D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M.
Gutierrez III | 1
Art. 2. Applicability of provisions US vs. Bull Facts: H.N. Bull was master of steamship Standard, which transported 677 cattle and carabaos on 2 Dec 1909 without proper means of securing them or bedding, thus, a number were cruelly torn (ropes were tied on nose rings), bruised, and killed. Ship route: Formosa-Phils. Issue: WON Phil. laws apply, as there is no information regarding where this occurred. Held: Yes; this was ongoing as the ship entered the Phil. territory, therefore, Phil. laws apply. - Feliciano
People vs. Wong Cheng Facts: Wong Cheng smoked opium while aboard merchant vessel Changsa, anchored in Manila Bay 2.5 miles from shore. Issue: WON Philippines has jurisdiction over Merchant ships in its territory? Held: Yes; smoking within territory allows substance to produce pernicious effects, which is against public order. It is also an act of defiance of authority. -Feliciano
US vs. Look Chaw Facts: Mrs. Jacks and Milliron found sacks of contraband substance opium on steamship Errol on 18 August 1910 in, around 11-12 am. 3 sacks were found containing 49, 80 packs, (4) packs each; total = 129 packs to be sold, 4 for personal consumption. The 129 were supposedly going to be sold in Mexico and Vera Cruz. Issue: Was Look Chaw accountable, as he didn‘t bring down the opium from the ship and did not intend to sell within Philippines? Held: Yes; investigation showed that he did sell to a secret service agent while in the port. - Feliciano
US vs. Ah Sing Facts: Ah Sing as onboard steamer Shun Chang which docked on Cebu from Saigon on 25 April 1917. He had bought 8 cans of opium there, which were found on the ship, hidden in the ashes below the boiler of ship engine. No evidence regarding intent to import was brought to court. Issue: Is he guilty of importing when intent was not so proven? Held: Yes, without reasonable doubt; it‘s illogical that he would transport from Saigon-Manila-Saigon for pleasure, and he could not possibly need as much for just him. -Feliciano US vs. Lol-lo and Saraw Facts: 2 Dutch boats left Matuta on 30 June 1920, headed for Peta. First boat had 1 person aboard and the second had 11 men, women and children. After a few days, at 7pm, the second boat arrived between the isles of Buang and Bukid and was stopped by 6 vintas with 24 men, all armed. They asked for food, took cargo, hurt men, and raped women. Then, 2 women were taken, the rest were put back on boat made to sink. Lol-lo raped one of the women on the way to Maruro, where both women escaped. Issue: Given that piracy is punishable in all jurisdictions, does Art. 153 still apply since is still says ―Spain…‖ instead of ―Philippines…‖ etc? Held: Yes; all laws still applicable in Philippines until so changed or repealed. -Feliciano
D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 2
Art. 3. Definition of felony US vs. Ah Chong Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in mess hall at Fort McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) and stayed there at Bldg. 27. One night, he woke up to the sound of someone trying to force his way into the room. There was no way to know who it was as it was dark and the room only had 1 door and 1 window, and vines covered the window; all he could do was ask who it was. He asked twice, and then, when no response came, he threatened the attacker that if he continued, he would be killed. He took a knife which he kept under his pillow because of the robberies occurring recently, and when he was hit on the knee by a chair he uses to keep the door closed, he attacked and killed the man who turned out to be his roommate, Pascal Gualberto. He called for help immediately but it was too late. Issue: Is he liable for the crime? Held: No; it was a mistake of facts. The act would have been lawful if the facts had been as he believed them to be. -Feliciano People vs. Oanis and Galanta Facts: Under instructions to seize Balagtas (escaped convict), the two policemen went to a house where they suspected Balagtas to be hiding. Upon finding a sleeping man inside, they shot him. He turned out to be Tecson, an innocent man. Issue: Are they liable? Held: Yes; unlike in Ah Chong, facts did not show that they tried to ascertain that they had the right man. As they did not exercise due precaution, they were guilty of murder. -Feliciano
Art. 4. Criminal Liability People vs. Iligan Facts: A brawl started and the defendant chases Asis and Lukban with a bolo. Later on, as the two were walking with Esmeraldo Quinones, the 3 reappeared again. Macandog hit Quinones on the face with the bolo as the 2 ran away. It is uncertain whether or not there was truly a vehicle that ran over Quinones. Issue: Who is liable for the death? Held: Iligan is guilty by virtue of their chase being the proximate cause of the death, if indeed a vehicle did run over Quinones. -Feliciano
People vs. Mananquil Facts: At 11pm, 6 March 1965, defendant bought 10c worth of gasoline from Esso gasoline station, put it in a coffee bottle and went to her husband‘s guard post at NAWASA. She poured the gasoline on him and burned him. He died of pneumonia, a complication caused by the burns (weakened immune system; he caught the pneumonia in the hospital where he was being treated). Issue: Is she liable for the death when all she intended to do was burn him? Held: Yes; the death is a consequence of her act of burning him. -Feliciano
US vs. Brobst Facts: Saldivar had been fired from the mining company he was working for (he was a thief and was not welcome among his colleagues). Brobst had been told not to let him back in. However, Saldivar came in with 3-4 friends, looking for a job, and ignored Brobst‘s orders to leave. Brobst then struck him a blow which caused his own bolo to hit
D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 3
him, and Saldivar staggered away to his sister‘s house. He arrived there 2 hours later and died on her doorstep. The death was attributed to possible internal bleeding. Issue: Is Brobst liable, given that it wasn‘t his intent to kill Saldivar, and he had a right to expel Saldivar from the property? Held: Guilty; even though no evidence was provided to ascertain that the ―blow‖ was strong enough to cause death, no evidence was provided to show he intervened to help Saldivar either. -Feliciano Impossible crime People vs. Balmores Facts: Balmores was found guilty of attempted estafa through falsification of a government obligation. He attempted to cash in a sweepstakes ticket that was obviously falsified (the ¼ ticket was split into ⅛, and the winning ticket number written in ink at the bottom left part of the halved ticket). He presented his falsified ticket to a PCSO booth. The PCSO employee manning the booth saw that the ticket was obviously falsified, and had Balmores arrested. Balmores waived the right to counsel, and pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted estafa. Issue: WON Balmores committed an impossible crime. Held: No; The recklessness and clumsiness of the act of falsification did not make the crime an impossible one under Paragraph 2 Article 4 of the RPC.1 The alteration of a losing sweepstakes ticket would constitute a crime only if an attempt to cash it were done, which is what occurred in this case. -Adapt Intod vs. CA Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They fired at her room. However, she was in another city then thus they hit no one. Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder? Held: No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible crime—an act which, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate would constitute a felony against person or family. Its purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1) legal responsibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where: (1) The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (2) There is no intention to perform the physical act; (3) There is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent consummation of intended crime. Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality, the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. -Adapt:
Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the RPC reads: [Criminal Liability shall be incurred] 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.
D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 4
Art. 6. Stages of commission US vs. Eduave Facts: The accused rushed upon the girl suddenly and struck her from behind with a sharp bolo, producing a frightful gash in the lumbar region and slightly to the side eight and one-half inches long and two inches deep, severing all of the muscles and tissues there. The accused was incensed at the girl for the reason that she had theretofore charged him criminally before the local officials with having raped her and with being the cause of her pregnancy. He was her mother‘s querido and was living with her as such at the time the crime here charged was committed Issues: WON the crime murder or homicide if the girl had been killed, WON the stage of commission is attempted or frustrated Held: The crime committed was MURDER; The attack was made treacherously. Qualified by the circumstance of alevosia (Sp. treachery, a-le-vo-SI-a), the accused making a sudden attack upon his victim partly from the rear and dealing her a terrible blow in the back and side with his bolo. The stage of commission is FRUSTRATED; Not attempted murder because defendant PERFORMED ALL OF THE ACTS which should have resulted in the consummated crime and voluntarily desisted from further acts. -Adapt Art. 6: Rape People vs. Orita Facts: Victim: Cristina Abaya, 19 years old, freshman at St. Joseph‘s College in Borongan, Eastern Samar At around 1:30 am, after attending a party, Abayan came home to her boarding house. As she knocked at the door, Orita suddenly held her and poked a knife at her neck. She pleaded for him to let her go but instead of doing so, Orita dragged her upstairs with him while he had his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand holding and poking the balisong at the victim. At the second floor, he commanded Christina to look for a room. Upon finding a room, Orita held her against the wall while he undressed himself. He then ordered her to undress. As she took off her shirt, he pulled off her bra, pants and panty, and ordered her to lie on the floor. He then mounted her and, pointing the balisong at her neck, ordered he to hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. In this position, only a portion of his penis entered her, so he ordered Abayan to go on top of him. With him lying on his back and Abayan mounting him, still, he did not achieve full penetration and only part of his penis was inserted in the vagina. At this instance, Abayan got the opportunity to escape Orita because he had both his hands and the knife on the floor. Abayan, still naked, was chased from room to room with Orita climbing over the partitions. Abayan, frantic and scared, jumped out of a window and darted for the municipal building and was finally found by Pat. Donceras and other policemen. Due to darkness though, the failed to apprehend Orita. In the medico legal, Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude had the following findings: circumscribed hematoma at Ant. neck, linear abrasions below left breas, multiple pinpoint marks at the back, abrasions on both kness, erythemetous areas noted surrounding vaginal orifice, tender; hymen intact; no laceration fresh and old noted; examining finger can barely enter and with difficulty; vaginal cavity tight, no discharges noted Issue: Whether or not rape is consummated Held: Rape was consummated. Perfect penetration is not essential. For the consummation of rape, any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient to qualify as having carnal knowledge. In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his purpose and from that moment, the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. -Adapt
People vs. Campuhan Facts: Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four year old Crysthel Pamintuan. Campuhan was caught by child‘s mother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm in their house. Campuhan, helper of Corazon‘s brother was allegedly
D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 5
kneeling in front of the child with both their pants downa dn child was crying ―ayoko, ayoko‖ while Primo forced his penis into child‘s 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 didn‘t reach labia/mere grazing of surface 3. Failed to prove that penetration occurred. Mother‘s 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. Man‘s 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 People v. Villamor consummation even when penetration doubted: pain‘s 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. -Adapt Art. 6: Theft US vs. Adiao Facts: Defendant: Tomas Adiao Adiao, a customs inspector, took a leather belt valued at P0.80 from the baggage of T. Murakami Adiao kept the belt in his desk at the Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees He was charged with the crime of theft in the Municipal Court of the city of Manila He was found guilty of frustrated theft He appealed to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila and the decision of the Municipal Court was affirmed and he was sentence to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs The defendant claimed in his appeal that the lower court erred in holding that he was guilty of the crime of theft as disclosed by the facts appearing of record Issue: WON the act of the defendant is frustrated theft Held: No, the crime cannot properly be classified as frustrated. The defendant has performed all of the acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of the crime of theft. He has taken possession of the belt and this already constitutes the crime of theft. ―The act of making use of the thing having been frustrated, which, however does not go to make the elements of the consummated crime‖ (Decision of Supreme Court of Spain) Note: The ponente referred to the decision of Supreme Court of Spain in its decision. It illustrated several situations that constitute consummated theft. -Adapt Art. 6: Robbery People vs. Lamahang Facts: Aurelio Lamahang was caught opening with an iron bar a wall of a store of cheap goods in Fuentes St. Iloilo. He broke one board and was unfastening another when a patrolling police caught him. Owners of the store were sleeping inside store as it was early dawn. Convicted of attempt of robbery Issue: WON crime is attempted robbery? Held: No. Attempted trespass to dwelling. Attempt should have logical relation to a particular and concrete offense which would lead directly to consummation. Necessary to establish unavoidable connection & logical & natural relation of cause and effect. Important to show clear intent to commit crime. In case at bar, we can only infer that his intent was to enter by force, other inferences are not justified by facts. Groizard: infer only from nature of acts
an employee there who was on her way out for her meal break. At about 2:00 of the same day. Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to the office. Salvilla Facts:
Petitioner: Bienvenido Salvilla April 12. The appellant maintained that the money. as well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. they met Rodita Habiero. the accused agreed to receive the same and to release Rodita to be accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. the wallet and the wristwatch were within the dominion and control of the appellant and his co-accused and thus the taking was completed. Major Melquiades Sequio. which Rodita gave to one of the accused. Rosa Caram. Severino told him it would be hard to do that since banks are closed because it was a Saturday The police and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. joined the negotiations. The accused refused to surrender and release the hostages. a surrender must have the following requisites: that the offender had not been actually arrested. They informed Severino that all they needed was money. M. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of. o It is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber or that he should have actually carried the property away. Caram offered P50.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo City.000 cash (P5000 acc to the defense) and handed it to the petitioner. 1986. a coaster. This resulted to injuries to the girls.000 so he and the other hostages can be released. Gutierrez III | 6
executed. the appellant told Severino to produce P100. No.000. together with Reynaldo. I. Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter. Mind should not directly infer intent. OIC Mayor of Iloilo City. The detention in the case at bar was not only incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to commit the same so the nature of the offense was affirmed. The ―surrender‖ by the appellant and his co-accused hardly meets these requirements. o Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of the crime of robbery. staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard They were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade On their way inside the establishment. or that he should have made his escape with it. o To be mitigating. Mayor Caram unlocked the door and handed to Rodita P50. wallet and watches were all left on the counter and were never touched by them. Spain SC: necessary that objectives established or acts themselves obviously disclose criminal objective. They went inside the office and the petitioner pointed his gun at Severino Choco. Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed Canasares). However. and his two daughters. Mary and Mimmie. out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor. that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to his agent. One of the accused gave a key to Mayor Caram and with the key. and some raincoats.
Note: The nature of the linked offenses (robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention) was also discussed. Acts susceptible of double interpretation can‘t furnish ground for themselves.
Issues: WON the crime of robbery was consummated WON there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender Held: Yes.000 instead. and that the surrender was voluntary. at about noon time – Petitioner. he stopped Severino from getting the wallet and watches. the money demanded. Mary‘s right leg had to be amputated due to her injuries. The respondent claimed that none of the items (money. Appellant demanded P100. -Adapt People vs. Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20. -Adapt
. According to the appellant.000. and informed her that it was a hold-up. based on the evidence. The ―surrender‖ of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be considered in their favour to mitigate their liability. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful ―taking‖ is complete. watches and wallet) were recovered from them. his 2 daughters and Rodita were kept inside the office. He also claimed that they never fired on the military because they intended to surrender. the owner. The police and military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still wouldn‘t budge after more ultimatums. Later. negotiated with the accused and appealed to them to surrender.
Dissenting opinion. There was nothing left that he could do further to accomplish the work. On the evening of the same day. Mooney fell off from the impact but was not injured. It is the preventing of death by causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. with his back towards a window. Sy Pio ran away. Mooney was in the store of his neighbor. Tan asked ―what is the idea?‖ thereupon. despite the corral being only 2/3 finished. First to be shot was Jose Sy. some months prior to the incident. but afterwards. Tan was shot at his right shoulder and it passed through his back. Sy Pio turned around and fired at him as well. After ten minutes. He ran to a room behind the store to hide. As an essential condition of a frustrated crime.
.45 caliber pistol. 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. Borinaga returned to have another attempt at Mooney but was warded off by Mooney and Najarro frightening him by turning a flashlight on him. a maker of fish corral Victims: Harry H. Tan Siong Kiap was brought to the Chinese General Hospital where his wound was treated. sitting in front of Najarro. and now saying that he apparently hit the chair instead of Mooney. The knife imbedded on the back of the seat though. he spent P300 for hospital and doctor‘s fees. American. 1929. not his death. struck with a knife at Mooney. Sy Pio was found by the Constabulary in Tarlac. Upon Mooney‘s refusal to pay. I. attending the attack. On March 4. Lomotan. -Adapt People vs. Held: YES. with some of his men. as in the present case. 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. He was released upon his request and against physician‘s advice and was requested to return for further treatment which he did 5 times in a period of 10 days. According to Sy Pio‘s declaration. The subjective phase of the criminal act was passed. from the window. associated with Juan Lawaan. He stayed there from Septenber 3-12. M. Borinaga left the scene and ran for the market place. The cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason of forces independent of his will.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Tan Siong Kiap. He was still able to hear gunshots from Sy Pio‘s pistol. 1949. The Court affirms the judgment of the RTC. Sy Pio‘s wife. Suddenly. Lawaan warned and threatened him that something would happen to him (Mooney). Sy Pio entered the store at 511 Misericordia Sta Cruz Manila and started firing with a . Borinaga. Lawaan. 1949. Mooney contracted with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral. Ong Pian and Jose Sy. Sy Pio Facts: Sy Pio shot three people early in the morning of September 3. He admitted to Lomotan that he shot the victims and handed him the pistol used in the shooting. visited Mooney and attempted to collect the whole amount in their contract. Mooney. Issue: Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder. and not the preventing of the performances of all the acts of execution which constitute a felony. Vicenta was also employed by Ong Pian‘s partner. Upon seeing Sy Pio fire at Jose Sy. according to the law. after all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence had been performed. Borinaga performed all the acts of execution. he was employed in a restaurant owned by Ong Pian. his wife was able to borrow P20 from her employer. that constitutes a frustrated felony. Attempted murder only. where he was heard prior to the incident to say he would kill Mooney. Borinaga Facts: Accused: Basilio Borinaga. a police from Manila Police Department went to Tarlac to get Sy Pio. Perpetua Najarro. J. therefore. Ong Pian only lent him P1.” What the back of the chair prevented was the wounding of Mooney. His wound was completely healed. Gutierrez III | 7
Art. 6: Murder
People vs. When he tried to borrow money from Ong Pian fpr his wife‘s sick father. resident of Calubian Leyte Prior to March 4. Borinaga also voluntarily desisted from further acts.
D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. admissions made to Lomotan. Under these circumstances. Sy Pio found that his money was gone. Sy Pio could not remember incurring such debts. M. They then detained Gaurano at the house of Pedro Ravelo. ASo early in the morning of Sept 3. 1984. with the intent of killing the latter. At 5AM. attacked. one of the accused. he was resentful of Ong Pian‘s conduct. The trial court merely relied on the statement of the accused-appellants stating they would kill Lugatiman to establish intent to kill.
Sy Pio had to turn around to shoot Tan Siong Kiap. Defendant-appellant should only be found guilty of less serious physical injuries instead of frustrated murder. He was able to escape. The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. Thereafter. Issue: Whether the statement by the accused stating that Lugatiman would be killed is sufficient proof of intent to convict a person of frustrated murder Held: No Ratio: In a crime of murder or an attempt of frustration thereof. Ravelo
Facts: The accused-appellants are members of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) stationed at a checkpoint near the airport of Tandag. etc.) Assignment of error must be dismissed. he got his pistol and went to a restaurant in Ongpin where Ong Pian worked and shot him. Ong Pian presented a list of Sy Pio‘s debts and these were deducted from his wife‘s monthly salary. (Uncontradicted testimony of the victim. defendant-appellant was dismissed from his work. Held: 1.
. Sy Pio could hear that he had lost his money gambling. The fact that he was able to escape which appellant must have seen. which is an essential element of the offense of frustrated murder. He reported what happened to him and to Gaurano to the police authorities. Lugatiman was thus left alone. There is sufficient proof. while Ngo Cho. counsel for the accused aver that the lower court erred in finding that accused-appellants are guilty of frustrated murder. Issues: Trial court erred in not finding that Tan received the shot accidentally from the same bullet that had been fired at Jose Sy. accused-appellants allegedly kidnapped by means of force one Reynaldo Gaurano. but also by the execution of all acts and the use of means necessary to deliver a fatal blow while the victim is not placed in a position to defend himself. A verbal expression is not sufficient to show an actual design to perpetrate the act. At about 1AM of May 22. testimony of physician. -Adapt People vs. In Tan Siong Kiap‘s case. Counsel further contends that there can be no frustrated murder absent any proof of intent to kill. Thereafter. The latter was also brought to Ravelo's house where he was tortured. Lower court erred in sentencing him to pay an indemnity of P350. I. they assaulted. Sy Pio was able to realize the sum of P70 and he put his money in a place in his room. As such. Gutierrez III | 8
Afterwards. Lugatiman was transferred to the house of accusedappellant Padilla. 3. At approximately 6:30 PM of May 21. 2. a Chinaman who has a pistol was away. must have produced in the mind of the defendant-appellant that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital part of the body. the offender must have the intent or the actual design to kill which must be manifested by external acts. Offended party spent P300 for the hospital fees. 4. Tan tolf Sy Pio that he had probably given the money to his wife. Afterwards he went to Sta Cruz and shot Jose Sy and Tan. and burned Gaurano. the accused-appellants also kidnapped by means of force Joey Lugatiman. The next day. Intent must be shown not only by a statement of the aggressor. a few months before Sept3. Reynaldo Gaurano died on May 22. Shortly after. There he was tied to the wall with a nylon line and was told he would be killed at 9AM. In this appeal. it cannot be said that the subjective phase of the acts of execution had been completed. The defendant appellant knew that he had not actually performed all acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. RTC convicted the accused-appellants of murder of Gaurano and frustrated murder of Lugatiman. accused-appellants had to attend to Gaurano.
