA 43(1996) somewhat OK!!

People v. Maghirang 28 Phil. 655(1914)

Palaganas v. People 501 SCRA 533(2006) -- OK!

Martinez v. Court of Appeals 521 SCRA 176 (2007)

People v. Caballero 400 SCRA 424(2003)
Rivera v. People 480 SCRA 188(2006) OK!

People v. Grande(orande?) 415 SCRA 699 (2003)

People v. Marquez 365 SCRA 200(2001)
People v. Reyes 581 SCRA 691 (2009)
Herrera v. Sandiganbayan 579 SCRA 32(2009)
People v. Guittap 403 SCRA 167 (2003)
People v. Miranda 417 SCRA 383 (2003)

BATACLAN V MEDINA
102 PHIL 181MONTEMAYOR; October 22, 1957
FACTS

Juan Bataclan rode Bus No. 30 of the Medina T

r a n s p o r t a t i o n , d r i v e n b y S a y l o n , s h o r t l y a f t e r mid
night. While the bus was running very fast on a highway,
one of the front tires burst. The bus fell into acanal and turned
turtle. Four passengers could not get
out, including Bataclan. It appeared that gasoline
began to leak from the overturned bus. Ten men came to
help. One of them carried a torch and when he
approached the bus, a fierce fire started, burning the
four passengers trapped inside.- 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, including himself and his copassengers who were unable to leave it; that at the
time the fire
started,Bataclan, though he must have suffered phys
icalinjuries, perhaps serious, was still alive, and so
damages were awarded, not for his death, but for the
physical injuries suffered by him.
ISSUES
What is the proximate cause of death of the four
passengers?
HELD
The proximate cause of death is the overturning of the bus.see definition of proximate cause under A1
- It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus
over turns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing
him physical injuries, "If through some event,
unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set
on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highway men

after looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the

passenger is burned to death, one might still contend
that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the
overturning of the vehicle. But in the present case
and under the circumstances obtaining in the same, we
do not hesitate to hold that the proximate cause of
the death of Bataclan was the overturning of the bus,
this for the reason that 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; that the coming of the men
with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help, made
not only by the passengers, but most probably, by
the driver and the conductor themselves, and that
because it was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning),the
rescuers had to carry a light with them; and coming
as they did from a rural area where lanterns and
flashlights were not available, they had to use a torch, the
most handy and available; and what was more
natural than that said rescuers should innocently
approach the overturned vehicle to extend the aid and effect
the rescue requested from them. In other words,
the coming of the men with the torch was to be
expected and was a natural sequence of the
overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its
passengers and the call for outside help. What is more, the
burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the
negligence of the carrier, through its driver and its conductor.
According to the witnesses, the driver and the conductor
were on the road walking back and forth. They, or at least,
the driver should and must have known that in the
position in which the overturned bus was, gasoline could
and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and

soaked the area in and around the bus, this aside from the
fact that gasoline when spilled, specially over a large area,
can be smelt and detected-even from a distance, and yet
neither 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 (I guess this case says, if not for
the overturning of the
bus then the leak and the fire wouldnt have
happened
People vs Patricio Amigo GR 116719
Facts:
Accused-Appellant Patricio Amigo was charged and convicted of
murder by the regional trial court, Davao City and was sentenced to
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Issue:
Whether or not that the penalty or reclusion perpetua is too cruel and
harsh and pleads for sympathy.
Held:
The duty of court is to apply the law disregarding their feeling of
sympathy or pity for the accused.
"Dura lex sed lex".

PALAGANAS vs. PPL G.R. No. 165483 September 12, 2006

Facts: The petioner was sentenced by RTC and Affirmed by the CA for the guilty of crime of
Homicide and two counts of Frustrated Homicide. A rumble, caused by the song my way at
videoke bar resulted in the shooting by the petitioner, who answer the call of help of his
brother who was involved in rumble incident. Petitioner invoked self-defense to justify his
shooting.

Issue: Whether or not self-defense is validly invoked.

Held: For a valid self-defense, primarily unlawful aggression must be existed. In the case at
bar no unlawful aggression that comes from the victim since the throwing of stones to the
accused does not puts in actual or imminent peril the life, limb, or right of the accused. The
accused has other options other than shooting , either by running or taking cover or calling
proper authorities. The justification of self-defense is not correctly be appreciated.
As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of selfdefense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution.
Presidential Decree No. 1866, [63] as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, [64] which is a
special law which states that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance generic.
Whereas, the used of unlicensed firearm that was alleged in the information and must be
proven during trial is considered special aggravating circumstances and it cannot be offset
by mitigating circumstance unlike generic that it may be offset.
Generic aggravating circumstances are those that generally apply to all crimes such as those
mentioned in Article 14, paragraphs No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 and 20, of the
Revised Penal Code. It has the effect of increasing the penalty for the crime to its maximum
period, but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. It must always be alleged
and charged in the information, and must be proven during the trial in order to be
appreciated. Moreover, it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Temperate or moderate damages (P25,000) may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.
gunshot wound sustained by Michael in his right shoulder was not fatal or mortal since the
treatment period for his wound was short and he was discharged from the hospital on the
same day he was admitted therein