Leyte. with another policeman. Issue: WON Cunigunda. the husband. therefore. Francisco abandoned his family.
. provocation is sufficient when proportionate to the aggression. at the same time drawing his bolo and brandishing it in a threatening manner. In this case. held her by the hair. All that she did to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband was to be out caroling at night. The deceased dragged himself free from his companion and attacked the accused. she surrendered herself to the police along with the torn dress that she wore the night before. Burden if proof of self-defense rests on the accused. Boholst-Caballero Facts: Cunigunda Boholst Caballero seeks reversal of the judgment of the CFI of Ormoc City finding her guilty of parricide—she allegedly killed her husband. Cunigunda. Reasonable necessity of means employed. There was imminent danger of injury. In this case. The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity where the knife was drawn from is a strong indication of the truth of the testimony of the accused. Based on the re-enactment of the incident. are not guilty of frustrated murder but only of the crime of slight physical injuries. was the aggressor. Lack of sufficient provocation. Notes: Under the circumstances. near the belt line just above the thigh. in an open space some 3 or 4 feet in width between the tienda of a woman named Olimpia and another building. She fell to the ground. In 1958. Cunigunda went caroling with her friends and when she was on her way home she met her husband who suddenly held her by the collar and accused her of going out for prostitution. He died 2 days after the incident due to the stab wound. There was no commencement of the criminal act by overt acts which have a direct connection with the crime of murder intended to be committed. Three requisites of legitimate self-defense are present Unlawful aggression. there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused (Cunigunda) to warrant the attack of her husband. While being choked. The deceased. grabbed the hunting knife and thrust it into her husband's left side. having earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco's belt line while holding unto his waist so she wouldn't fall to the ground. approached the place and directed Olimpia to close her tienda. Reasonable necessity does not depend upon the harm done but on the imminent danger of such injury. The couple was married in 1956 and had a daughter. -Adapt
US vs. which angered the deceased. slapped her until her nose bled then pushed her towards the ground. Then he said he would kill her. acted in legitimate self-defense Held: Yes. Mack Facts: The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet back from the street in the town of Tacloban. accused had no other choice but to pull the knife tucked in his belt line and thrust it into his side. They had frequent quarrels due to the husband's gambling and drinking and there were times when he maltreated and abused his wife. After more than a year. Then she ran home and threw the knife away. With her husband kneeling over her and choking her. Acquitted Ratio: 1. 11: Justifying Circumstances – Self-defense People vs. 2. ordered the accused and another soldier to go to their quarters The accused did not obey such order. -Adapt Art. Accused-appellants. Gutierrez III | 9
Tying the victim on 2 by piece of wood and leaving him inside the house of the accused are not acts that would result in death. M. Francisco Caballero. the location and nature of the stab wound confirms that the said victim.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. she did. using a hunting knife. Cunigunda had no other recourse but to take hold of the knife and plunge it into husband's side in order to protect herself. it was natural for her to use her right hand to lunge the knife into husband's left side. he knelt on her and proceeded to choke her. accused-appellants could not even be convicted of an attempt to commit murder. Some words may have passed between them. The next day. in stabbing her husband. The husband resorting to pushing her to the ground then choking her just because she was out caroling at night constitutes unlawful aggression.
M. causing her to fall on the bedside. she lived happily with Ben. there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him. as against assailant armed with a large bolo If it be true that the deceased was under the influence of liquor when he that attack. so reached for a blade instead in his wallet. unless he was so drunk as to be physically helpless. another in the back of his head. as she explained. In the absence of such aggression. each. and the deceased having then approached within a distance of from 3 to 6 feet. who knew each other since elementary and were 3rd cousins. Ben was in his usual unruly behavior. occurring around thrice a week when everytime the latter got drunk. there can be no self-defense— complete or incomplete—on the part of the victim. according to Marivic. On the evening of November 15. causing the wallet and blade to fall. Their marriage. The RTC charged Genosa with parricide. This went on for about 10 or 11 years. Gutierrez III | 10
Accused got up. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the appellant acquitted of the crime. 13 of the RPC
. holding her neck. knowing that it was a payday and that he was probably out to gamble again. ISSUES: 1) 2) 1) 2) WON Marivic acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus (invoking BWS) WON there was treachery in the killing of Ben Genosa No. Mere physical superiority is no protection to an unarmed man. where she felt overwhelming selfpity and felt nauseous. it could not be said that these were unnecessary. I. He tried opening the drawer. save for the first year where. 9 and 10 of Art. however. The reality or even imminent danger he posed ended altogether the moment he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. At this point. Aggression. -Adapt People vs. his intoxication probably rendered him the more dangerous. The shots were fired in rapid succession in order to repel the attack. Mitigating circumstance 1: Par. 1983 in Ormoc City. Here. one hit the left breast the left breast of the deceased. Marivic admitted killing her husband. she was aware that he was going to kill her so she smashed his arm. It was dark. They then went to the Genosa residence but Marivic was not there because.‖ Marivic asked Ecel to sleep in the house because she was scared that Ben might again beat her. giving her the death penalty. She had ―distorted‖ the drawer where the gun was and shot him. Upon arriving later at the Genosa residence and finding Ben drunk ―because of his staggering walking. his co-worker. She also subsequently smashed him with a metal pipe before running to the children‘s room. Ben and Arturo Basobas. drew his revolver. deadly attack before she can defend her life ―would amount to sentencing her to ‗murder by installment‘‖ and that threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger. There were basically 2 incidents of ―attack‖ made by Ben: 1) he whirled Marivic. failed. nagging and yelling at Marivic. does not warrant self-defense. the reasonable and natural thing for the accused to do was to fire at the body.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. if not continuous. by shooting him later on. after having collected their salary. but with 2 mitigating circumstances None
RATIO: 1) Crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the offense— she must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed that killing him would save her life. 1995. but Ecel declined for fear of a repetition of an incident a year ago. she was out with her cousin looking for Ben. even cutting the antenna wire with a bolo to keep her from watching TV. Trial court held that the defendant adopted a mode of defense which was not ―reasonably necessary‖ accused was taller than the deceased deceased was perhaps under the influence of liquor shot a vital part
Issue: Whether there was a ―reasonable necessity‖ for the use of the means employed by accused to defend himself Held: Yes. were married in November 19. and two hours later when 2) he dragged her out of the room towards the drawer. had been tumultuous and unhappy because of the many and frequent quarrels of the couple which usually resulted in the cruel treatment of Marivic by Ben. notwithstanding the Court‘s recognition of this special case that requiring the battered person to await an obvious. went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO where they stayed for 3 hours and drank 2 bottles of beer. Genosa FACTS: Marivic and Ben Genosa. which is not suggested in the evidence. the accused fired three shots.
and undoubtedly could have inflicted other wounds if she had desired. Gutierrez III | 11
the cyclical nature of the BWS and repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her psychological paralysis. that when she was assaulted she cried for help. but would constitute murder if he had known the true state of facts at the time. she desisted as soon as he released her. Defendant‘s testimony: a man suddenly threw his arms behind. Vrigida Vistada. I. that she tried to free herself. Besides. 2) There is no showing of the victim‘s position relative to appellant at the time of the shooting. Rivera went ahead of Bautista. nor that Marivic chose a specific means of attacking her husband which does not pose as a risk to her. treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel. the defendant struck the knife into a table and said that she stabbed Rivera because he embraced her. When they reached the house. M. that when she was with her assailant during the struggle she could scarcely recognize his face. -Adapt
. Mistake of Facts: A person is not criminally responsible when. that she asked him who he was but he did not answer. the defendant and her friends started home. At that time. opened it and stabbed him in defense of her honor. In other words.
Issue: Whether or not De la Cruz‘ killing of Rivera may be justified by defense of honor. with 2 mitigating circumstances. she got a knife from her pocket (she was engaged in selling fruits). Dios mio. Francisco Ramos heard someone cry out ―Aruy. The wounded man was taken to the hospital. They were followed about 5 minutes later by the deceased Francisco Rivera who was accompanied by Enrique Bautista. that when she felt weak and could do nothing more against the strength of the man. He overtook her. by reason of a mistake of facts. Baltazara Ramos was in the lead and the defendant was the hindmost. She had a knife in her hand. which was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her will power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts Mitigating circumstance 2: passion and obfuscation this state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust acts or a legit stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. it took him 2 minutes to go back towards the house of mourning.‖ He went back and found that Francisco Rivera had been stabbed under the right breast. 1934. Rivera and Bautista overtook defendant‘s party. provided that the ignorance or mistake of afct was not due to negligence or bad faith. According to Ramos. the defendant Remedios de la Cruz. At about 9 pm. She was justified in making use of the pocket-knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor since she had no other means of defending herself. as requisites. although she retained possession of the knife. Penalty reduced. and seized her in her private parts. The appellant stabbed the deceased only once. that she was madly in love with him and was extremely jealous of Felicisima Sincaban is not sustained by the evidence of record. When they reached a narrow part of the path. -Adapt Art. with Francisco Ramos and his wife. the members of the defendant‘s party were walking in single file. JUDGMENT: Conviction of parricide affirmed. his sister Baltazara Ramos. *** The finding of the trial court that Rivera and defendant were engaged. De la Cruz Facts:
Evening of February 18. That the man who attacked her did not say anything. The defendant was about 2 brazas from the person immediately ahead of her. 11: Defense of Honor People vs. and a woman named Consuelo or Natividad Santoyo went to a wake in honor of one Sion. where he died the next afternoon. Held: Yes. with 1) there is an unlawful and sufficient act to produce such condition and 2) no considerable length of time when the accused might recover her normal equanimity.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. caught hold of her breasts and kissed her. he does an act for which he would be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be. but he held her and tried to throw her down. It should be noted that the deceased had been making love to the defendant and also to another girl.
Avelina Jaurigue was found guilty of homicide in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. She then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Southern Luzon. His actions prompted Avelina to slap him and give him fist blows. Avelina surrendered her knife and informed the policemen of what happened in the chapel and of the previous acts and conduct of the deceased. there were already around 10 people in the chapel. Amado secretly entered the room where Avelina was sleeping with the intention of abusing her. She placed herself at his disposal. was pursuing Avelina Jaurigue but the latter never showed interest in him. The chapel was also said to be lighted by electric lights. Nicolas Jaurigue went to Casimiro Lozada. He felt her forehead (which probably awakened her). When Amado sat beside Avelina and placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh they were seated on a bench near the door of the barrio chapel. Avelina and her father were advised to stay home. three policemen questioned them about the incident. This prompted her to take out her fan knife with her right hand from the pocket of her dress with the intention of punishing Amado‘s offending hand. Amado came out from under a bed in Avelina‘s room and kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue. (I don’t know how the case reached the Supreme Court. the deceased. The court acknowledged 3 mitigating circumstances in this case: (a) She had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her moments before. 2. 1942. In the afternoon of the same day.
. (September 15. (The second requisite is not present. Avelina entered the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists (across the provincial road from his house) shortly after her father (treasurer) to attend religious services.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Juarigue Facts: Amado Capiña. Another mitigating circumstance is the fact that (b) Avelina immediately and WON there are mitigating circumstances in Avelina‘s favor. Avelina‘s father and the barrio lieutenant included. But upon seeing Avelina Jaurigue he sat beside her and without saying a word placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. M. Held: (1) No. Avelina was informed that Amado had been falsely boasting in their neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person. At around 8 o‘clock in the evening of September 20. asking for forgiveness. Gutierrez III | 12
People vs. The following morning. There was and there could be no possibility of her being raped. (about 1 month before the incident) Then there was also the time when he professed his love for her but still she refused him. This produced in her a temporary loss of reason and self-control. 1942) About midnight. Amado seized her right hand but she was able to grab her fan knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of his neck. 3. Barrio Lieutenant Casimiro Lozada approached Avelina to ask her why she killed Amado. Avelina‘s parents immediately came to their daughter‘s aid. Amado Capiña was at the other side of the chapel. On the other hand. Since that incident she started carrying around a long fan knife for protection. two days after the previous incident. I. The chapel was lighted by electric lights.) (2) Yes. inflicting upon him a mortal wound about 4 ½ inches deep. He was even saying that she wanted to elope with him or else she would commit suicide (poison). Avelina‘s mother wanted to beat Amado up but she was prevented by Nicolas.) Issues: 1. who apologized for the misconduct of their son. WON there is the aggravating circumstance of having committed the crime in a sacred place. But her refusal did not stop Amado from suddenly embracing and kissing her and even touching her breasts. Moreover. There was an incident of Amado stealing a handkerchief bearing Avelina‘s nickname. she again was informed of his bragging. WON Avelina acted in the legitimate defense of her honor and that she should be completely absolved of all criminal responsibility. At 10 o‘clock of the same night. 1942) On September 20. the barrio lieutenant. ―Aveling‖. (September 13. Amado died from the wound a few minutes later. She then immediately screamed for help. and to Amado‘s parents.
but at that instant Bumanglag. that he had been wounded in the back by a shotgun. 1936. He then showed the two wounds . together with his codefendants who are already serving their sentence. as a result of the struggle which ensued. He searched for the missing palay the following morning and found them in an enclosed field which was planted with sugar cane. he left the palay there. and Ribao assaulted the presumed thief with sticks and cutting and stabbing weapons. according to the medical report of Dr. penalty reduced. identified as Domingo Petras. For the purpose of ascertaining who had done it. (People v. Antonio Ribao. Armed with a shotgun. Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. Held: NO. 1909. Rafael Bumanglag noticed that 40 bundles of palay which were kept in his granary were missing. Umingan. Atong was looking over said land when he observed that there was a man carrying a bundle on his shoulder. It can not be concluded that the deceased even intended to assault his murderers with his bolo either before he was attacked by them or during the fight. the barrio chief. Judgment modified. Apolinar Facts:
Midnight of December 22. JUDGMENT: The appellant was found to have committed the crime of homicide with no aggravating circumstances and at least 3 mitigating circumstances. and that night. I. Apolinar) The bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging from his waist. (3) No. Guillermo Ribis appeared and attempted to carry the palay away him. -Adapt US vs. and therefore.which wounds were circular in form and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch. inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds. La Paz. -Adapt Art. accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc. the appellant and his two companions assaulted Ribis with sticks and cutting and stabbing arms. -Adapt
Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defense of property Held: No. at a distance of about 100 meters from his granary. Ribis fell down and died instantly. The man. was able to get back to his house and consequently narrated to Angel Natividad. 1936. There was no evidence that Avelina had murder in mind. the defendant and appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias Atong was at that time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by Joaquin Gonzales in Papallasen. and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. 11: Defense of property People vs. Petras died of the wounds he sustained. Bumanglag Facts: On the night of January 2. the defendant called his attention but he ignored him. the said accused is guilty of the crime of homicide as co-principal by direct participation. Pangasinan. the right to property is not of such importance as right to life. he waited near the said field for the person who might return to get the palay. Gutierrez III | 13
voluntarily surrendered and admitted stabbing the deceased. Bundoc.one in each side of the spinal column . Mananquil. Without unlawful aggression and the other requisites which would exempt the accused from criminal responsibility. Issue: WON there is defense of property. and Saturnino Tumamao. She is not a criminal by nature. The defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident and gave a sworn statement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on December 23. (c) she had not intended to kill the deceased. Believing that he was a thief (of palay). M.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. fully convicted. She just wanted to punish his offending hand with her knife. The defendant fired in the air and then at the person. And finally.
However. Chua Hiong was charged with and found guilty of the crime of libel. for the article. it is justified as self-defense only when it is clearly intended to explain or deny what was previously said of the one making the libelous statement. killing his two victims. So he addressed the group. CESAR VERANO. 1952 entitled ―Doubtful Citizenship‖ questioning the latter‘s citizenship. retaliation becomes unlawful after the attack has ceased. and knowing that there is a gun on the jeep. its sting clings and the one defamed may avail himself of all necessary means to shake it off. Gocheco also filed various charges against the appellant with different government agencies. his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. (People vs. The third element is also present. if adequate. nephew of Federico Chua Hiong (accused-appellant). hitting him. on February 21. JESUS VERANO. The crime committed is HOMICIDE on two counts mitigated by the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self defense as well as by two generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk things over with him was no provocation at all. Issue: Whether or not the appellant was justified by virtue of defense of reputation when he published article in the Manila Chronicle dated the February 21. I. GEORGE FLEISCHER and FLAVIANO RUBIA were fencing the land of George Fleischer.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. At the place of fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant MAMERTO NARVAEZ. appellant fired at Rubia likewise hitting him. appellant lost his equilibrium and got his gun and shot Fleischer. Chua Hiong also alleged that Gocheco was trying to damage his reputation to retaliate. 1952 containing libelous material 1. Gutierrez III | 14
People vs. Aside from that. Narvaez Facts: In the afternoon of August 22. since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise produced by the victims and laborers. situated in MAITUM.” (emphasis supplied)
Note: However. If the fencing continued appellant would be prevented from entering his house and rice mill bodega. because there would be no harm to repel. He then arose and saw the fencing. -Adapt
. But that is not the case when it is aimed at a person‘s good name. will be justified. Held: ―In a physical assault. Thus. He was sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment and considering that appellant has been under detention for 14 years since his voluntary surrender. To which Fleischer answered no and continued the fencing. Rubia ran towards the jeep. The angry order of Fleischer to continue the fencing would have resulted in the further chiselling of the wall of appellant‘s house as well as the closure of the access to and from his house and rice mill is an aggression against appellant‘s property rights. 11: Defense of reputation People vs. which. CESAR IBANEZ. when the appellant fired his shotgun from his window. Both Fleischer and Rubia died Issue: WON the aggression was unlawful Held: YES. M. He may hit back with another libel. SOUTH COTABATO. Chua Hiong Facts: Cesario Gocheco. it was unlawful. Appellant‘s act in killing the deceased was not justifiable. In an earlier case. Gocheco and his family lost 2/3 of the inheritance left by his father. Pelayo) Appellant acquitted with costs de-officio. To answer this. GRACIANO JUAN. 1952. Chua Hiong published an article in the Manila Chronicle accusing Cesario Gocheco of persecution mania and sending the appellant a threatening letter under the pseudonym Benito Solipco. his immediate release was ordered. through Rubia to stop and talk things over. At this instance. 1968. There was no provocation on the part of the appellant. since not all the elements for justification are present. helping them with the expenses of the case. published an article in the Manila Chronicle on February 11. Chua Hiong was behind the prevailing parties. -Adapt Art. At that time appellant was sleeping and was awakened by the sound of the chiseling of the walls of his house. Once the aspersion is cast.
1955. (2) NO . She was coerced by her parents and her uncle Agapito Mortel to accept him.15. appellant requested Vivencio to bring his parents with him to her house and ask her hand for marriage before her parents. On March 5.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. 1955 she left for a cousin in Calapan. She ―felt a sense of torture‖ and so on March 11. started courting Maria Norma Hernandez sometime in August 1954. On February 21. his parents. There is no justification for him to hit back of make the same imputation of accusation because this is not an act of defense but an aggression itself -Adapt Art. It will only exist of the defendant did not go beyond explaining what was previously said of him for the purpose of repairing the effect of the damage caused to him. 1955. a Chinese operator named Lim Peng told him that then Gov. to be held on March 19. Batangas to arrange the proclamation of marriage. I. On February 6. 11: Avoidance of a greater evil People v. 19. Appellant‘s wedding gown was delivered to her house on March 16. 1955. The following day. Pelayo admits having the said conversation with Clapano. 1955 Vivencio‘s parents and aunts brought about 30 chickens and goats to appellant‘s house. On the same date. they likewise slaughtered goats. appellant and Vivencio applied to the municipal treasurer for marriage. there were others who heard the remarks he made to Clapano thus could not have given the communication in confidence. appellant and her parents went to the parish priest of Taal. 1955. the act is slander (3) NO – even if on a previous occasion the governor made derogatory remarks against Pelayo. Vivencio and his parents waited for appellant until twelve midnight but she was nowhere to be found. The parents of Vivencio cleaned the appellant‘s yard and did other chores on March 16. When the source can be determined and the information was passed for the purpose of causing dishonor. 1955 marriage license was issued. M. The parents of both parties agreed to the marriage. Pelayo Facts: On Nov. 17 and 18. Appellant accepted Vivencio on January 6. Gutierrez III | 15
People vs. but there was no one in the house so it was just left in the balcony. On March 18.it cannot be Intriguing against honor because the source of the information can be pin-pointed= Lim Peng. Issues: (1) WON the conversation was said in confidence and covered by the rule on privileged communication (2) WON the crime charged which is serious slander should only be intriguing against honor (3) WON words were uttered in Self Defense to what the governor had said about him previously Held: (1) NO – this contention of confidence is inconsistent with contention of self-defense. 1956 Pelayo told Atty. Alejandro Almendras (now Senator) used to receive from him P500 protection money. Vivencio. they constructed a temporary wedding shed and a temporary stove for the feast. Pelayo delivered a privileged speech in city council session wherein he did not directly mention but insinuated through his interpellations that the governor was receiving ―tongs‖. Hernandez Facts: Complainant’s version: Vivencio Lascano.
. chickens and pigs and served around 90 guests. She never showed up thus causing them great shame and humiliation. March 19 came and they served around 70 guests. Clapano in his office and within hearing distance of three other people that upon his investigation about the existence of gambling in the community. the retaliation with scurrilous words cannot be self-defense. Mindoro where she stayed until April of 1955 when she was fetched by a cousin because she was under arrest. 1955. Appellant’s version: She never honestly loved Vivencio.
the absolute divorce of law from morality (as will be the result if the temptation to murder in this case is upheld by law). All were able-bodied English seamen of an English yacht. deceased was not consulted.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Issue: Whether or not Maria‘s failure to fulfil the marriage agreement by not attending the celebration constituted slander by deed. The three fed on his body and blood for the next four days. Richard Parker (between 17-18 y/o) was cast away in a storm on high seas. Dudley Facts: 1. or that the boy. They talked about their families implying and suggesting that boy was in a better position to be killed than all of them because he has no family of his own. Decision: Modified.” A man has no right to declare temptation to be an excuse. will have fatal consequences. The crime is undeniably. A proposal to cast lots was raised but was never carried out because brook disagreed (July24). -Rosales
. 1600mi from Cape of Good Hope on July 5. She was merely exercising her right not to give her consent to the marriage after mature consideration. Self-defense along justifies the taking of life of another. there is no malice. On the fourth day they were rescued.
6. ―There is no absolute or unqualified necessity to preserve one‘s life. after telling him what is about to come. It is a general assumption that one ought rather to die himself than to kill an innocent. struck a knife in his throat killing him. tins of turnips which they ate for 3days and stock up rain water. Vivencio and his parents did not go to their house on March 17 and 18 and there was noshed constructed and no food were prepared by them. The first kind being of closest resemblance to the case it hand cannot be applied. Though law and morality are not the same.
Issue: WON killing of deceased is justifiable. petitioners spoke to Brooks about sacrificing one in order to save the others. Held/Ratio: NO. 4. I. paragraph 4 of RPC.‖ It cannot be compared to man‘s duty of a necessity to conservation of life in times of war as in the latter. For the next 8 days they ate nothing. sought to kill the boy. Gutierrez III | 16
She denied receiving a wedding gown. 1884. and (3) necessity of act of God or of a stranger. No jurisprudence supports any of the defendant‘s contentions (That they would have died of hunger within the four days before they were rescued of they did not feed on the body of the deceased. lying at the bottom of the boat quite helplessly and extremely weakened by famine that he is unable to put up any resistance. it a duty imposed by the Sovereign on a soldier to defend his country.
5. On 4th day. a requisite of slander. Held: No. They had no food and no fresh water except for 2 1lb. Dudley. 3. July 25. Deceased was at the moment.
Two Defendants together with one Brooks and the deceased. Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage pursuant to Art. (2) necessity of obedience. being of weaker health was most probable to die first under the circumstances) Lord Baron commenting on maxim of ―Necessity carrieth a privilege in itself‖ highlights 3 kind of necessity: (1) necessity of conservation of life. M. Dudley proposed that if no vessel appears the next day (July 25) the boy should be killed. Parker. Regina vs. “The temptation to the act was not what the law has ever called a necessity. still no vessel and defendants helping each other while distracting Brooks. willful murder. 11. they caught a turtle & ate it up to the 12th day. There is no such excuse of necessity in the deliberate killing of this ―unoffending & unresisting boy‖.
2. and many things immoral are not necessarily illegal. No legal justification of Homicide but willful Murder. On 20th day. Extreme necessity of hunger does not justify killing of the boy. Brooks disagreed.
4. In its decision dated 31 July 2001.00. dated 21 April 1997. Ty‘s sister. 93-130465 corresponds to the seven instances for violation of BP. 93-130459 to No. 22 makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check punishable. Being the patient‘s daughter. the Statement of Account shows the total liability of the mother in the amount of P657. Fearing the worst for her mother. On 5 June 1992. The Court. it falls within the ambit of BP. They find the petition to be without merit and accordingly sustain Ty‘s conviction. should not have applied criminal law mechanically. discerns no compelling reason to reverse the factual findings arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 410.‖ she pointed out. each covering the amount of P30. 2. petitioner made. It held that BP. She alleged that her mother was deprived of room facilities such as the air-condition unit. promulgated 31 July 2001. 93-130465) 30 May 1993.‖ She averred that 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. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.55. 3. not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.00) equivalent to double the amount of the check. seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals. It set aside the penalty of imprisonment and instead sentenced Ty ―to pay a fine of sixty thousand pesos (P60. M. She also bewailed the hospital‘s suspending medical treatment of her mother. said accused knowing that at the time of the issue she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment. It is an undisputed fact that the payee of the checks was fully aware of the lack of funds in the account. Against this decision Ty reiterated her defense that she issued the checks ―under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury. so affected her mother‘s mental. Ty was compelled to sign a promissory note. late delivery of her mother‘s food and refusal to change the latter‘s gown and bed sheets.‖ Criminal Cases No. The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. drew and issued to Manila Doctors‘ Hospital to apply to account or for value to Editha L. Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of an ―uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. 000.592. 22. The evidence for the prosecution shows that Ty‘s mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the Manila Doctor‘s Hospital from 30 October 1990 until 4 June 1992.
. Gutierrez III | 17
Ty vs. In its memorandum. the Office of the Solicitor General contends that a check issued as an evidence of debt. in each case.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. The honorable court of appeals. without due regard to principles of justice and equity. with the ‗Account Closed‖ advice. Ty pleaded not guilty. 000. Judy Chua was also confined at the hospital from 13 May 1991 until 2 May 1992. open an account with Metrobank and issue the checks to effect her mother‘s immediate discharge. The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to P1. and to comply with the demands of the hospital. Petitioner appeals to the Supreme Court alleging the same issues but raising errors ascribed to CA on the following grounds: 1. At her arraignment. For her defense. has the same effect as an ordinary check. There is clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was forced to or compelled in the opening of the account and the issuance of the subject checks. 182. The evidence on record patently shows absence of valuable consideration in the issuance of the subject checks. What the law punished is the issuance of a bouncing check.95. The ―debasing treatment. To assure payment of the obligation. I.‖ 21 April 1997. The seven checks. 000. psychological and physical health that the latter contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged from the hospital. regardless of the purpose and terms and conditions relating to its issuance. the ―Bouncing Checks Law.‖ As of 4 June 1992. The Court finds the arguments a rehash of the arguments unsuccessfully raised before the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed the payment of the obligation in installments. The decision affirmed with modification the judgment of the RTC of Manila.40. the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with modification. 1993 payable to Manila Doctors Hospital in the amount of P30. finding her guilty of seven (7) counts of violation of B. 5. 075. the trial court rendered a Decision finding Ty guilty of seven counts of violation of BP 22 and sentenced to suffer penalty of imprisonment of Six Month per count or a total of 42 months. refrigerator and television set. (Quoted from Criminal Case No.P. Vecino a Metropolitan Bank Check dated May 30. though not intended to be presented for payment. 22. as well as the honorable trial court. 22. and subject to inconveniences such as the cutting off of the telephone line. she drew several postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital. likewise. The checks were issued under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury. But they were all dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency of funds. People Facts: Petitioner Vicky C.‖ The Court of Appeals rejected Ty‘s defenses of involuntariness in the issuance of the checks and the hospital‘s knowledge of her checking account‘s lack of funds. incurring hospital bills in the amount of P418. Ty filed the instant Petition for Review.00 were all deposited on their due dates. Ty signed the ―Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment‖ in the Contract of Admission dated 30 October 1990.
Held: No. She even testified her counsel advised her not to open an account nor issue postdated checks. expected and anticipated. the defense of state of necessity is also non-existent. When the criminal ran away. CFI Samar convicted defendant with homicide. Fernando Bataller and two of his company. The latter unfortunately was not hit. requisites most concur: 1. The resistance of deceased compelled defendant to apply extreme means which although fatal is justified by circumstances. a defense of state of necessity requires that the injury expected is not brought about by negligence. the accused and Pat. In all these. Held: YES. Jose Pabon were assigned to maintain peace and order at the prom of Pili Brgy. The Thrust of the law (BP. Pabon retreated but accused was stabbed in his lower left shoulder. Gutierrez III | 18
Issue: Whether the defense of uncontrollable fear is tenable to warrant defendant exemption from criminal liability. The deceased being under the obligation to surrender had no right to assault and commit disobedience against police officer. and 3. Belbes Facts:
Accused together with Pat. existence of an uncontrollable fear. Bataller then stabbed Pabon with a knife which accused said he knew because he saw the glint of the blade and he was only 1 meter away from Pat. They introduced themselves as policemen but Bataller didn‘t mind them. The fear evoked on Ty was not real and imminent either but speculative. Ty also failed to satisfy the last criteria because the Court is not convinced she was left with no choice but to commit the crime. Pabon who were armed with an armalite and . At this instance. The latter demanded his arrest but the former answered instead with a stroke of his lance. Felipe Delima was policeman tasked to look for him.
. she failed to give evidence of coercion and compulsion from the hospital. Pabon. BP 22 does not make any distinction as to whether the checks within its contemplation are issued in payment of an obligation or to merely guarantee an obligation. Issue: WON defendant is justified in killing Napilon in performance of his duty. Accused and Pat. At 9:00 pm. two students approached them and their teacher saying someone was making trouble.38 caliber respectively. In this case fear was not uncontrollable or insuperable as to deprive her of all volition and to make her a mere instrument without will. 11: Fulfillment of duty People vs. she admitted that the collateral or security the hospital required prior to the discharge of her mother may be in the form of postdated checks or jewelry. Therefore. The fugitive was armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance while the defendant with a revolver. Meanwhile. Pabon appeared and without warning Accused fired his gun. responded forthwith. the issuance of bouncing checks was brought about by Ty‘s own failure to pay her mother‘s hospital bills. moved exclusively by the hospital‘s threats and demands. or worse commit suicide. The law itself creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds. She did not take advantage of the many opportunities available to her to avoid committing one. The killing was done in performance of a duty. The policeman dodged it and to impose his authority. I. and the willful inaction of the actor. M. Deceit is not an essential element of an offense penalized by BP. After two more thrusts were made towards him. Bataller fell and the two patrolmen fled. -Rosales
People vs. the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. Bataller was drunk and was vomiting and holding on to the bamboo wall of the school‘s temporary building when the bamboo‘s broke.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. imprudence. Accussed version of the facts: Upon responding and arriving at the scene: Bataller was a little tipsy but not vomiting. defendant pursued him and fired another shot that which hit and killed Napilon. By her very own words. Delima found him in the house of one Jorge Alegria. For this exempting circumstance to be invoked the ff. 22. Furthermore. High School. as for fear that her mother‘s health might deteriorate further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital. 2. In this case. Delima Facts: Lorenzo Napilon is a convict who escaped from jail and defendant. fired his revolver but did not hit Napilon. -Marcaida
Art. 22) is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation. the fear must be real and imminent.
Decision: Accused-appellant is found guilty of the crime of homicide mitigated by the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. Pat. Accused gave a shot. After the armalite went off. Bataller fell. no opportunity being given the latter to defend himself or to retaliate (2) the means. However the second one is lacking for the killing need not be a necessary consequence on the performance of his duty. Ratio. suddenness of an attack does not necessarily imply treachery. so one squeeze at the trigger would fire a shot. I. -Belderol
. Appellant offers no material evidence to sufficiently support his claim of self-defense on the face of mortal danger while on police duty the knife used by the deceased was not even subjected to fingerprinting The accused wound was only examined after 21 hours making self-infliction a possibility If it was true that accused and Bataller grappled face to face. the accused must show with clear and convincing evidence that (1) he is not the unlawful aggressor. Pabon‘s testimony corroborated with the accused‘ except the part when accused fired a warning shot and the deceased‘ companions ganging up on accused. For it to be a qualifying circumstance. ruling our murder. it would account only as an INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE. method or manner of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender None of the two conditions were committed. then the victim should not have been hit sideways TIME FACTOR! It took only about 6 seconds from the time the accused left his seat until the gunshots were heard There are two requisites to invoke self-defense in the fulfillment of a duty: (1) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office The first requisite is present for it was admittedly a performance of his duty. 2 conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means. It is incumbent upon an accused who has admitted to inflict fatal injuries to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him with clear. and (3) he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. Likewise. He exceeded his duty which is only to maintain peace and order when he fired his armalite without warning. Thus. Thus. Bataller‘s two other companions had also ganged up on him. Gutierrez III | 19
The accused firearm was slung over his shoulder. (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part. They struggled with each other and the gun went off. He took the knife and that was the time people started to gather. method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim. As Bataller made another thrust. ON MURDER: Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. It was modified to HOMICIDE.
To prove self-defense. It was semi-automatic. They went to the police station and turned over the knife. satisfactory and convincing evidence in order to avoid criminal liability. M. Bataller suddenly grabbed the firearm.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Accused pleaded not guilty invoking self-defense in the performance of his official duty
Issue: Was the trial court correct in holding accused-appellant guilty of murder? Held: No. Homicide resulting from reckless imprudence is not recognized either. which after doing so.
Bonoan stabbed the latter when he refused to pay the P50 debt he owed the former. 11: Lawful order of superior People v. Bonoan‘s arraignment and subsequent trial were delayed a few times because the accused was mentally deranged and at the time confined in the Psychopatic Hospital. and this was evidenced by the testimony of a police officer who witnessed the event.‖ as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will which would enable him to prevent himself from doing the act. To prove insanity. he was acting pursuant to orders of his superiors in the City (orders given through letters/telegrams). Garcia Art. circumstantial evidence. producing an ―irresistible impulse. -J. Criminal intent not established. The jury found Borjal guilty of the charge and the recommendation of the jury was approved by the Headquarters of the guerrilla unit.‖ 2.
In order to ascertain a person‘s mental condition at the time of the act. During the period of excitement. the motives and emotions of a person and come to determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. to prosecute Arsenio Borjal for treason and to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen. without any fault or negligence on his part. nor are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. which. A person who has been adjudged inane. or has been committed to a hospital or any asylum for the insane. according to experts. As a military subordinate. he could not question the orders of his superior officers. Beronilla Facts: The accused was a military major of La Paz . the accused was prosecuted for murder. covered by justifying circumstances which would warrant acquittal Held: Yes. Gutierrez III | 20
Art. such person has no control whatever of his acts. an irresistible homicidal impulse was considered to embrace the term ―insanity. M. The accused had also been confined in the insane deparment of the San Lasaro Hospital (suffering from dementia praecox) in 1922 and in 1926. is presumed to be insane. He received an order form the regional commander of an infantry of the Philippine Army.
. He obeyed the orders in good faith without being aware of their illegality. a type of dementia praecox.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. Mind can be known only by outward acts. Abra in 1941. ISSUE WON there is sufficient evidence to acquit the defendant on the ground of insanity in accordance with par. we read the thoughts. It has been proven that defendant suffered from dementia four days before the commission of the crime. The accused acted upon orders of superior officers which turned out to be illegal. 12: Exempting circumstances – Insanity People v. or that his property is being taken. Bonoan FACTS The accused was charged with the murder of Carlos Guison. operating as a guerrilla unit. Here. Thereby. 1 of article 12 of the RPC HELD Yes Ratio Dementia precox is covered by the term insanity When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis. The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental disease or a mental defect. therefore. if clear and convincing. it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and after that time. homicidal attack is common because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually. Issue: WON Beronilla can be considered to be acting upon a call of duty and thus. will suffice. For the execution of Borjal. Direct testimony is not required. is a symptom of dementia praecox which might have revived itself even after years of being dormant or stable 1.
he took a pedicab.‖ (People vs. She died 40 minutes later. Vaquilar) Passion and motives of anger. Mambajao. who undertook a 2-month observation of mental cases and treated around 100 cases of mental disorders.‖) so he attacked her. He remembered that a week before the incident. Honorato admitted to killing his wife. Gutierrez III | 21
-J. Feling sometimes didn‘t stay in the home and spent the night in the poblacion of Mambajao. under some flowering plants near the couple‘s house in Barrio Balbagon. insanity wasn‘t a defense. hatred. not being in full possession of his normal mental faculties. and was elevated to the CFI on 4 March 1977. They had 8 children. Trial court concluded that his behavior immediately after the incident showed he wasn‘t insane and that he acted like a normal human being.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. the tip of which was broken.
Issue: Should Ambal be exempted from criminal liability by reason of insanity? Held and Ratio: No. and that he remembered riding on a tricycle when he surrendered on the day of the killing. The immediate provocation for the assault was a fight. explosive or inadequate personality. His defense was insanity. ―there must be complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or that the accused acted without the lease discernment. Cresogono Llacuna. Neither is being weak-minded. who then had influenza.‖ (Revised Administrative Code). ‗unsound mind‘. and he appeared to be weak. The two had been married for 15 years. She asked for drinking water and medical assistance. emotionally unstable. said that Ambal suffered from a minor psycho-neurosis. His shirt was torn. He also said that Ambal was a ―passive-aggressive. the municipal health officer. Formigones) o Insane person: ―one who has an unsound mind or suffers from a mental disorder‖. Camiguin. and that‘s how he got sick.‘‖ (US vs. he got wet while plowing. and characterized by perversion. ―The popular meaning of the word ‗crazy‘ is not synonymous with the legal terms ‗insane‘. he didn‘t know what he was doing.‖ (People vs Cruz. or ‗lunatic. ―Courts should be careful to distinguish insanity in law from passion or eccentricity. but that he didn‘t know that he had killed his wife because at the time of the killing. went to the municipal hall and surrendered to a policeman. but only witin narrow limits. Two doctors were brought to the stand: o Dr. After leaving their child to a neighbor. ―Gradually. I. Ambal Facts:
In the morning of 20 January 1977. or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality. but right or wrong generally or in the
. and quarreled and bickered a lot. the barangay captain found Felicula (Feling). ―must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.Garcia People vs. 48 and married to Honorato Ambal. mental weakness or mere depression resulting from physical ailment. Ambal said that he knew that his wife was dead because he was informed of it. he was bespattered with blood. Maximino Balbas. or by impaired or disordered volition. ‗idiot‘. The State should guard against sane murderers escaping punishment through a general plea of insanity. and HAD NO MENTAL DISORDER. M. He was charged with parricide on 27 January 1977 in the municipal court.‖ o Dr. he went to the house of the barangay captain and told the latter‘s wife that he had killed Feling. ‗non compos mentis‘. The policeman confiscated his long bolo.. He said that his wife was irritable and they used to quarrel a lot.‖ (People vs. because Feling had not bought medicine for Honorato. is not insanity either. Then. Bonoan) o Imbecile: ―person marked by mental deficiency‖. Jr. He pleaded not guilty. etc. Trial Court‘s decision is affirmed. again confessing that he killed his wife. Brief history lesson on pleading insanity given: In medieval times. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability. inhibition. She told him that he was better off dead (―Mas maayo ka pang mamatay. He was normal but nervous. … Then the limits of the defense were expanded … The killer was excused if the disease of the mind was such that he was incapable of appreciating the difference between right and wrong … not the right and wrong of particular case. or disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties. a disturbance of the functional nervous system which is NOT INSANITY. Renegado) o Insanity: ―a manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect of the brain. functional or organic. People vs. having 7 incised wounds in different parts of her body. found him to be have suffered from ―‘psychosis‘ due to short frustration tolerance‖ during the commission of the crime but was normal before and after the commission. insanity was allowed. She was placed in an improvised hammock and brought to the hospital. She was mortally wounded.