RIVERA VS PEOPLE
FACTS:
As the victim, Ruben Rodil, went to a nearby store to buy food, accused Edgardo Rivera mocked him
for being jobless and dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a
heated exchange of words ensued. In the evening of the following day, when Ruben and his threeyear-old daughter went to the store to buy food, Edgardo, together with his brother Esmeraldo

Rivera and Ismael Rivera, emerged from their house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael
mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a
hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their house only when the
policemen arrived. Ruben sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital. The doctor declared
that the wounds were slight and superficial, though the victim could have been killed had the police
not promptly intervened. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder.
An appeal was made by the accused, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision with
modification, changing the crime to attempted murder and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 2
years of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.
ISSUES:
1)
Whether
or
not
there
was
intent
to
kill.
2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to
attempted
murder.
3) Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of treachery was properly applied.
4) Whether or not the correct penalty was imposed.
HELD:
1) Yes. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist,
inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds
sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the
killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the
accused. In the present case, Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows, while
Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Even though the wounds sustained by the victim
were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, intent to kill was presumed.
2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that 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. Although the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and
could not have produced his death, it does not negate criminal liability of the accused for attempted
murder. The intent to kill was already presumed based on the overt acts of the accused. In fact,
victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.
3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, which gives no opportunity for
the victim to repel it or defend himself. In the present case, the accused attacked the victim in a
sudden and unexpected manner as he was walking with his three-year-old daughter, impervious of
the imminent peril to his life. He was overwhelmed with the assault of the accused and had no
chance to defend himself and retaliate. Thus, there was treachery.
4) No. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the
penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the accused were guilty only of attempted
murder, the penalty should be reduced by two degrees, in accordance to Article 51 of the Revised
Penal Code. Thus, under Article 61 (2), in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty

should be prision mayor. In the absence of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the
crime other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the maximum of the indeterminate
penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor which has a range of from eight (8)
years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the
penalty of prision mayor should be reduced by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of
six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the accused were sentenced 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.

People vs. Oanis

(G.R. No. 47722. July 27, 1943)
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendants-appellants: Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta
Ponente: J. Moran
FACTS:
Upon receiving a telegram from Major Guido ordering the arrest of Anselmo Balagtas, Captain
Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, asked that he be
given four men, one of whom who reported was defendant Alberto Galanta. The same instruction
was given to defendant Antonio Oanis, chief of police of Cabanatuan, who was likewise called by the
Provincial Inspector. The Provincial Inspector divided the party into two groups with defendants
Oanis and Galanta taking the route leading to the house of a bailarina named Irene, where Balagtas
was believed to be staying. Upon arriving, the group went to the Irenes room and on seeing a man
sleeping with his back towards the door where they were, 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
Balagtas but an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irenes paramour.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the defendants are criminally liable for the death of Serapio Tecson.
2) Whether or not the defendants are entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance in case they are
found criminally liable
HELD:
1) Yes. If a person acted in innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of his official duties,
then he incurs no criminal liability. Nonetheless, the maxim ignorantia facti excusat, applies only
when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. In the instant case, the defendants
found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action, as the person in
the room being then asleep would give them ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity.
Moreover, they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or

alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him. Thus, the crime committed by defendants was
not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not accidental.
2) Yes. The Court held that the defendants committed the crime of murder with the qualifying
circumstance of alevosia, but may be entitled to an incomplete justifying circumstance as provided in
Article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code. There are two requisites in order that the circumstance
may be taken as a justifying one: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In the instant case,
only the first requisite is present. Thus, Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law in case the crime committed is not
wholly excusable, was imposed, entitling the defendants to a privileged mitigating circumstance.

US vs. Ah Chong
G.R. No. L-5272. March 19, 1910
Plaintiff-appelle: The United States
Defendant-appellant: Ah Chong
Ponente: J. Carson
FACTS:
The accused, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook in Fort Mckinley and was sharing the house with the
deceased, Pascual Gualberto, who was employed as a house boy. The door of the room they were
occupying was not furnished with a permanent lock, and as a measure of security, they fasten the
door by propping a chair against it. One evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by someone
trying to force open the door of their room.The deceased and the accused had an understanding that
when either returned late at night, he should knock at the door and acquaint his companion with his
identity. Ah Chong sat up in bed and called out twice, Who is there? but heard no answer. The
room was quite dark, and as there had been recent robberies in Fort McKinley, fearing that the
intruder was a robber or a thief, he leaped to his feet and called out. If you enter the room, I will kill
you. Suddenly, he was struck by the edge of the chair which had been placed against the door.
Believing that he was being attacked, he seized a common kitchen knife which he kept under his
pillow and wildly struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate,
Pascual.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused was criminally liable.
HELD:
No. The rule is that one is not criminally liable if he acted without malice (criminal intent),
negligence, and imprudence. In the present case, the accused acted in good faith, without malice or
criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of selfdefense. Had the facts been as he believed them to be, he would have been wholly exempt from
criminal liability on account of his act. Moreover, the accused cannot be said to have been negligent

or reckless as the facts as he saw them threatens his person and his property. Under such
circumstances, there is no criminal liability, as the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to
negligence or bad faith.