28. Court cited as aggravating circumstances evident premeditation. and so he recommends it. The house is in Little Baguio. J. He was charged with murder in the municipal court and was indicted in the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig on 21 Oct 1970. he was awakened by the sound of people in the flood. then asked for another rope when Zenaida told him not to use it. At about 2pm of 8 Sept 1970. He said ―Mangkukulam ka. and refused to change his clothes (which were wet because of the flood). and that ―the worst thing that can happen to a person is to have an unbearable spouse. mayroon kang bubuyog‖ then slapped her and struck her several times on the head with a hammer until she was dead. Calumpit. testified that on the night before the murder. he tried on Teotimo‘s father‘s clothes and when told that Teo‘s father had been dead for a couple of years. Later. The following day. who all testified that Puno acted with discernment: o Dr. 72. Puno testified that he didn‘t remember killing Aling Kikay. mambabarang and mabubuyog and that one harmed by a mambabarang might have a headache or a swelling nose and ears and can be cured only by an herbolaryo. This. then to his second cousin‘s (Teotino Puno‘s) house in Barrio San Jose. who saw this happen. his eyes were red. Puno knew what he was doing and that he had psychosis. also said that his eyes were bloodshot and he had a ferocious expression about him. Barrio Tinajeros. Cruz what happened. Defense brought 3 psychiatrists. Zenaida Gabriel. In the morning. but Zenaida didn‘t see any bee. Aling Kikay was in bed. He then went to his parents‘ house in Barrio Tugatong.‖ The court presumes that a person is of sound mind unless there is positive proof stating otherwise. Bulacan. He threatened the two and told them not to go to the police. Puno introduced him to the puppy and sang an English song. he said that a bumblebee was coming towards him and he warded it off with his hands. Araceli Maravilla from the Psychiatry Section of Dr. no such proof has been given. Later.
Barredo. records don‘t show how he got there). He was brought to National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong on 10 Sept 1970. Puno tied their dog to a tree and repeatedly boxed it. Aida Gabriel. plus the mental disorder. Puno then went upstairs and got the cord of the religious habit of his mother. Reyes Memorial Hospital: Puno was an outpatient who could very well live with society although he was afflicted with ―schizophrenic reaction‖. and Ernesto thought they were his fellow cursillistas. In this case. concurring: Adds the observation that Feling was a shrew. o Dr. He believes that there are mangkukulam. this was modified in favor of the prisoner so that capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong generally would not charge with responsibility if there was no capacity to understand the difference in relation to the particular act. concurring: Agrees with decision based on jurisprudence. Autopsy showed that Aling Kikay had lacerated wounds on her right eyebrow and contusions on the head caused by a hard instrument. Reynaldo Robles of National Mental Hospital: symptoms were ―not socially incapacitating‖ and that he could adjust to the environment. But under the circumstances. According to them. and Lina Pajes. then made a moaning sound until he fell asleep. he was cuddling a puppy that he called ―Diablo‖ and when asked to eat.
. I. Rizal. the difference … between good and evil. when Puno came to his house on 8 Sept. COD: intracranial. abuse of superiority and disregard of sex. should entitle him to two additional mitigating circumstances: obfuscation and illness. who is a widow. Malabon. 30. Puno Facts:
Ernesto Puno. M. his wife. According to Teotimo. didn‘t eat but fed the puppy instead. 27. Abad Santos. while he was feeding pigs. took the statements of the witnesses down at the police station. Lina went to the police anyway and told Corporal Daniel B. J. While lying down. mambabarang. Jose R. He found her body. the subject of the crime. he entered a bedroom in the house of Francisca Col (Aling Kikay). and his look was baleful and menacing. Puno‘s father surrendered him to the police. (It was flooded there then.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. is a jeepney driver. Agrees with Maravilla.‖ She was also neglectful and even ―had the gall‖ to tell him that he was better off dead. his eyes were reddish and that he complained of a headache. It is also necessary to kill the mangkukulam and mambabarang. -Feliciano
People vs. Gutierrez III | 22
abstract. appellant is deserving of executive clemency. traumatic hemorrhage. 23. There were two witnesses: Hilaria de la Cruz. he just stared at Teotimo. he started singing again.
the accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him why his wife was requiring so many documents from him. Dungo Facts: On March 16. Puno was convicted of murder and sentenced him to death. ―The victim was a mere consequence of his mental delusion. but with minor symptoms and signs…‖ What happened was a relapse. in defense of himself. Ambal) Puno was not legally insane when he killed Aling Kikay. Vicente: not suffering from any delusion and was not mentally deficient. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR.‖ (People vs. given that he had been suffering chronic schizophrenia before the crime was committed? Held and Ratio: No. which was why he threatened the witnesses. so the interval was not sufficient time for his full recovery. He was convinced that a mangkukulam was inflicting harm on him. 1987 between 2:00 and 3:00pm. He killed the ―mangkukulam‖ as personified by the victim. penalty should only be in medium terms. He wouldn‘t have reached third year HS if he were.‖ Trial Court said he knew what he was doing at the time and that he would be punished for it. Apalit. Vicente. o The report of the three doctors submitted on 14 Dec 1970 said that he is ―presently free from any social incapacitating psychotic symptoms. 5 of which were fatal.
The accused. so he killed her in self-defense.‖ According to Dr.‖ -Feliciano
Rodolfo Sigua. and he was not completely deprived of reason and freedom of will. o
Issue: Was Puno insane at the time of the commission. It was also barely a month and 15 days since his last attack. The said ailment is characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. the accused drew a knife from the envelope he was carrying and stabbed Mrs. tried to show that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense:
. Articles cited by Makasiar shows that ‗social recovery‘ is not the same as being ‗cured‘: ―By this it is meant that the patient is able to return to his previous social environment and to previous or equivalent occupation. ―For chronic schizophrenia. ang nasabi na lang ni Aling Kikay ay ―Diyos ko.‖ ) There wasn‘t any premeditation proven. After which he departed from the office with blood stained clothes. Makasiar. testified that sometime in February 1987. Sigua several times. he did not kill Aling Kikay herself. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. nor disregard of sex. The … amnesia of several isolated accounts … do not fit the active pattern of a schizophrenic process. dissenting: Appellant had been ailing with a psychotic disorder medically known as chronic schizophrenia even before he committed the crime. Death Penalty set aside to Reclusion Perpetua. only that he was ―improving‖ and ―treatment not completed. he would‘ve killed the two witnesses as well. husband of the deceased. his power of control over his will to commit a crime is affected in such a way that ―one who has the impulse to kill will kill‖ when he is affected by such an ailment. as shown by the facts and findings of the psychiatrists. His condition may simply be ―in remission‖ which term means ―social recovery. If he were truly insane at the time.‖ His records never showed that he was cured. the patient does not recover fully in two months‘ time. the accused went to Mrs. carrying a bloodied bladed weapon. Murder is correct because there was abuse of superiority (as in.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. must be characterized by ―total deprivation of freedom of the will. Vicente also said that he could‘ve been suffering from an onset of the schizo reaction at the time. [Schizophrenics] may retain some residual symptoms impairing their judgment but not necessarily their discernment of right from wrong of the offense committed. to be pleaded. Gutierrez III | 23
Dr. Insanity. After a brief talk. J. I. M. Pampanga. Sigua's office at the Department of Agrarian
Reform. The autopsy report revealed that the victim sustained 14 wounds. therefore.
Worried. There were also times that her husband would inform her that his feet and head were on fire when in truth they were not. On that fateful day. Yam-id Facts: Accused/Appellant: Erlindo Yam-Id Victim: Jerry Tejamo. during and after the commission of the alleged crime and classified his insanity as an organic mental disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke. they concluded that Rosalino was psychotic or insane long before. Moreover. the accused was able to Mrs. This statement makes it highly doubtful that the accused was insane when he committed the act. 6 yrs old April 1. that he acts without the least discernment and that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. there's no definite test or criterion for insanity. Rosalino's wife noticed that he appears to be in deep thought always. he was no longer there. it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Tutay. and Dr. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequence of his act. which is manifested in language or conduct. Echavez of the National Center for Mental Health testified that the accused was confined in the mental hospital. he went back to the store. she looked for him. to which Rosalino answered. Held: No. I. Sigua. For insanity to relieve the person of criminal liability. o Jerry Tejamo was with Julius o They passed by the house of the accused who greeted them. Balatbat who treated the accused for ailments secondary to stroke. 2:00 PM – Julius Cantutay was sent by his grandmother. On her way home. Dr. the accused went to Manila. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts. However. She asked her husband why he did the act. Echavez testified to the effect that the appellant could have been aware of the nature of his act at the time he committed it when he shouted (during laboratory examination) that he killed Mrs. In essence. Sigua. Pinamungajan.
Issue: WON the accused was insane during the commission of the crime charged. indicate that he was conscious and knew the consequences of his acts in stabbing the victim. Evidence of insanity must refer to the mental condition at the very time of doing the act. Cebu to deliver benignit to his aunt Bebing Dequiado. as per order of the trial court dated Aug. that he fled to Manila to evade arrest.‖ That same day. Under Philippine jurisdiction. It is not usual for an insane person to confront a specified person who may have wronged him. maltreating their children when he was not used to it before. As Jerry fell to ground. the appellant further stabbed him on the right side of his back then the appellant knelt over the prostrate body of Jerry and sucked the blood from his neck
. M. But Dr. But when Andrea followed him to the store. it states that insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties. (This was taken from the trial court's decision). it can be inferred that the accused was aware of his acts. 1987. This also established that the accused has lucid intervals. ―Good Evening‖ and after the greeting.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof.
Dr. I have cancer of the heart. Rosalino complained of stomachache but they didn't bother to buy medicine as the pain went away immediately. Santiago and Dr. Based on the reports of their staff. 1994. -scribd People vs. However. concluded that Rosalino was somehow rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment in their clinic. the definition of insanity under Sec 1039* of the Revised Administrative Code can be applied. the accused unsheathed a long bolo and ran after the two o Julius pushed Jerry and told him to run but Jerry was eventually overtaken by Julius o Appellant caught up with Jerry and stabbed him on the left portion of his back. Lim who testified that the accused suffered dorm occlusive disease. Judgment: questioned decision AFFIRMED. 17. that he ran away from the scene of the incident after he stabbed the victim several times. Thereafter. Gutierrez III | 24
Two weeks prior to March 16. Amanda Ceniza to Bgy. From this. I would die. 1987. But in the case at hand. then held him by the hair and hacked him on the nape. it is also permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition for a reasonable period before and after the time of the act in question. The fact that the accused was carrying an envelope where he hid the fatal weapon. "That's the only cure for my ailment. she heard people saying that a stabbing occurred. She saw her husband in her parentsin-law's house with people milling around. If I don't kill the deceased in a number of days.
Gutierrez III | 25
Julius ran towards the house of Jerry to the latter‘s father. saw him and noticed that he was wearing long sleeves. Dr. -Adapt People vs. Antonio Yapha who said that the testimony of the appellant that he was shot by Danilo is improbable as a gunshot would not have caused a prolapse (intestine slipping out of the usual place). Her first cousin. No medical certificate was presented to substantiate the claim of insanity and no expert testimony was proffered to support the allegation. The accused ran away towards the back of the barangay hall but was later arrested from one (1) of the houses near the barangay hall where he took refuge.
. Danilo tried to stand by appellant hacked him again and hit him in the head o The tip of the bolo hit appellant‘s stomach when he held Danilo by the collar to finish him off. no evidence was presented that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime and the fact that the defense of insanity was not even raised during the trial of the case gives the impression that is but an afterthought. Ramy decided to buy cigarettes from a store only a few meters away. Danilo Tejamo. Jennifer Carampatana‘s grandmother was buried and there was a wake in their house in the evening. Ramy was hit on the right chest. Appellant is found GUILTY of murder. Jennifer and Ramy sat and talked on the bench. Appellant then ran towards his house and threw the bolo to the ground. he bumped on Ramy.‖ RTC found appellant guilty of Murder and that he had full control of his mental faculties. who thereafter told Danilo o Ancieta and Danilo ran to the site of the incident but before reaching the place they were met by the appellant o After Danilo asked the appellant where his son was. M. she heard another thudding sound of a stabbing blow. Ratio: Whoever invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. who was facing the direction of the approaching accused. Jennifer invited Ramy to talk outside of their house. When Jennifer entered her house. Belonio Facts: RTC found Randy Belonio y Landas guilty of the murder of Ramy Tamayo and sentenced him to death. the defense utterly failed to discharge its burden of proving that appellant was insane. Chronic Undifferentiated and probably triggered by (s)ubstance abuse of Shabu and Marijuana. they claimed that the appellant‘s gruesome action of sucking Jerry‘s blood after he killed him is further proof of insanity o
Issue: Whether or not the appellant can use the defense of insanity in killing of Jerry Tejamo Held: No. He informed Ancieta Tejamo.‖ and immediately hacked Danilo o Danilo was able to dodge the attack but he fell to the ground. I. the late Ramy Tamayo. wife of Danilo. ―I will kill all of you. Antonio Gauzon. In addition. who certified thus: ―This is an individual who is suffering from (Schizophrenia). Jennifer. Held: Judgment of the lower court AFFIRMED. Randy Belonio raised the defense of insanity. Before they could sit on a nearby bench. Ramy Tamayo could not see the accused as he was facing sideways to Jennifer. Appellant struck at Danilo who got hit on the bridge of his nose. Insanity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be existing before or at the very moment the crime was committed.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. she announced that Ramy was stabbed. and relied on the expert assessment of his witness. 2000. Randy tried to force his way in front of the opening and as a consequence. the accused delivered a stabbing blow with a dagger which was concealed in his hand. an exempting circumstance. The accused came over and sat on the other end of the bench. Issue: Whether or not appellant‘s defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance is tenable. o Danilo regained consciousness and sought treatment The appellant denied killing Jerry during the trial and pleaded self-defense for his assault at Danilo At the automatic review at the Supreme Court. On January 6. The store was furnished with a small opening for the store-keeper to attend to the customers and Ramy was occupying that space in front of the opening to pay when the accused Randy Belonio arrived. Then the accused asked Ramy for the latter‘s cigarette lighter and conversed with him. Jennifer stood up and ran towards her house shouting for help. arrived in their house with his wife around 10:00 P. The accused left but after a few minutes he returned. The evidence adduced by the defense is sorely insufficient to establish his claim that he was insane at the time he killed Tamayo. appellant answered.M. Without saying a word and without warning. There at the gate of the fence of her house. by whoever invokes it as a defense o Defense failed to discharge its burden of proving that accused-appellant was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Jennifer saw that Randy gave Ramy a long and hard look. The defense of insanity is anchored on the testimony of Dr. the appellant admitted to killing Jerry and pleaded insanity as his defense which contends that he has schizophrenia. Also. In the case at bar.
D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. The story narrated by the doctor was a mere life and family history of Belonio. among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. There was no showing that he was actually suffering from schizophrenia during his juvenile years. he left and came back armed with a dagger with which he stabbed Tamayo. Serafica. after giving the victim a hard and resentful look. after which. Further. such conclusion is non sequitur and. Afterwards. an expert witness in the case. left the room bolo in hand and. sat near the latter. In the case at hand. he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. the veracity of these findings is belied by the fact that the accused did not raise this defense during his prosecutions for the other killings. weren‘t voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. who invited him to come down and fight. Belonio. the court found not only lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of (read: he loved his wife dearly. he attacked everybody that came his way. The defendant did not dream that he was assaulting his wife. stated that considering the circumstances of the case. On the day of the commission of the crime. he fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of the offense may be accorded weight only if there is also proof of alleged abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. the defendant had a quarrel over a glass of "tuba" with Collantes and Abadilla. Judgment: defendant not criminally liable for the offense. It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime. a circuitous argument. it was noted that the defendant was sad and weak. These acts tend to establish that Belonio was well aware of what he had just committed. 12: Somnabulism People vs. Although an extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. under the influence of a hallucination and not in his right mind. When he was about to go down. The defendant acted while in a dream & his acts. He also attacked Fred and Luis and tried to attack his father. if it can be shown that the offender was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence. -Marcaida Art. Early that afternoon. Gutierrez III | 26
In the eyes of the law. 2000 (around nine months after the stabbing incident) the latter was suffering from schizophrenia. On January 16. Issue: WON defendant acted while in a dream. Ormoc. the defendant acted while in a dream. the doctor pointed to the fact that he has already killed three (3) persons. No other circumstances evincing its existence were presented during trial. At the door. 1932. he would not have attempted to escape and go into hiding. and was capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Taneo Facts: Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his parent's house in Dolores. he tried to attack his father in whose house the lived and the guests whom he invited). insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. including the present incident. upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him. but that he was defending himself from his enemies. M. he escaped and went into hiding. Potenciano's wife. Dr. wounded her in the abdomen. I. he suddenly got up. That's why he got up and it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down. Antonio Gauzon stating that Belonio was suffering from schizophrenia. died five days later as a result of the wound. Immediately thereafter. The apparent lack of motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none. To demonstrate that he had been suffering from this condition. It was also ordered that he be confined in the government insane asylum and will not be released until the director thereof finds that his liberty would no longer constitute a menace -Adapt
. Then. Ratio: Yes. but also motives for not committing the acts. Potenciano went to sleep and while sleeping. a fiesta was being celebrated in the said barrio and guests were entertained in the house. lighted his cigarette and conversed with him. The only other evidence of insanity that appellant pointed to is the medical certificate prepared by Dr. Otherwise. Guazon‘s report was silent as regards the incidents occurring prior to or during the circumstance for which Belonio stands trial. Dr. The trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. who was 7 months pregnant at that time. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him. at best. therefore. However. he was stopped by his wife and his mother. he wounded himself. he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadila held his feet. Dr. However. Gauzon testified that based on his interview with Belonio on October 25. Proof of the existence of some abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The wife's wound may have been inflicted accidentally. had a severe stomachache that's why he went to bed in the early afternoon. but that simply they are not known to us. The defendant stated that when he fell asleep.
and that when the latter let go. because Omamdam had passed behind him. who was then behind Bindoy. Bindoy Facts: On May 6. However. 12: Accident People vs. Pacas stepped in to defend his wife and attempted to take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. 2. and thus convicted him of the crime of homicide. Accused mistakes the discernment for premeditation. No evidence that there was disagreement or ill feelings between Bindoy & Omamdam. Doquena stabbed the unaware Ragojos in the chest. Bindoy is acquitted according to Article 8. The testimony of this witness was not contradicted by any rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal. and was an officer in the CAT program). 1938. Ragojos went back to Rarang to resume playing volleyball. Insulted. The witness for the defense corroborates the defendant to the effect that Pacas and Bindoy were actually struggling for the possession of the bolo. She refused and Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. the very appearance. the accused acted with discernment and was conscious of the nature and consequences of his acts. After doing this. the very comportment and behavior of said minor. Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas. he got his cousin's (Romualdo Cocal) knife. Thus. Doquena Facts: Between 1-2 pm of Nov.
. the DISCERNMENT that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years but over nine. stating that to determine whether or not there was discernment on the part of the minor. The court held that in committing the act. who was hit in the stomach. intercepted the ball. In the course of the struggle. the following must be taken into consideration: a) The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed. Valentin Doquena. the accused. and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case. Bindoy appealed. alleging that the death of Omamdam was caused accidentally and without malicious intent. Doquena looked for something to throw at Ragojos. and threw it a Ragojos. Issue: WON the crime of which Bindoy was found guilty of can be mitigated on the ground of accident. The disturbance attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam. Ragojo's denied Doquena's request for a fight and resumed playing. wrenching the bolo from the latter's hand. Ragojos chased Doquena. Juan Ragojos and Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of their school in Sual. Decision is reversed. but also after and even during the trial. as a mitigating circumstance. Gutierrez III | 27
Art. slapped Doquena on the nape. the appeal by the accused. 12: Minority People vs. The trial court held that Bindoy was guilty of the crime of homicide. not only before and during the commission of the act. Held: Yes. Miffed. No evidence that Omamdam took part in the fight between Bindoy and Pacas. or at least for lack of intention. the former had pulled so violently that it flew towards Omamdam. 19. The court ordered him to be sent to the Training School for Boys until he reaches the age of majority. No. No evidence that Bindoy was aware of Omamdam's presence. with such violence that the point of the bolo reached Omamdam's chest. M. 1930. who commits an act prohibited by law. who was therefore hit in the chest. & were on good terms with each other. b) The state of mind at the time the crime was committed c) The time he had at his disposal d) The degree of reasoning of the minor Issue: WON the accused acted with discernment Held: Decision affirmed. therefore his defense that he was a minor was untenable (given that the Doquena was a 7th grade pupil. the accused acted with discernment. On the contrary. Donato Bindoy offered some tuba to Tibay. without Bindoy's seeing him. Pangasinan. Yes. they were nephew & uncle. 8 of the Revised Penal Code Ratio: 1.
There is no evidence to show that Bindoy deliberately and intentionally killed Omamdam. thereby killing the latter. and punched him in the face. finding none. and upon catching him. the very attitude. one of the brightest in his class. Faustino Pacas' wife.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. -Adapt Art. is his MENTAL CAPACITY to understand the difference between right and wrong. I. and confronted Ragojos.
causes some injury by mere accident without liability or intention of causing it. His conduct was perfectly lawful. Only 1 shot was heard that morning & a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Cecilio Tanedo. The idea that Tanedo intended to kill Sanchez is negated by the fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the same time. Iloilo. having invited the deceased into the forest & intentionally shooting him in the chest. petitioner had a gun (. although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended. the accused went on his way to hunt for wild chickens. and the burden is upon the state to show that it was intentional. Prior to the trial. 1909. there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the killing was accidental or intentional. Tanedo Facts: On January 26. which they did by putting it amidst the tall cogon grass. since whoever willfully commits a felony or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liability. went with some workers to work on the dam on his land. In this case there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the accused. teacher at Concepcion College of Science and Fisheries in Concepcion. nor is there evidence that the accused intended to kill the deceased. Chicken feathers were found at the scene of the crime. Gutierrez III | 28
If. the accused acquitted. indemnifications & costs.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. both that for the state and the prisoner. the accused is not required to prove such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Accused was sentenced to 14 yrs. Tanedo shot one. had wounded Omamdam. according to: Article 1 of the Penal Code: Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and omissions punished by law… Article 8: He who while performing a legal act with due care. directed Balboa to come out of detention for tactical interrogation at the investigation room. but later confessed during the trial. he heard a human cry out in pain. he would be liable for his act. & later burying in an old well. and discharged from custody. The accused went into the forest upon the recommendation of the deceased to continue his search for the elusive wild chickens. I.
Pomoy vs. meeting the victim. Upon reaching the dam. which Pacas was trying to wrench away from him. Feliciano Sanchez. -Adapt US vs. a landowner. Tanedo ran back to his workers and asked one. There was no enmity between the accused and the deceased. because there is a denial of intentional killing. and if. Balboa was taken to Headquarters and detained in the jail thereat. The only thing suspicious is his denial of the act and his concealment of the body. The court quoted State vs. 1990. People Facts: Victim: Tomas Balboa. the accused denied all knowledge of the crime. the defendant had attempted to wound his opponent. but simultaneously. The lower court found the accused guilty of homicide. 8 mos & 1 day of reclusion temporal. He was only trying to defend his possession of the bolo. Later that day. Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas. in the struggle. the latter's Mother & Uncle. carrying with him his shotgun & a few shells. to help him hide the body." Court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of conviction. accessories. from a consideration of all the evidence. Bernardino Tagampa. and instead of doing so. there having only one shot fired. a police sergeant. This is not the case here. At that time. 7:30 AM: policemen arrived at Concepcion College to arrest Balboa. Decision: Judgment of Conviction is reversed. The accused appealed. Upon seeing one. Issue: WON the accused is guilty Held: No. the jury should acquit. -Adapt
3. and in case of a reasonable doubt that his guilt is satisfactorily shown he shall be entitled to an acquittal. allegedly in connection with a robbery. Legg: "Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense. a little past 2:00 PM: petitioner Pomoy.45 caliber pistol) tucked in a holster which was hanging by the side of his belt. gun was fully embedded in its holster. nor is it disputed that the accused was engaged in a legal act. January 4. M. Section 57 of Code of Criminal Procedure: A defendant in a criminal action shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. Also. After seeing that Sanchez was wounded. with only the handle of the gun protruding from the holster
45 caliber service pistol was equipped with a safety lock that. Nicostrato Estepar. as it did. petitioner was a member of the PNP o it was in lawful performance of his duties as investigating officer that he fetched the victim from the latter‘s cell for a routine interrogation. guard in charge of the detention of Balboa. after the gun fired. o Also in the lawful performance of his that petitioner tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it from his holster b) resulting injury was caused by mere accident. Ruling: 1. and distance between the wounds and the trajectories of the bullets jibe perfectly with the claim of the petitioner 2. Ratio: 1. Release of the gun’s safety lock and firing of the gun both accidental . He had kept his service gun locked when he left his house. as they were still grappling or wrestling. Self-Defense Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident (no intent to kill) Since the death of the victim was the result of an accidental firing of the service gun of petitioner a further discussion of whether the assailed acts of the latter constituted lawful self-defense is unnecessary.
As he was holding the doorknob with his right hand to open the door. Petitioner is ACQUITTED. the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision REVERSED.in the course of grappling for the gun. M. Petitioner not in control of gun when it fired during the scuffle. he felt somebody was holding his right hand. 2.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. much less kill him. the gun can. both hands of petitioner were fully engaged – his right hand was trying to maintain possession of the weapon. Yes. Tomas Balboa was not able to take actual hold of the gun because of petitioner‘s efforts in preventing him (Balboa) from holding the handle of his gun. I. especially within the premises of his working area c) on the part of the accused. and it was locked when it fired. He was not. a semi-automatic pistol is prone to accidental firing when possession thereof becomes the object of a struggle. when fired. there was no fault or no intent to cause the injury. -Adapt
. would prevent the firing of the gun. immediately slides backward throwing away the empty shell and returns immediately carrying again a live bullet in its chamber. Gutierrez III | 29
1. it was unnecessary for him to do so
WHEREFORE. Presence of All the Elements of Accident a) accused was at the time performing a lawful act with due care At the time of the incident. however. it was the result of an accident. in a matter of seconds. he used his left hand to parry the move of Balboa. released his right hand from the doorknob and. 2. the victim suddenly approached him and grabbed his gun. during the grappling he used his left hand to prevent Balboa from holding his gun. they were separated from each other and Balboa fell and died as a result Whether the shooting of Tomas Balboa was the result of an accident Whether petitioner was able to prove self-defense.deceased persistently attempted to wrest the weapon from him. Verily.though . fire in succession. . he kept it inside its holster at all times. while his left was warding off the victim. he held the handle of his gun. consequences of circumstances beyond the control of petitioner.45 semi-automatic pistol. more grappling followed and five seconds after the gun was taken from its holster it fired. did not testify to any behavior on the part of petitioner that would indicate the intent to harm the victim while being fetched from the detention cell. unless released. with that right hand. . and Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised all the necessary precautions to prevent his service weapon from causing accidental harm to others. while the victim used his right hand in trying to reach the gun. the location of. His gun was already loaded in its chamber and cocked when he left his house. the victim was to his right side when the attempt to grab his gun began and was still to his right when the gun was drawn from its holster until it fired. while he resolutely tried to thwart those attempts . he held the handle of his gun with his left hand.two shots fired: a caliber . he and Balboa grappled and in two or three seconds the gun was drawn from its holster as both of them held the gun. At no instance during his testimony did the accused admit to any intent to cause injury to the deceased. after he held the handle of his gun with his right hand. Thus.
. nor was he even in the place of the occurrence when the burial took place. are the defendants guilty of the crime of rebellion? Or did defendants incur criminal liability when they signed the documents? Held: No. got to a thicket apparently to respond to the call of nature. Judgment: Decision of the lower court REVERSED. The trial court gave credit to this opinion. seen by Damaso and Isidro. Baculi was not a member of the group and that he was in the banana plantation gathering some bananas when Damaso and Isodoro called Baculi and by by striking him with the butts of their guns forced him to bury the corpses. The evidence for the prosecution and the documents signed by the accused is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the latter or to justify the imposition upon them of the penalty inflicted by the judgment of the court below. I. the leaders of the band. and that they signed the said documents under compulsion and while in captivity. having buried the corpses of the victims to conceal the crime. one of the accused and it appears that he took part in the burial of the teachers because he was compelled to do so by the murderers. As for Caballeros. Josefina Bandian. Roberto Baculi. The facts. Liberate Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco were charged with rebellion – willfully and illegally bound themselves to take part in a rebellion against the government of the US. Gutierrez III | 30
Art. relieve them from all criminal liability from the crime of rebellion of which they are charged. Rushing to her aid. Exaltacion Facts: On March 26. however. The conduct of the defendants in presenting themselves to the authorities as soon as they were released is corroborative of their innocence. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house and three her child into the thicket to kill it. there was no proof that he took any part in the execution of the crime. that Baculi was not a member of the group of murderers but he was in the banana plantation gathering some bananas. Another accused by the name of Apolonio Caballeros confessed by the promise that nothing would be done to them. Defendants ACQUITTED -Rosales: Art. Issue: WON the defense under Art12(5) is tenable Held: Yes. staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able to support herself. M. -Rosales US vs.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. he brought her to her house and placed her on the bed. that the defendants were kidnapped by brigands who belonged to the Contreras Band. Sabate and Baculi declared that Caballeros did not take any part in the burial of the aforesaid corpses. established by the evidence. 12: Insuperable cause People vs. lieutenant of volunteers and the president of Meycauayan. Sabate. According to a witness named Teodoro Sabate. swearing allegiance to the Katipunan Society (whose purpose was to overthrow the government by force of arms). Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes stained with blood both in the front and back. there was conclusive proof to the contrary. Exaltacion and Tanchinco claim that they were captured by armed bandits and were compelled to sign documents (containing oath taken in the name of God and a covenant to carry out superior orders of the Katipunan Society and never disobey them until their death in the defense of the mother country) under threat of death. Witnesses testified to this fact as well. Exaltacion and Tanchinco reported the incident to the governor. Their failure to report the crime is not an offense punished by the Penal Code. Caballeros Facts: Four American schoolteachers were murdered and buried. 12: Irresistible force/uncontrollable fear US vs. Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor. that he was. Few minutes later. Robert Baculi and Apolonio Caballeros were convicted as accessories to the crime of assassination or murder. Bandian Facts: One morning. Issue: Having signed the said documents. that when he heard the shots he began to run. but this was corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime. He called on Adriano Comcom to help them Comcom saw he body of a newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before. Not only is Baculi‘s confession that he only assisted in the burial of the corpses because he was compelled by the murderers. They were allegedly coerced. She claimed it was hers. Guilt of defendants was not established beyond reasonable doubt. 1903. that the latter called to him and striking him with the butts of their guns forced him to bury the corpses. Sabate said that he was present when the Americans were killed.
The appellant. 1929. On the same day Samson informed the Constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo & the Provincial Fiscal requesting a stenographer to take down the conversation between Samson & Uy Se Teung. The Constabulary then arrested Lua Chu & confiscated P50K worth of Opium (3. having the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances in her favor. took place three years before the incident. had no cause to be ashamed o her pregnancy to Kirol. with Lua Chu and agreed on the business of shipping the Opium. 1929. 2. or if she was. so as not to leave it abandoned and exposed to the danger of losing its life. Appelant’s Point of Defense Held
. was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium coming from Hongkong. her married life with Kirol—she considers him her husband as he considers him his wife—began a year ago. 1929 to inform the decision of the owners. Uy Se Teung informed Samson that Lua Chu was one of the owners of the Opium. Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him. The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion. I. there were co-owners named Tan and another located in Amoy. Lua Chu Background of Case: On Nov. Captain Buencosejo and a stenographer named Jumapao from a law firm and hid themselves behind the curtains in the house of Samson to witness the conversation between Samson. Apparently. Uy Ay presented papers to Samson & Captain Buencosejo showed up & caught them in the act & arrested the two Chinese. Gutierrez III | 31
Issue: WON Bandian is guilty of infanticide Held: No. 17. she could not be blamed because it all happened by mere accident. The law exempts from liability any person who so acts and behaves under such circumstances (RPC A12(4)). important facts: 1. which was not unknown to her second lover. or at least it must be the result of a voluntary. she was not aware of her childbirth. Facts of Case: An Appeal was made by Uy Se Tieng & Lua Chu & made 10 assignments of errors made by the TC in its judgment. He collaborated w/ Samson & Natividad of the Customs by paying them an amount of P6K for the opium to be released safely from Customs. The evidence does not show that the appellant. which cause may be considered lawful or insuperable to constitute the 7th exempting circumstance. A Customs Collector had a conversation before when Samson was on vacation in Europe. must be committed willfully or consciously. Uy Se Tieng informed Samson that the former consult the real owners on how to proceed the payment of P6K & will come over to Samson house on Dec. she is acquitted of the crime that she had been accused of. to take her child from the thicket where she had given it birth.252 tins). Uy Se Teung and Lua Chu.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Captain Buencosejo & Jumapao noted the ff. it did not occur to her or she was unable. M. not because of imprudence or any other reason than that she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility. Kirol.000 upon delivery of the opium from the warehouse of Uy Se Tieng. because her affair with a former lover. Lua Chu promised to pay the P6. to expose it to death. 3. upon arrival of the Shipment of Opium in the ports of Cebu. 17. as he so testified at the trial. to be punishable. who represented agents of the real Owners of Shipments of Opium containing 3. Uy Se Tieng. On the night of Dec. with no fault or intention on her part. 4. in causing her child‘s death in one way or another.252 tins. she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in that same place and later abandoning it. conscious and free act or omission. or in abandoning it in the thicket. 1929. due to her debility or dizziness. On Dec. Thus. -Adapt Art. She had no cause to kill or abandon it. If by going into the thicket to pee. he knew of the pregnancy and that it was his and that they‘ve been eagerly awaiting the birth of the child. thus. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor. consciously or imprudently. 12: Instigation and entrapment People vs. did so willfully.
defendant acquitted. Even though Juan Samson smoothed the way for the introduction of the prohibited drugs. 3. He was instigated by Smith. Doesn‘t take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind. Smith‘s acts do not deserve credit. 2. Issues 1. Uy Se Tieng Concluding Remarks: Entrapment 1. into procuring opium and providing for a venue in which to smoke the opium. Samson assured the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of the smugglers. Stenographer attested that it was faithfully taken down.
A public official shall be involved in the crime if: He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain Does not take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain b. Judgment: Judgment reversed. the ff should be noted that held Samson not guilty for the crime: The accused have already planned and actually ordered the opium without the consent or participation of Juan Samson. by Jumapao as the true & correct 2. Did not help the accused to successfully implement there plan rather. The transcript contains certain admissions made by the defendants. Phelps Facts Phelps was charged and found guilty for violating the Opium Law (Act No. M. The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if he have done the following: a. Instigation: This is the involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following manners: a. 1761). Corroborated by statement of Juan Statement in the court. I. to import the opium. -Adapt US vs. He does not induce a person to commit a crime for personal gain or is not involved in the planning of the crime. Such acts done by employees of government in encouraging or inducing persons to commit a crime in order to prosecute them are most reprehensible. and Phelps cannot be held guilty of the crime. Immediately upon Phelp‘s commission of the crime under Smith‘s inducement. an employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. and should not be encouraged by courts. b. He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders. He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders. It is a scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by being in the actual crime scene. Smith not only suggested the commission of the crime but also expressed his desire to commit the offense in paying the amount required for the arrangements. W/N Phelps is criminally liable for having smoked opium Held Decision: No Ratio: Phelps was induced by Smith into making arrangements for the two of them to smoke opium. Trial judge refusal of exclusion of Juan Not one of the means prescribed in section 342 of the Code of Civil Samson in the witness stand Procedures eventhough he was already dismissed from the Customs secret service In accepting the transcript taken down 1. conversation between Juan Samson & 3. Gutierrez III | 32
Juan Samson induced the defendants 1.
. The practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions 2. Smith reported Phelps and had him arrested. Does take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.
The circumstance does not apply when the crime results from negligence. If the resulting felony could be EXPECTED from the means employed.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. former detention prisoner who witnessed what happened. or culpa. then there is negligence or imprudence] (9) Uncontrollable fear: (a) fear was of an evil injury caused. (b) NOT with discernment (8) Causing injury by mere accident: (a) lawful act. (c) means used is lawful (7) Minority: (a) 9 age 15. (2) the injury afflicted. the deceased collapsed on the floor. They are based on the diminution of either freedom of action.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Mitigating circumstances are those which. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
Par. 13. ORDINARY MITIGATING Those mentioned in subsections 1 to 10 of Art. 3: LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG There must be a notable DISPROPORTION between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony. instigator (who is either a public officer or a private detective) practically induces the wouldbe accused into the commission of the offense. The judgment of conviction was based on the testimony of Brigido Alberto. (b) evil injury caused. The accused stepped on the prostate body and left. M. Ural. I. Ural Facts: Ural was convicted of murder by the Zamboanga CFI sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. As a consequence of the fistic blows. ignited it with a match and left the cell again. boxed the deceased. a detention prisoner. (b) age 70. After a while he returned with a bottle poured its contents on the recumbent body of the deceased. Entrapment cannot be used as a defense. intelligence or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender. but serve only to reduce the penalty. (c) no other practical means or less harmful way to prevent (5) Performance of a duty: (a) performance of or lawful exercise of a duty. and (3) the attitude of mind when the accuser attacked the other. (c) lack of sufficient provocation (2) Defense of relatives (3) Defense of strangers (4) State of necessity: (a) evil exists. inside the jail. aced with discernment. (b) injury caused is a necessary consequence or due performance thereof (6) Obedience to an order of a superior: (a) order has been issued. Par. Felix Napola. Judge by considering (1) the weapon used. 13: Mitigating Circumstances – Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong People vs. (b) lawful purpose. -Adapt Art. In entrapment. ways and means are used in order to catch the lawbreaker in the act of committing the offense. in the sum of P12K and to pay the costs. (b) evil was of such GRAVITY and IMMINENCE that a normal person would have succumbed to it Par. (b) 15 age 18. if present in the commission of the crime. a policeman. 1: INCOMPLETE DEFENSE (1) Self-defense: (a) unlawful aggression. As a
. (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Instigation is an ebsolutory cause. (c) injury caused by mere accident. 2: OFFENDER’s AGE: (a) 9 age 15. Gutierrez III | 33
Note: Difference between instigation and entrapment (Reyes) In instigation. (b) due care. the circumstance does not avail. CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 1. Not applicable when the offender employed brute force. (d) without fault or intention [if without due care and with fault/intent. and orderinh im to indemnify the heirs of Felix Napola. do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability. 2.
deliberately and after due reflection resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another man. the age of the accused and the place were considered in determining the gravity of the offense. the victim later on died of the burns. the accused and the deceased lived illicitly in the manner of husband and wife." A little later. he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary. Held: While it may be mere trifle to an average person. Ampar Facts: During a fiesta. it may be deduced from the proven facts that the accused had no intent to kill the victim. But the threat should not be offensive and positively strong. vs. M. -Adapt
Art. and not those which arise from vicious." (Art. the deceased separated from the accused and lived with another man. I. The accused was given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. killed the deceased. the conduct could not have excited the accused to the commission of the crime. an old man 70 years of age asked the deceased. Held: In this a case.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. (3) time and place provocation took place. as an internal act. he heaving had time to regain his reason and to exercise self-control. If this is the case. Come here and I will make roast pig of you. then it gives rise to self-defense. it evidently was a serious matter to an old man. for some roast pig. unworthy and immoral passions. the accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. 13: Passion or Obfuscation US vs. Patobo. The crime committed by appellant Ural was murder by means of fire (incendio) (Art 248(3). killed his common-law wife upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a common acquaintance. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating. Immediate: If there was an interval of time. Afterwards. -Adapt Art. Hicks Facts: For about 5 years. The facts in this case must be distinguished from the case of U. the mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such which originate from legitimate feelings.S. RPC). but also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body. RPC) Held: The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position (Art 14(1). The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty for murder (Arts 64(4) and 248. the deceased insulted the old man. The intention. Gutierrez III | 34
consequence. in the heat of passion.13(3). Thus. 13: Immediate vindication of a grave offense US vs. 4: SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ACT Provocation must be: (1) sufficient. RPC) but it failed to appreciated the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. saying: "There is no more. Depends on: (1) act constituting the provocation. is judged not only by the proportion of the means employed by him to the evil produced by his act. the old man came up behind him and struck him on the head with an ax. a justifying circumstance. In this case. (2) originate from the offended party. In the presence of many guests. The accused enraged by such conduct. such that when he realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act. (3) immediate to the act Sufficient: adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must be accdgly proportionate to its gravity. (2) the social standing of the person provoked. his design being only to maltreat him. With a clean and well-prepared
. De la Cruz Facts: The accused. Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted with obfuscation because of jealousy. to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. circumstance of abuse of his official position. -Adapt US vs. RPC) Par. while the deceased was squatting down. Hicks where it was found that the accused.
and his father. Manuel told his sisters that their mother was dead. I. dead. between 2AM and 3AM. Sto. Gutierrez III | 35
weapon. who told her that their parents were quarrelling. he enetered the house. The mitigating circumstance of illness has the following requisites: o illness must DIMINISH the exercise of willpower of the offender o illness should NOT DEPRIVE the offender of CONSCIOUSNESS of his acts
. disappointment and anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him. :P o On June 15. Manuel. disguising his intention and calming her by his apparent repose and tranquility. and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. He claimed insanity. The mom was found dead in the bedroom. In the SC appeal. either. no psychiatrists were ever presented to validate the insanity claim. say Tubod. the brother. No sufficient evidence. drenched in her own blood. either. the cause of the alleged passion and obfuscation of the accused was his vexation. -Adapt
Art. He also said that he‘d killed his wife because he had been unable to sleep for almost a month. aggravated by his illness. a bolo covered with blood. penalty is reduced from 14 yrs 8 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal to 12 yrs and 1 day of reclusion temporal. goaded him to kill his wife. So the sisters went to their brother‘s house (which was also conveniently near the parents‘ house).D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Consolacion Javier Panit (Javier‘s daughter who lived near them) heard her mother shouting. he had a suspicion that his wife was having an illicit relationship with another man. the impulse was caused by the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him. In this case. In the present case. ―Your father is going to kill me.‖ After hearing her mom scream for help. his mind went totally blank. and together the three of them went to their parents‘ house. Judgment: Modified by a finding that the commission of the crime was marked with the extenuating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. Javier FACTS: o If Sir Barry asks where they lived. Tomas. Consolacion rushed out of her house and met her sister. 13: Illness People vs. Upon entering. found his mother. Javier said the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty. 1996. which had been found in the bedroom. and he didn‘t know what he was doing. doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his criminal design. Eduardo Javier admitted to killing his wife in their bedroom with the use of a sharp bolo. considering the presence of 2 mitigating circumstances: illness. for the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation Held: SC held: o o The RTC had rejected the defense of insanity for failure of the defense to prove that Javier was indeed insane at the time of the incident. and that their father had confessed to him that he had killed his wife and then stabbed himself. He says he should be given a lower penalty. RTC gave him the death penalty. at the time of the incident. wounded in the abdomen. He claimed that when the killing took place. The RTC rejected the defense of insanity and found him guilty of parricide. however. because at the time of the incident. Pacho also testified that Manuel had told him that his father had confessed to killing his wife. La Union. he had been suffering from loss of sleep over a prolonged period of time. Medical findings: Florentina Javier suffered from multiple injuries and her neck was almost cut off from her body. M. In addition to this. The defense never alleged the mitigating circumstances during the trial. No medical records. SPO1 Rotelio Pacho testified that he had received a call for assistance from the barangay captain because Javier had allegedly killed his wife. Manuel then surrendered to him the supposed murder weapon. and this caused him to commit the crime.
o o o
OSG said that Javier cannot claim the mitigating circumstance of illness. and passion and obfuscation. This. in the absence of medical findings to support his claim. which she had a perfect right to do. Alma (Javier‘s daughter who lived with them).
then he left it with Generoso Cabonce. Canta said he will consult with his father on what to do and call her about it later. He reported loss to Padre Burgos. His claim has no leg to stand on. because the following elements were not proven to exist in the instant case. He only got it after the incident happened on March 14. coloring). It is clear Canta falsified and manipulated the certificate of title. He lost it Dec 3 1985. M. Canta didn‘t call so Narciso reported it to police 7. I. He brought it to his father and Maria tried to get it but Canta‘s father refused and asked Narciso to come by so they can discuss. back and legs. 1986 and Feb 27. The fact that he remembers things from the time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the hospital shows he was in full control of his mental faculties. Canta tries to justify taking the cow with a certificate of ownership but Telen said he antedated the certificate. 8. 5. and then with Gardemo Agapay. They went to father‘s house and Tura recognized cow. 13: Analogous circumstances Canta vs. 1986. Trial Court said: Obviously Canta took the cow using strategy and stealth considering Agapay was separated by a hill and couldn‘t see him. 1984 and was lost Dec 2 1985. This means that if he was suffering from an illness. 1985 at the request of Canta who assured Telen that he owned the cow. Canta took cow to Padre Burgos. He produced 2 certificates of ownership dated March 17. Canta said that he got the baby cow as payment for taking care of Pat. Villanueva‘s cow. Hoof prints led him to Valejos house and he was told that Canta had taken it. but by Canta‘s friend Franklin Telen who was a janitor at the municipal treasurer‘s office. She met Canta who said that he gave it to his father. I contained a description of the cow including identifying marks (cowlicks on the head. Decision modified: reclusion perpetua. Narciso never came by. 11. His uncle said he saw the cow under the care of Agapay. Agapay took the cow up a mountain for grazing and it was gone when he came back for it 4. It was not filed by the municipal treasurer. it did so Canta assumed the baby cow was his. where he mangled her neck twice he remembered being brought to the hospital Mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation doesn‘t apply either. It was born on Dec 5. Gutierrez III | 36
Mitigating circumstance attempt is FAIL. In the investigation Canta admitted he took cow. ISSUES: 1. 6. 3. the barangay captain. c. No registration recorded in municipal records. 10. 4 previous caretakers certify that this is the cow they took care of. CA agrees.
. 2. Narciso presented certificate of ownership dated Mar 9 1986 signed by municipal treasurer. Petitioner Canta claims good faith and honest belief in his right to the cow 9. he remembered killing his wife in the bedroom with a bolo. because: o no medical finding was presented regarding Javier‘s mental condition at the time of killing o no clear and convincing evidence was shown that Javier was suffering an illness which diminished his willpower Plus: o Javier was aware of the acts he committed. Telen issued certificate on March 24. Canta went to the Agapay‘s grazing place with the mommy cow to see if the baby cow would drink its milk. Narciso Gabriel acquired a cow upon its birth on March 10. Narciso instructed Maria Tura to get the cow. Canta‘s Certificate of Ownership a. -Reyes Art. Narciso left it with his sister in law Erlinda Montes. 1988. 1986 but he antedated it Feb 27. it was not the kind of illness that diminished the exercise of his willpower. b. but he contended that it was his cow. o Elements: there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time
No aggravating or mitigating circumstance.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. People FACTS: 1. 1984 2. then with Maria Tura.
Also there was intent to save authorities the trouble of search and capture. Surrender is voluntary b. Taking without violence or intimidation i. While the stabbing incident was taking place. 3. Canta tok cow from Agapay even if he knew Agapay was holding it for Narciso. Rodil attempted to draw his gun but Fidel grabbed the gun and gave it to Masana. It don‘t have to be the mom. also the barangay captain was his father. c. d. Calves suckle on strange cows. accompanied by Fidel went outside and asked Rodil. 1971 around 1:00 pm 1. Brought mother cow and calf suckled its milk b. stood up to assist him.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. His certificate was FRADULENT. It‘s penalties are discussed in RPC. 4. Can be considered analogous to voluntary surrender ii. There was no complaint filed against him when he surrendered cow. Negates good faith. Analogous with voluntary surrender. He already committed a crime. 4. If he had been responsible he could have verified ownership of cow first. their attention was called by Rodil who was outside blowing his whistle. 6. Masana refused to return the gun to Rodil and as Masana was about to stand up Rodil pulled out his double bladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times on the chest and stomach causing his death after several hours. whether the gun that was tucked under his shirt had a license. Taking without consent of owner i. 2 mos. Taking is with or without intent to gain i. Compared marks on the cow to the recorded marks on his certificate. 7. Offender not actually arrested 1. h. M. No violence g. 4 yrs. 2. Fact that Canta went to barangay captain does not prove good faith. 14: Aggravating circumstances – Insult to public authorities People vs. He was NOT justified to take cow. Cattle Rustling requisites a. 3. The three went inside the restaurant and Masana wrote a receipt for the gun on a coupon bond paper and he asked Rodil to sign it. No question cattle belongs so Narciso Gabriel c. -Escueta Art. Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel. The intent to unconditional submission was there. He turned over cow to barangay captain. Petitioner says that even if his certificate of ownership is ―not in order‖ it does not mean he did not believe in good faith that the cow was his. a. Masana who were all seated at a separate table about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters away from the table. Gutierrez III | 37
a. b. DECISION: One mitigating circumstance equals the case be fixed in minimum period. He was negligent c. I. Offender surrenders to authority iii. Floro Rodil was found guilty of the crime of murder by the Circuit Criminal Court for the death of Lt. Instead of answering. 3. tried to take law into own hands 5. Match. and later to police when the dispute began d. Merely mistake of fact. which has the ff elements i. It belongs to another i. in civilian clothing. While they were eating. 2. after identifying himself as a PC officer.
. the three companions of Lt. MITIGATING circumstances a. He falsified certificate of ownership. PD 533 Anti-Catte Rustling Law is not a special law. Taking done by any means method or scheme i. Coast Guard Ricardo Ligsa and policeman Felix Mojica was having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the Indang Market. He voluntarily took cow to municipal hall of Padre Burgos and put it in custody of authorities. In the case: Canta not yet arrested. 8. Masana of the Philippine Constabulary. a scheme e. (minimum) 10 yrs 1 day maximum. 5. Rodil FACTS: April 24. Rodil refused to do so. Masana. Filed complaint against Nicolas for cattle rustling. Canta concocted a ploy to obtain ownership so he had an obvious intent to gain f. CA decisions lessened. Large cattle is taken b.
YES. Benito – clerk murdered assistant chief of the personnel transaction division b. 2. Torres – murder of Col. the force of warding off the attack was so strong that the accused bumped his head on a table nearby.
. the accused must be held liable for the crime unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of legitimate self-defense. Attack wasn‘t treacherous because the victim was able to ward off the attack with his hand. Rodil answered in the affirmative and Masana invited him to join him in his table. Gutierrez III | 38
But Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang. It is the accused who had every reason to be resentful of the deceased and to be enraged after the deceased refused to heed his plea that his gun be returned. injure.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. When Rodil refused. But prosecution failed to show that the accused made any preparation to kill his victim so as to insure the commission of the crime and making it impossible or hard for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. NO. Assault upon person of authority – the Information does not allege the fact that the accused then knew that. causing a wound on his head (one Rodil later claimed he got from the Masana hitting him with a gun). this aggravating circumstance is present. WON the crime committed was murder or homicide merely or murder or homicide complexed with assault upon an agent of authority. Rank – refers to a high social position or standing Cases wherein the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank was appreciated a. 3. the Chief of Police brought the accused to the municipal building of Indang. In fact. People vs. in the absence of such allegation. o Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means. o It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked was a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties. Castaneda c. Whenever there is a difference in social condition between the offender and the offended party. Court cannot perceive how the refusal of the accused to give his ID could have provoked or enraged the deceased to the extent of initiating the aggression by drawing his pistol and hitting the accused with its butt. Rodil together with his wife was eating inside the restaurant. M. Self-defense must be proven by clear. Masana approached and inquired whether he was a member of the Anti-smuggling Unit. While they were waiting for their food. the required knowledge would only be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. ISSUE: 1. 13. sufficient. because the accused must have the intention to offend. or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially to insure its execution. Masana asked for identification of Rodil and the latter showed his ID. Cavite. WON self-defense can be availed by Rodil 2. Masana was demanding that Rodil surrender his ID to him but Rodil refused. otherwise. Having admitted the wounding or killing of the victim. RODIL’s VERSION 12. satisfactory and convincing evidence Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. and thereafter wrested the dagger from the accused-appellant. During their conversation. alone. People vs. Valeriano – murder of district judge
9. I. o Such knowledge must be expressly and specifically averred in the Information. CaviteVersion of the defense 11. Masana identified himself as a PC officer and the accused is merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior to both in rank and social status. Immediately thereafter. WON the AC disregard of rank should be appreciated RULING: 1. who happened to be taking his lunch in the same restaurant. methods. 3. Masana pulled out his gun and hit the accused on the head with its handle 2 times and as a result blood gushed out from his head and face. or assault the offended party as a person in authority or agent of a person in authority. the victim was an agent of a person in authority. Rodil accepted the invitation. Rodil pulled out his dagger and stabbed Masana and then ran out of the restaurant. People vs. 10. was quicker than any of them in going near the combatants and embraced and/or grabbed the accused from behind. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Crime committed was only homicide (No complex crime but there is a general aggravating circumstance) No treachery – assailant and victim was face to face. he met the Chief of Police and he was accompanied to the municipal building and was given first aid treatment. where he sat drinking. Masana told Rodil that his ID was fake and Rodil insisted that it was genuine. Salgado and injuries to Gen. before or at the time of the assault. Rodil is claiming self-defense. While on his way. Rodil went to the direction of the Municipal building where he intended to surrender.
under the law. the place is his home the sanctity of w/c the law seeks to protect and uphold. not a mere agent of the authorities o Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions and is not the person against whom the crime is committed. a boarder. HAVING BEEN FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF HOMICIDE AGGRAVATED BY CONTEMPT FOR OR INSULT TO A PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK. Margarita. Reaching her boarding house. or which insult to public authorities to be considered as aggravating. Masana is not a public authority nor a person in authority he is a mere agent of a person in authority Disregard of the respect due to rank oThere must be a difference in social condition of the offender and the offended party o Offender and offended are of the same rank the aggravating circumstance does not apply o Difference in rank between a lieutenant and officer of anti-smuggling unit is not such of a degree as to justify consideration of disrespect of rank due to the offended party. the penalty next lower in degree is to be applied. >> I think the point was. 14: Dwelling People vs. -Adapt
. While she was waiting inside the bus. He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and threatened her saying. she was again followed by the accused. APPELLANT FLORO RODIL IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN INDETERMINATE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT RANGING FROM 12 YEARS OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM. the accused Daniel came and started molesting her by inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag. for lack of the necessary number of votes. The accused followed her and rode and sat beside her. It is not necessary. Daniel asserts that he and Margarita have known each other since 1963 and this was in fact the 2nd time he had carnal knowledge of her. Daniel had already gone. Margarita fell silent. she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some 100meters away. or a bed-spacer. When she recovered. Parang. Rodil shouldn’t have committed a crime (much less kill someone) knowing that the Chief of police was there. She was then forced to lie down w/ the accused placing a handkerchief in her mouth and holding a dagger to her neck. that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. ―If you will talk. When Margarita alighted in Guisad. you shouldn’t buy pirated DVDs infront of Edu Manzano. Hahaha << DISPOSITIVE: With two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance. I. The accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of Margarita. Daniel FACTS: 13-yr old Margarita Paleng filed complaint against Amado Daniel alias ―Amado Ato‖ for the crime of rape. Also. the appellant should therefore be condemned to suffer the maximum period of reclusion temporal the penalty prescribed for homicide. her room constituted for all intents and purposes a ―dwelling‖ as the term is used in Art 14 (3) RPC. Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house. For his defense. Thereafter she lost consciousness. On Sept 20.‖ Because of her fear. Gutierrez III | 39
Chief of Police (Panaligan) was present during the incident. Be he a lessee. It seemed that they were also afraid of the accused. he alleges that he promised to marry Margarita and was actually surprised the she filed the complaint against him. DISSENT: Melencio-Herrera Contempt of. Medico-Legal report indicated that Margarita was a virgin before the incident complained of. 1965. Despite the rain. The correct penalty is death pursuant to Aft 335 RPC. Panaligan was the one who wrested the dagger from Rodil and the accused knew him to be the chief of police. However. She did not allow the latter and instead called the attention of the bus driver and the conductor but was merely shrugged by them. she opened the door and was about to close it when the accused dashed in and closed the door behind him. Chief of police is considered a public authority or a person in authority for he is vested with jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order and is specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the law.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I will kill you. it is essential that: o Crime is committed in the presence of a public authority. She was then en route to her boarding house in Guisad as she was a high school student at the Baguio Eastern High School. arrived in Baguio City from Tublay in a Dangwa bus. M. a native of Mt Province. Her attempts to flee was to no avail as she was only 4 ft 8 inches tall & 95 lbs while Daniel was 5 ft 7 inches tall and weighed 126 lbs. Daniel is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify Margarita Paleng by way or moral damages of PhP12K. WHEREFORE. -Baer Art. HELD: The crime committed by Daniel is rape w/ the use of a deadly weapon w/ the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in the dwelling of the offended party.
at around 8:30 in the evening. approached the party through a small paddled boat. crawled to turn off remaining pressure gas lamp and loosen the anchor. April 4. Bermas‘ companion fired his Armalite m16 rifle at Bonaobra and his companions. They lay down but could not avoid the attack. He boxed Leopoldo in the chest leaving him writhing in pain on the ground. Detachment Commander. Teodoro Cas. After 5 minutes. and that the one used to commit the felony was not the same one he was issued with. Catalino Bellen. with the use of high powered firearms. Jesus Lotera. and Bonaobra were seriously wounded. They circled the fishing boat Sagrada four times which gave survivors/witnesses Bonaobra and Renato Abion opportunity to recognize Bermas as the one paddling the boat. she miscarried. and that they were looking for somebody. with the position of Asst. insisting that they were at a different place at the time of the crime in question. They heard 2 volleys fired at them. The accused Rustom Bermas and a masked companion. This was considered a death threat to the family. Abion. and that the firearm he owned was not in his possession that night. SUPREME COURT RULING: Alibi is the weakest of all defences because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. The firearm used in the felony was found to be exactly the one issued to Galma Arcilla. When they were about 7 meters away. That he allegedly left his gun in the custody of another person was dubious because the military requirement is to leave firearms at the headquarters where it would be safer. the following events happened: October 13. 1984 – at a public dance at Namanday. and with intent to kill. Santiago found 2 slugs inside the fishing boat. which he surrendered to the police. Arturo. Rustom Bermas.
. Bermas claims he had no motive to kill and that conspiracy was not proven. with treachery. I. The two accused pretended to paddle away. The facts established are enough to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He then asked Bonaobra who owned the fishing boat and Bonaobra told him it was Jose Abion. 14: Nighttime People vs. Physical evidence speaks more eloquently than all the witnesses put together. “with evident premeditation. and Santiago Abion the following morning. Albay. Santiago‘s pregnant wife was so scared. conspiring. October 14. such that had they not received medical attention. He then lost consciousness. Prior to the night in question. Gutierrez III | 40
Art. owned by the Abion family. where they were found by Jose. He also failed to satisfactorily explain where and how the missing ammunitions were used. Renato Abion. Jesus Lotera. upon instruction from his father Arturo. which the courts held to be Galma Arcilla. 1985 – Rustom Bermas pounded on a table and said to Santiago. they would have died from said wounds. Defendant‘s defense of alibi easily crumbles in the weight of evidence presented against them. ―I will bring home the Baraka‖.” Rustom Bermas worked in a mining firm and was a councilman for Brgy. and Expedito Bonaobra (barangay captain) were aboard a fishing boat named ―Sagrada Familia‖. the Abion brothers arrived to get even with Arcilla and Daniel Abion was able to hit appellant on the face with a piece of wood. it is of no moment because there were enough circumstantial evidence on which the ruling could be based on. for the purpose of catching fish. with a group of armed men forced open a window in Santiago‘s house looking for the latter. Arcilla was involved in a fistfight with Leopoldo Abion. Thereafter. Arturo Abion and Catalino Bellen were already dead. 1985. at the sea of Albay. Liguan while Galma Arcilla was a member of the PC Company. Bermas FACTS: Lower court ruling: Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla were found guilty of Multiple Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder. and his body was found 3 days later in a neighboring town in Albay. Bonaobra asked Bermas if they were fishing. but Daniel had already left. On appeal: Defendants‘ defense was alibi. 1985 – Galma Arcilla. taking advantage of nighttime. Bonaobra asked Arturo to remove the shade of the gas lamp so they could recognize Bermas‘ companion but they still could not due to the mask he was wearing. Although the witnesses were unable to identify the masked man. Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant a conviction.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Baraka is the appellation (title/label) of the Abion family. Antonio Abion was also injured though not as grave. and was in possession of an Armalite M-16. Teodoro Cas was missing. There was also that question of the firearm. confederating and helping one another. the usual confederate and companion of accused. Renato. On April 20. Arcilla further contends that lower court erred in ruling it was he who was the masked companion since none of the witnesses identified him as the masked man who fired at the victims. Antonio Abion. Rudy. The accused said yes. M. The boat was carried away by the currents of the sea and into the shore. Renato Abion. arrived to seek revenge for Arcilla.
and that he provided himself with the means to do what he was told. while there was no more news about Igual‘s wounding. When he arrived in Cotabato he wounded two people. Civil indemnity increased to 50. Two aggravating circumstances are appreciated: (1) promise of reward and (2) evident premeditation. court held that proof of ill motive becomes irrelevant in the face of positive identification. He must be equally liable as coprincipal. Datto Rajamudah Mupuck instructed him to go juramentado in Cotabato and to kill somebody. The aggressor. Macalinde FACTS Juan Igual. as well as his silence while the victims were being gunned down by his companion. Gutierrez III | 41
In sum. The mere fact that the offense happened at night was not enough to sustain a finding of nocturnity. however. 14: Evident premeditation US vs. he was told to pass the blame on Datto Piang. or 3. If Macalinde was successful. -A. and that if he had done it on his own he would have killed more people instead of just two victims. A Chinese named Choa was putting down his load along the street when he was also attacked with a kris by Macalinde. nothing suggests that it was consciously resorted to. that he knows the consequences of his actions. Nighttime was not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case. Macalinde admitted to agreeing to this proposition. I. Judgment affirmed -Mesina
. M. was appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because of appellant‘s use of a mask. Bermas was positively identified by Bonaobra and Renato Ambion. It only becomes an aggravating circumstance when the following requisites are present: 1. ISSUE Was the crime of murder appreciated properly? Macalinde said that he just went juramentado because of the order of said datto. Macalinde showed firm intent in carrying out his duty and it is immaterial whether he did by order of Datto Mupukc or not. It was delivered with a kris.000. It was specially SOUGHT by the offender 2. It was also a well-known fact that he was a close companion of his co-accused and they were frequently seen together. With regard to Bermas‘ contention that he had no ill motive since the quarrel was between Arcilla and the Ambions. a Spaniard. This happened between 23PM. The wound was on the left shoulder and caused his death. Essence of treachery is in the swift and unexpected attack on unsuspecting and unarmed victims. and 1 crime of attempted murder. Bermas‘ act of paddling to and from the boat. In this case. the Moro Macalinde. DECI: Lower court decision AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa‘s store in Cotabato. Conspiracy is proven by the specific acts done with such closeness and coordination with the one who executed the criminal act. Treachery was appreciated in this case because it satisfied the requirements that a) malefactor employed means of execution to ensure his safety from retaliatory acts of the victim b) said means were deliberate. Garcia Art. whereupon he was charged with murder. arming himself with a kris and wrapping it in banana leaves. It is plain from Macalinde‘s actions that he had deliberately and carefully considered how best to carry out his mission. when he received a head wound from the behind. He said that his wife had just died a hundred days before and he had come from his hometown Catumaldu. Disguise. Moro Province. In this case. Datto Mupuck promised him a pretty woman in return. It is inexcusable because killing anyone without any motive or reason is against the law of the nations. as testified by other witnesses. was enough to warrant a conspiracy. because the former had grievances against two military men. Guilty of 3 crimes of murder. It was TAKEN ADVANTAGE by him. a Spaniard and a Chinese. ran away. Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Macalinde was arrested and pleaded guilty. court held that Arcilla had been lying in order to exculpate himself. It FACILITATES commission of the crime by insuring immunity from capture.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. 3 crimes of frustrated murder. But if captured.
Only Sangalang was arrested. 14: Ignominy People vs. He later on fell to the ground at the base of the coconut tree. though alleged. His wife Flora Sarno was left inside the hut. victim was on top of a coconut tree. Flora went outside & was supposed to help his husband but the five persons each armed w/a long firearm fired at her too. He didn‘t give any immediate provocation. Evident premeditation.: Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut in Silang. I. Torrefiel Facts: December 17. o Cordero called to Eady every now and then to know if he was following.m. Ceferina Cordero also came to the balcony and inquired about their mission. Eleuterio Cuyom & Laureano Sangalang. he was already dead. Cavite to gather tuba from a nearby coconut tree. While on top of the tree. Gutierrez III | 42
Art. o She scolded Torrefiel and Ormeo because all their belongings have been looted by USSAFE soldiers. Torrefiel and Ormeo were on their way to the USSAFE headquarters in the mountains. He went out & saw Sangalang shooting Cortez w/a Garand carbine. -Adapt Art. Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so he went back to a guardhouse & left Eady there.m. Sarno & Flora executed sworn statements & based on these. Cortez are not glaring and instead these strengthen their credibility & show that they did not rehearse their testimonies. it was not shown either that Cortez & Sarno were impelled by malicious desires to falsely incriminate Sangalang. Discrepancies in the testimonies of Sarno & Mrs.
Held: CFI affirmed. Thus. Defense: Sangalang claims that during that time. brought out revolver. After a while Eady did not respond anymore so they stopped to wait for them. Treachery absorbs the AC of band. Subsequently they were taken to the USSAFE headquarters. 1968. The five left after about 5mins & when she returned to her husband. The latter was known to Flora & her bro Ricardo since childhood. He was supposed to help Cortez but he was fired upon by the men too.
Issues & Ratio: 1. Flora‘s bro who lived nearby.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. o He tried to find a way to overtake Ormeo and Cordero but was unsuccessful. Cortez was struck by a valley of shots. o Torrefiel: Eady and Ormeo: Cordero o Their hands were free but were blindfolded. Their unwavering identification negates Sangalang‘s alibi. he was in Sampaloc. 14: Treachery People vs. a complaint against the 5 offenders was filed. 2. YES. M. Cortez & Sarno clearly & consistently testified that Sangalang was among those who shot Ricardo. 5:00 p. WON the qualifying AC of treachery (alevosia) should be appreciated. Ricardo Sarno. 1942. was not proven. He was unarmed & defenseless. He likewise impugns the credibility of Mrs. o Torrefiel threatened her with slapping. The assault was unexpected. offense is murder. Irineo Canuel. They passed by Eady’s residence and talked to him at the balcony to ask for khakis. When the crime happened. Manila to borrow money from a certain Gatdula for the tuition fees of his children. Eady and Cordero were charged with being fifth columnists as they refused to give aid to them. CFI convicted him of murder & was sentenced to RP. Sangalang Facts:
. Perino Canuel. 6 a. Cortez & Ricardo. heard the gunshots too. WON Sangalang’s alibi is admissible NO. o Eady had none except what he had on. Although motive for killing was not proven. Deliberate & surprise attack insured victim‘s killing w/o any risk to the offenders arising from any defense w/c the victim could have made. She went back to the hut for cover but she was able to recognize the 5 as Conrado Gonzales.
o Pressing her neck so she would remain silent. 2) YES. as he was holding a bolo. o Torrefiel followed a different route enabling him to find Ormeo and Cordero. Held/Ratio: 1) YES to both. Noticing that Alfanta was already sleeping. while Nita Fernandez was asleep in the residence of a friend in Fort Bonifacio./ WON witness is credible. As Cordero was about to urinate. pulled her and boxed her jaw and put his hand on her mouth. o Ormeo taking advantage. o Upon Eady‘s return. Pants vs. a. o The opportunity just presented itself. The testimony sufficiently proves Torrefiel‘s guilt. o Servant informed Cordero that Eady had gone away. she followed. suddenly entered the house where she was sleeping (in the sala). o It was visible to Cordero as her blindfold had fallen down a little. she was told to lie face down. i. 2) WON there are any aggravating circumstances. he molested her. a.‖ o Pushing down victim proves force. Torrefiel proceeded to have intercourse with her. she suddenly took the bolo and hacked him several times. iii. use of force may still be doubted. the soldiers‘ roaming inside the house is proven by the sound of their footsteps. M. Then after all these acts. Cordero was left with Torrefiel. and told her that if she will not obey him. Thereafter. After inserting his penis. Cordero informed him that she was abused by Torrefiel. The policemen brought Alfanta to the hospital and he survived. She was forced to climb a fence. She was instructed to lie down and he then inserted his genitals to her vagina. The soldiers desisted from bringing Cordero to their headquarters and returned her to their house. -Adapt
People vs. she complied. I. he inserted his penis to her anus. he instructed her to turn around face up. The court sees no incongruity between the affidavit and testimony of complainants. o Nocturnity not taken advantage of by offender to be free from molestation. Torrefiel pushed her and carried her to a log and laid her on it and raped her. he inserted his fingers to her private part. o Cordero was not hostile towards him after crime. Alfanta instructed her to go to the vacant house and she was told to undress.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. She went to the police station to report the incident.
Trial Court erred in accepting the aggravating circumstance of NOCTURNITY o Entirely unexpected as the ordeal started early in the afternoon. Gutierrez III | 43
o At the guardhouse.
b. she did because of fear. Alfanta Facts: At around midnight. o The novelty of the act of winding cogon grass on his genitals before raping the victim augmented the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding moral disgrace thereto. also had sex with her. Exertion of force or violence is implied in the term ―rape. Overalls: same thing b. he discovers Eady had escaped. o Although for Ormeo. Back at Eady‘s house. whom Nita had not seen before. ISSUE: WON ignominy and nighttime be appreciated as aggravating circumstances of the crime of rape [YES] RULING:
. he will kill her. Because of fear. IGNOMINY is present. o Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants and wound cogon leaves around her genitals. Thereafter. ii. Cordero recognized Torrefiel by his voice even though she was blindfolded because it was falling.
Issues: 1) WON rape was committed. Rolando Alfanta. After that. he told her to lie beside him as he was going to take a rest. Ormeo rushed back to the guardhouse upon discovering that Eady had escaped.
no one else would testify for him (public condemnation for the horrible act he committed?) Also their testimonies keep changing. b. b. Later on Buenaflor. Treachery? a. Pascua was about to bolo him. After Pascua. 8. Witness states that Camano attacked Pascua from behind. Camano held a grudge. Filomeno Camano had been drinking. Also his only witness was Nemesio Camano. a. M. Pascua and a 6 of their friends were drinking in Buates‘ store. No proof of preconceived plan. No police report or doctor certification he was drunk. C hit him on the head. Camano hacked him on the head. When bloodied bolo was recovered. Camano refused. He was arrested by police there. Appeal: guilty of homicide not murder. After killing the 2 men he went home. The means employed added ignominy to the natural effects of the act as it added disgrace to the injury caused by the crime. I. No proof. merely motive. SC: Contention meritorious. Trial Court: Camano‘s testimony is not tenable. but also the same position as dogs do (entry from behind). he admitted bolo was his and admitted to the killings. But He openly detested Buenaflor. Refused to sign statement. No evidence of premeditation. There were 8 wounds 2 of them mortal wound (chest and neck). Not shown that accused purposefully became drunk to facilitate crime. Camano continued to hack him until he was prostrate.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. 2. it was below left armpit near the back b. Camano‘s version: he went fishing and Buenaflor asked for a percentage for the fishery commission. Camano went to seashore where Mariano Buenaflor was leaning on the gate in front of his house.. but Camano hit him so B ran away. female inferior. There were 2 wounds. 7. Buenaflor too. 5. 2 had bolos and he wasn‘t injured? Court searched for evidence but there was none. Trial court based premeditation on the incident with the boat towing 3 years prior and the fact that Camano was unfriendly and violent towards Pascua and Buenaflor after that. No evidence at all.e. 15: Alternative circumstances – Intoxication People vs. Camarines Sur between 4 and 5 pm. Buenaflor had bolo. Corroborated by entry of wound.
. C ran after him because B had a gun at home. but he grabbed bolo. Mariano attacked while his head was down and he was kneeling by his fence. c. In Nato. 3 years prior the 2 victims had misunderstanding with Camano. Pascua then suddenly boxed him. reduction of penalty ISSUES: 1. So. refused to associate with him. i. The silence and darkness of the night has been taken advantage by the accused in facilitating the commission of the crime by insuring the offender's immunity from capture and by ensuring his impunity from his illegal acts. Pascua then fell and others ran away except Buenaflor. it was all ―spur of the moment‖. This does not establish a decision to commit crime. 3. and when he was drunk he would challenge Buenaflor and say he wanted to kill him. 8 men fought him. it is obviously a lie. When he was being investigated he admitted bolo was hidden under table in his house. Counsel of accused erred in applying intoxication as an aggravating circumstance. Gutierrez III | 44
As to ignominy. The victim rolled on the ground. RTC decision affirmed but modified penalty by lowering it from death to reclusion perpetua. 6. a. then Camano stabbed him in the left side of the chest above the nipple. male superior. Pascua and Buenaflor refused to tow his fishing boat and Camano was very offended. Intoxication can be mitigating if it is accidental NOT habitual or intentional (not subsequent to plan to commit crime). Challenged Buenaflor to a fight when drunk. Intoxication should be a mitigating circumstance because it diminished his capacity to comprehend the consequences of his act. He then stabbed Godolfredo Pascua with a palas (or bolo) when Pascua was walking along barrio street almost in front of Buates‘ store. Just the rambling of a desperate man. or time which elapsed before such plan took place. the accused did not only use the missionary position. killing of Godofredo Pascua and Mariano Buenaflor by Filomeno Camano 1. 4. 2. the undeniable facts of the case point to Camano killing the 2 men in cold blood. -Ranola Art. no showing that in between utterance of threats and consummation of crime the appellant made plans to kill Buenaflor. of Camano‘s intoxication except one witness Payago saying he saw Camano drinking in his house 30 meters away. With Pascua he pretended to be friendly and drank with him. 3. Camano Facts: Mandatory review of death sentence. says accused.
They entered a plea of not guilty. In our commentary on par. c. The lower court erred in holding that the evidence presented against the accused s sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. the three were charged jointly on an information alleging conspiracy among them. & therefore is guilty of no wrong. Appellant acquitted. it is not claimed that the appellant had taken a direct part in the burning of the building. in each case -Escueta Art.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. 4.intentional or person is habitually given to intoxication by excessive drinking. those who force the other to commit the crime. as minimum. Gutierrez III | 45
Intoxication is aggravating when.
Panglima Indanan." Commenting upon this paragraph. Viada says: They force another to commit a crime who physically by actual force or grave fear. The CFI found Indanan guilty of the crime of murder & sentencing him to be hanged. 9 of A8 (page 28). There must be from all the circumstances a combination of evidence which in the ordinary and natural course of things. is no more than an instrument. 2. -Adapt US vs. 24. mitigated by intoxication. It may be proved by circumstantial evidence. He was prosecuted on the theory that he induced his said codefendants to set fire to the building. Ong Ban Ha and Kua Sing were acquitted while appellant was found guilty of the crime of arson and sentenced to imprisonment and to pay damages.
Issues: WON Indanan is guilty of murder by inducement? YES. 17: Principals – Principals by inducement People vs. The real culprits in such case. or for a consideration. He saw Camano drink liquor immediately before the killings. ii. A conviction for the crime could not be had unless corpus delicti is first established. Indanan Facts:
i. Ong Ban Hua and Kua Sing were charged by the provincial fiscal of Zamboanga with having feloniously burned a building in which was located a store belonging to the applicant. Hence. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor. In the instant case. Intoxication not habitual and he was intoxicated at time of felony. SC says it‘s not cruel. as maximum. A13(2). that the crime of arson had been committed. Payago testified he‘s only seen Camano drunk 5 times in 3 years. we have already said that he who suffers violence acts w/o will & against his will. namely. Doesn‘t need to b daily. 1912. Habit should be confirmed. Indanan ordered the killing of Sariol to his men Akiran. accussed is the headman of Parang. or by any other similar act w/c constitutes the real & moving cause of the crime & w/c was done for the purpose of
. I. M. The acquittal of his codefendants is not only consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is innocent but is inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is guilty. oblige another to commit the crime. On Mar. Death penalty is cruel. leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. DECISION: Murder. So intoxication is MITIGATING. The same may be said with regard to the theory that the appellant induced his codefendants to commit the crime for it seems clear that one cannot be held guilty of inducing the commission of the crime without showing that the crime was indeed done by another. Camano not given to excessive drinking according to testimony i. are those who use the violence. says counsel for accused. This allegation however has been negative by the acquittal of appellant‘s codefendants. Kalyakan & Suhuri in the Chinese Cemetary asserting that Indanan had an order to that effect from the governor. the only guilty persons. The lower court erred in holding that the evidence presented against the accused is sufficient to establish his guilt of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. One is induced directly to commit a crime either by command. 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. of the Penal Code declares those to be principals in a crime "who directly force or induce others to commit it. Lessens resistance to evil thoughts and undermines will power. with a pistol in hand or by any other threatening means. Ong Chiat Lay Facts: Appellant. to 17 years. Issues on Appeal: 1. for example. Held: Appeal granted.
We‘ve already seen in our commentary on par. Defendants Eduardo Autor. an inducement condemned by the moral law. Moreover. under the provisions of the Code. the overseer or manager of the hemp plantation owned by Angel Pulido. but in order that.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Gutierrez III | 46
inducing such criminal act & was sufficient for that purpose. by his command. 12 of A8 that the 1 who physically commits the crime may escape criminal responsibility by showing that he acted w/ due obedience to an order. But this doesn‘t mean that the 1 who actually commits the crime by reason of such promise. thus. Kiichi Omine FACTS: Defendants appeal from a decision of the CFI finding them guilty of frustrated homicide. it is indicative that it was not his intention to take the offended party‘s life. he refused to grant this request because there was already an unfinished road. Luis Ladion and Agapito Cortesano were working under co-defendant Kiichi Omine. they noticed that a considerable number of hemp plants were destroyed by the construction of the new road. It was not a stab wound. as Autor struck the offended only once. it is necessary that inducement be made directly w/ the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime. or in simple words uttered at the time the act was committed. I. & sentencing them each to suffer an IS from 6 yrs of prision correccional to 12 yrs of prision mayor. w/c was abt 11 inches in length. -Adapt Art. Moreover. it is necessary that such advice or such words have a great dominance & great influence over the person who acts. because w/o such offer or promise the criminal act would never have been committed. it is essential that such advice or words have great dominance and great influence over the person who acts. as efficacious. upon him who by his commands has directly induced the other to commit the act. it is probable that it was caused by the point of the bolo on a downward stroke. The rest of the co-defendants are acquitted. since the offended party was incapacitated for the performance of his usual work for a period of more than 90 days. in such case the criminal responsibility falls entirely upon the 1 who orders. We have heretofore said that in addition to the precepto & the pacto there are similar means by w/c another may be induced to commit a crime w/c also make the 1 who offers the inducement the principal in the crime by virtue of the provisions of A13(2). Wherefore. Kiichi Omine asked Angel Pulido permission to open a new road through the plantation. It must be precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing the criminal act that w/o it the act wouldn‘t have been performed. promises. Eduardo Autor though working under the direction of Omine was still being paid by Pulido. Hence. HELD: Although it is alleged that Kiichi Omine uttered words of inducement to Eduardo Autor. remuneration or reward is exempted from criminal responsibility. as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as violence itself. that they be as direct. Such advice & such words constitute undoubtedly an evil act. Moreover. directly induced him to the criminal act is considered by the law also as principal in the crime. But acdg to Pulido. -Adapt People vs. But in case the obedience of the inferior isn‘t due to the superior & thus not necessary. exempt him from criminal responsibility as the physical author of the crime. Pulido did give his permission that‘s why he began working on the new road. such circumstance constitutes an aggravation of his crime. The pacto by virtue of w/c 1 purchases for a consideration the hand w/c commits the crime makes him who gives. and was probably given during a commotion and w/o being aimed at any particular part of the body. The 4 defendants lived together in a house on the plantation. it would be insufficient to make him a principal by induction. Nierra Facts:
. such act can be considered direct inducement. As Pulido and his son along w/ 2 others were returning home from a cockpit. & doesn‘t. and not of frustrated homicide. Judging from the nature of the wound. the 3 co-defendants of Autor are not responsible for the injury inflicted by him on Angel Pulido. 18: Accomplices People vs. they went to the defendants‘ house and there happened a violent altercation resulting to the owner Pulido‘s death from a wound by a bolo struck in his breast. he who thus. w/ the AC that advantage was taken of their superior strength. or offers the consideration the principal in the crime by direct inducement. i. Eduardo Autor is guilty of lesiones graves w/ a sentence of 1yr 8 mos & 21 days of prision correccional. as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as violence itself. as words of direct inducement. Angered by this. as efficacious. it is necessary that they be as direct.e. But it must be borne in mind that these acts of inducement do not consist in simple advice or counsel given before the act is committed. on the contrary. M. Acdg to Omine..
and while in that position he inserted the pistol into her mouth and fired it o Paciano and Gaudencia witnessed the actual killing When Misa was later arrested. Doblen and Rojas can be convicted as principals
Held: The Nierra spouses were convicted as co-principals by inducement and by co-principals by cooperation through acting as lookout The contention that there was no proof of conspiracy among the accused is belied by the facts shown in the records. Paciano was the owner of two launches. 2 of the 5 accused were acquitted. Paciano sold Pepsi and Juliana sold cocacola.000 from Paciano. I. 1969: Felicimo Doblen. 18 steps away from the scene o Paciano was near the house of Juanito Desinorio. carbines and thompsons. open from midnight till 8AM. the rest still remain at large. He was not present at the scene of the crime. Once docked in Navotas and taking advantage of the darkness of the night. Doble FACTS: Late in the night of June 13. relatively speaking. the spouses Paciano Nierra and Gaudencia Nierra and Gaspar Misa Paciano Nierra is the brother in law of the deceased Julianna Nierra. Misa unexpectedly appeared behind her. cousin in law of Paciano. w/ multiple homicide. 27 steps away from the scene of the crime o Gaudencia was stationed near the house of Maning Desinorio. they started firing at the bank‘s ceiling. The arrangement was done in front of Gaudencia Nierra and was confirmed by her as well. held her hair. 8 men disembarked from the banca and proceeded to their mission. Paciano conceived the idea of killing Juliana. Among those who got killed were agents of the law. Once inside. The two were competitors in the businesses of launch transportation and the sale of soft drinks.Rizal to rob the beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Simeon Doble and Antonio Romaquin appealing in the charge of bank robbery committed in band. In order to monopolize the competition. multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon agents of persons in authority. Vicente Rojas. As a result of the shooting. July 4. Said bank wad an unusual banking hours. introduced Gaspar Misa. thus tilting her face. a convicted murderer who escaped from Davao Penal Colony. Their participation. as the court held. of a minor character -Adapt People vs. 10 men. 1966. It is only Cresencio Doble. Misa had no personal motive for killing Juliana and so his testimonies and confessions were used primarily for the conviction of the other accused Other considerations: there was a confrontation between said spouses and Aniceto. walls & door of the vault. left the shores of Manila in a motor banca & proceeded to Navotas. Sylvania I and II. Meanwhile. 27 steps away from the scene (houses of Desinorios were separated from the house of Juliana by an alley) o Misa was near a warehouse about 5steps from the scene of the crime near the back of Juliana‘s house where. as Misa observed some nights before. Only 5 of the 10 men were brought to trial. The 8 men then returned to the waiting motor banca w/ about P10.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. husband of deceased and brother of accused. where Paciano did not comment on his brother‘s accusation of their crim and there was a note sent to Paciano from Misa while they were in the city jail Doblen and Rojas were convicted as ACCOMPLICES Doblen‘s role was that of introducing Misa to Nierra and delivering the murder weapon to Misa. she used to answer the call of nature o Between 7 to 8 that night. while Juliana was the owner of Elsa I & II. many people got killed & injured. was not absolutely indispensible to the consummation of the murder In some exceptional situations. July 6: Doblen delivered to Misa a package containing a calibre. having community of design with the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the homicide or murder was. to Paciano. Rojas acted as a lookout for the consideration of P50. He also testified at the preliminary investigation
WON the Nierra spouses.5K & sped away. Gutierrez III | 47
Accused: Felicisimo Doblen. Misa agreed in killing Juliana in consideration of P3. almost all heavily armed w/ pistols.
. M.38 with five pistols Misa contacted his friend Vicente Rojas to act as lookout on the night of the killing July 8: the killing was perpetrated o Rojas posted himself at the Bernadette store. he signed a confession admitting the killing of Juliana Nierra and implicating the other accused. Juliana went to the beach where she was accustomed to void and when she squatted.
both appellants should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of prision correccional from 5 yrs. Nor was Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent him from fleeing away from the scene. The facts do not show that he performed any act tending to the perpetration of the robbery. This circumstance alone doesn‘t conclude his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. together with the spouses Panlilio (the only reason they are included is because they served food at the Enrile household!) and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10. But it isn‘t established by evidence that in the mtg held in the house of Simeon that they all agreed to kill and not just rob. However. There being no MC. nor that he took a direct part therein or induced other persons to commit. Doble & Romaquin are guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices for the crime of robbery in band. the malefactors who waited in the banca. At most. but not in furtherance. Enrile et al. 21-88) Enrile vs. Wherefore. charged murder and frustrated murder committed on the occasion. I. The mastermind obviously did not extend confidence in him as he was only asked to provide a banca just a few hours before the commission of the crime. The commission of the crime was aggr by nighttime & the use of a motorized banca. M. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue. Senator Enrile filed a petition for habeas corpus. admitted that no violence was inflicted on him to procure his statement. More so that their testimonies match each other‘s. -Adapt PART II PENALTIES (Arts. Gutierrez III | 48
HELD: First. The penalty imposable upon appellants is prision mayor min. The prosecution alleges that Enrile‘s case does not fall within the Hernandez ruling because: 1. there is a distinction between the complex crime ("delito complejo") arising from an offense being a necessary means for committing another. as to appellant Simeon. Simeon Doble is entitled to acquittal w/ no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act w/o w/c it would not have been committed. both contend that their extra-judicial statements upon w/c their conviction was principally made to rest. his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy w/c is not punishable. of rebellion 2.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. 21 days to 8 yrs of prision mayor as maximum. evident to show that he never joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were not voluntary. In this case. Nor was it clearly proven that he had received any part/fruits of the looted money as to make him an accessory. the appellants‘ cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for abduction w/c makes the driver a mere accomplice. cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48. There must be a community of unlawful purpose between the principal and accomplice and assistance knowingly and intentionally given to supply material and moral aid in the consummation of the offense. and is the subject of
. Simeon then was not a principal both by agreement and encouragement for his non-participation in the commission of the crime. and in violation of basic consti‘l rts to counsel and against self-incrimination. Senator Enrile was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued on the same day by Judge Salazar charging Enrile. An accomplice is one who. whereas the information against Sen. torture and maltreatment. as one of the accused. Manila. that murder committed in connection with a rebellion is absorbed by the crime of rebellion. As recommended by SolGen. Salazar DOCTRINE: There is no such crime in our statute books as rebellion complexed with murder. RPC. The finding that appellants are liable as mere accomplices may appear too lenient but evidence fails to establish their conspiracy w/ the real malefactors who actually robbed the bank and killed several people. Cresencio was merely in-charge of the banca and had no knowledge of the concrete plan and execution of the crime. Next. are inadmissible for having been allegedly obtained by force and intimidation. as regards Romaquin & Doble. 1990. it must be noted that they didn‘t present any medical cert to attest to the injuries allegedly inflicted. Hence. FACTS: On February 27. evidence shows that the malefactors met in his house to discuss the plan to rob the bank. without bail. 4 mos. the information in Hernandez charged murders and other common crimes committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion. And it should also be noted that Celso Aquino‘s testimony. The extra-judicial statements of the appellants are convincing to show that their liability is less than that of a coprincipal by conspiracy or by actual participation. This is evidence enough that the appellants could not have been dealt w/ differently as their co-accused Aquino who was allowed to give his statement freely. not being principal as defined in Art 17 RPC. none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. 1990.
or connection with. There was and is no reason to assume that the resolution of any of these questions was beyond the ability or competence of Judge Salazar — indeed such an assumption would be demeaning and less than fair to our trial courts. Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof. Is the Hernandez ruling still good law? YES. gives no reason to assume that he had not. abandon the Hernandez ruling 2. as a matter of right. 142-A) into the Revised Penal Code. it should not apply ISSUES: 1. and those acts or offenses that are merely necessary but not indispensable in the commission of rebellion. The President in effect by legislative fiat reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine with the effect of law. either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. the ruling remains good law. Hernandez. Second Issue Merely because Judge Salazar had what some might consider only a relatively brief period within which to comply with his duty. on the one hand. M. saw fit to repeal. the information does indeed charge the petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion. and the compound crime ("delito compuesto") arising from a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave offenses referred to in the first clause of the same paragraph. that indictment is to be read as charging simple rebellion. exercising her powers under the 1986 Freedom Constitution. hence said petitioners are entitled to bail. (Concurring & Dissenting Opinion) The Hernandez doctrine should not be interpreted as an all-embracing authority for the rule that all common crimes committed on the occasion. on the other. 2. Was a petition for habeas corpus the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial? NO. its substantive and logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete reversal. or as a necessary means for the commission.
.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. of rebellion. Disregarding the objectionable phrasing that would complex rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. C. but not to acts committed in the course of a rebellion which also constitute "common" crimes of grave or less grave character This view is reinforced by the fact that not too long ago. RATIO: First Issue In the view of the majority. 3. HELD: The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People v. Presidential Decree No. The doctrine was good law then. the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only. Two other options were presented (and rejected): 1. or in furtherance of. Did Judge Salazar issue the warrant for Enrile‘s arrest without first personally determining the existence of probable cause? YES. but there is a certain aspect of the Hernandez doctrine that needs clarification. in the instant case. The Court. before final conviction. I. with which Hernandez was not concerned and to which. rebellion are absorbed by the latter. nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. or could not have. Read in the context of Hernandez. President Aquino. therefore.J. OTHER OPINIONS: Fernan. The proceedings are remanded to respondent judge to fix the amount of bail. The information filed against the petitioner does in fact charge an offense. should have further considered that distinction between acts or offenses which are indispensable in the commission of rebellion. Gutierrez III | 49
the Hernandez ruling. hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses committed in furtherance. so complied. 942 of the former regime which precisely sought to nullify or neutralize Hernandez by enacting a new provision (Art. Third Issue The criminal case before Judge Salazar was the normal venue for invoking the petitioner's right to have provisional liberty pending trial and judgment.
I. questions the action of the President in repealing a repressive decree. in effect. under our rulings. those informations should be treated as null and void. Any judgment it renders. (Concurring Opinion) There are certain aspects of the Hernandez doctrine that. Hernandez has been the law for 34 years. (Concurring & Dissenting Opinion) The proceedings need not be remanded to Judge Salazar for the purpose of fixing bail since we have construed the indictment herein as charging simple rebellion. To have filed a Motion to Quash before the lower Court would not have brought about the speedy relief from unlawful restraint that petitioner was seeking. Faced with an information charging a manifestly non-existent crime. (Separate Opinion) She takes exception to the view that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy. a decree which. Gutierrez. make it conform to the law. Gutierrez III | 50
Melencio-Herrera. according to the repeal order. however. Had the Information filed below charged merely the simple crime of Rebellion. the Writ of Habeas Corpus may still issue even if another remedy. any order it prescribes. We cannot and should not try to ascertain the intent of rebels for each single act unless the act is plainly not connected to the rebellion. as an abstract question of law. Bidin. a crime which does not exist in our statute books. Hernandez. The killing of civilians during a rebel attack on military facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of the rebellion. but not a necessary means for. that murder committed in connection with a rebellion is absorbed by the crime of rebellion 2. The attempts to distinguish this case from the Hernandez case by stressing that the killings charged in the information were committed "on the occasion of. and any processes it issues must follow the Supreme Court precedent. 5. habeas corpus is the
. may be availed of (Chavez v. Habeas corpus is thus available. Padilla. is violative of human rights." That information is clearly a nullity and plainly void ab initio. J. however. while charging the complex crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. the commission of rebellion" result in outlandish consequences and ignore the basic nature of rebellion. "is to be read as charging simple rebellion. there is a deliberate attempt to charge the petitioners for an offense which this Court has ruled as non-existent. an offense which is bailable. could stand re-examination or clarification. But that Information charged Rebellion complexed with Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder. CA) The Court below must be deemed to have been ousted of jurisdiction when it illegally curtailed petitioner's liberty. the trial court was certainly aware of the decision in People v. insofar as it holds that the information in question. for this entire exercise to merit the serious consideration of the courts. Besides. The prosecution must file an entirely new and proper information. That function is exclusively for Congress. Or. 3. Under the special circumstances of this case. New informations charging the correct offense should be filed. does not exist. J. The prosecution.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. 4. (Concurring Opinion) The Court emphasizes that it cannot legislate a new crime into existence nor prescribe a penalty for its commission. J. The petitioner was compelled to come to us so he would not be arrested without bail for a non . the petitioners had no other recourse (petition for a writ of habeas corpus). at the very least and where possible. (Separate Opinion) He dissents. the duty of a trial court is to throw it out. Feliciano. any re-examination of the Hernandez doctrine brings the ex post facto principle into the picture. 1. The prosecution wanted Hernandez to be reversed. Consequently. which is less effective. In these cases. that there is no such crime in our statute books as rebellion complexed with murder. that proposition could have been plausible. J. M. J.existent crime. Attempts to have the doctrine re-examined have been consistently rejected by this Court. The prosecution has not explained why it insists on resurrecting an offense expressly wiped out by the President. Since the prosecution has filed informations for a crime which.
Salvilla threatens Choco and his daughters with a gun.000. There is no question that in robbery.000 cash. hostages were allowed to eat. In the office. they were within the dominion and control of the Salvilla et al. Sequio. 1925 Vicente De Leon entered the yard of Vicente Magat‘s house on Domingo Santiago St. handing it to Salvilla. negotiated release using a loudspeaker. owner of New Iloilo Lumber Yard. where he place P 20. hence Salvilla et al are guilty of Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention.000 and coaster. The ―taking‖ was sufficiently proved when Salvilla actually physically held the paper bag with money. Unlike Astor. employee On April 12. and made her go back to the office. Manila and took two game roosters. Salvilla et al are guilty of a complex crime because the Illegal Detention facilitated in the Robbery and was a deliberate means of extortion for an additional amount. In view thereof. completing the taking.000 instead of the P 100. After ultimatums were given and accused wouldn‘t budge. which resulted in the rescue of the hostages and arrest of the four robbers.‖ which later on had to be amputated. noon time. Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo. Choco answered he could not do so because it was a Saturday and banks were closed. Salvilla FACTS: Accused: Bienvenido Salvilla. Gutierrez III | 51
proper remedy available to petitioner as an accused who had been charged with simple rebellion. (Concurring & Dissenting Opinion) The fact that we gave him "provisional liberty" is in my view. I. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime is attempted robbery. Major Melquiades B. In the meantime. HELD: NO. Mimie and Mary were injured though. The Court affirms the decision of the RTC. the four accused staged a robbery at New Iloilo Lumber Yard. 15 years old). police and military moved in an offensive assault. his daughters Mary and Mimie (minor. the responsibility of fixing the amount of bail and approval thereof when filed. Sarmiento. announced the holdup. -Adapt Continued Crime People vs. At 2:00 PM. -Adapt
People vs. 1986.000. she offered them P 50.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Salvilla told Choco to produce P 100. Choco then instructs his daughter Mary to get a paper bag.. J. With the refusal of accused. One belonged to Diego Magat and other to Ignacio Nicolas. accompanied by Mary. Canasares took his wallet and wristwatch. with raincoats. Ronaldo and Simplicio (all Canasares) Victims: Severino Choco. for the P 50. police and military had surrounded the place.
. with Mary suffering a ―macerated right lower extremity just below the knee. of no moment. a bailable offense but who had been denied his right to bail by Judge Salazar in violation of petitioner's constitutional right to bail. asked for by the accused. M. because bail means provisional liberty. asking for money. Lastly. Rodita Habiero. Reynaldo. it is required that there be a taking of personal property belonging to another. the essence of which is the taking of the thing out of the possession of the owner without his privity and consent and without the animus revertendi. It will serve no useful purpose to have the trial court hear the incident again when we ourselves have been satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to temporary freedom. The accused agreed to exchange Rodita. wherein hostages were held merely to forestall their capture by the police. devolves upon us. if complete relief is to be accorded to petitioner in the instant proceedings. De Leon Facts: In the morning of December 21. OIC Mayor Rosa Caram arrives at the scene and in negotiations lasting four hours. Salvilla‘s ―surrender‖ is not a mitigating circumstance but an act of desperation since the police were already closing in. This is known as the element of asportation. They met Rodita. Together with the wallet and wristwatch. The exchange took place but Mary was herded back into the office. As Salvilla pleaded the robbers now leave.
which will prescribe a minimum and maximum penalty. At the case in the CFI. The Supreme Court shall revise the penalty by applying Act 4103. Issue: WON appellant is guilty of one count of theft or two separate counts of theft Held: Guilty of one count of theft. In this position. When the case was elevated at the CFI of Manila. walk around stark
. the blade penetrating the right lung & causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death. The fact that two roosters belonged to two different persons was merely accidental. and in its minimum period. only one crime was committed. two months and one day to ten years. I. the maximum imprisonment period should be within the range of that penalty (prision mayor in its maximum period or years and one day to twelve years). leaving to the discretion of the court the precise time to be served within range. Given that frustrated murder. the Board of Indeterminate Sentence should consider giving him parole. Issue: Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Judgment modified. took his bolo from the wall of the house & stabbed his wife Julia. he was convicted of just one count of theft. he was found by the people who came in response to the shouts made by his eldest daughter. which lowered the penalty to its minimum period. because there are not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that characterize the separate crimes. the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The plea of guilty was appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. with the extenuating circumstance of guilty plea. -Adapt Application of penalties People vs. at times he would remain silent. the accused pleaded guilty. -Adapt People vs. After serving the minimum sentence. ―the Court shall order the accused to be imprisoned… to such a maximum as may. that he suspected the 2 were maintaining illicit relations because he noticed that his wife had become indifferent to him. During the preliminary investigation. His counsel presented the testimony of 2 guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was confined to the effect that his conduct was rather strange & that he behaved like an insane person.‖ There being only one criminal purpose in the taking of the two roosters. he also pleaded guilty but didn‘t testify. what should be the penalty? In other words. After a month. Gutierrez III | 52
The Municipal court charged him with two counts of theft. in view of attending circumstances. in the back. Zacarias Formigones in the same municipality to find employment as harvesters of palay. Irene Formigones. he used to have quarrels with his wife for reason that he often saw her in the company of his brother. punishable by one degree lower than the prescribed penalty for murder. M. Ratio: According to section 1 of Act 4103. Julia was sitting at the head of the stairs of the house when Abelardo. Ducosin Facts: Valeriano Ducosin was convicted of the crime of frustrated murder of Rafael Yanguas. ―The act of taking the roosters at the same place and at the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an independent existence of their own. Abelardo then took his dead wife & laid her on the floor of the living room & then lay down beside her. should be punished by one degree lower than murder. Therefore the range of the penalty was ten years and one day to twelve years of imprisonment. what should be the maximum and the minimum? Held: The maximum penalty imposed was ten years and one day to twelve years and the minimum was seven years. to a minimum term which shall not be less than the minimum imprisonment period of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the code for the said offense.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. Julia Agricola & their 5 children. four years. From there they transferred in the house of his half-brother. one for the theft of Magat‘s rooster and another for the theft of Nicolas‘ rooster. The minimum period should be within the range of the penalty immediately lower than prision mayor in its maximum period (prision mayor in its medium period. Abelardo was living on his farm in Camarines Sur w/ his wife. Formigones Facts: In the month of Nov. The SC upheld the CFI‘s holding. The motive was admittedly that of jealousy because according to his statement. be properly imposed under the present rules of the said [Revised Penal] Code. which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death (lowered to prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in medium period). Zacarias. 1946. w/o previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever.
Code won‘t be held. Simon Facts: Oct. WON the suspicions were justified. 22. In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile w/in the meaning of RPC A12 so as to be exempt from criminal liability. he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment & freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. Martin Simon was convicted of violating RA 6425 AII §4 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) through a NARCOM poser-buyer. Tsang Hin Wai that when special law grants discretion to SC to apply penalties... assuming it was not feigned to stimulate insanity. he readily admitted that he killed his wife. The appeal is based merely on the theory that the appellant is an IMBECILE & therefore exempt from criminal liability under RPC A12. or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. Gutierrez III | 53
naked. could hardly be regarded as an imbecile. The fact is that he believed her faithless. in the belief that in doing so. Justified in applying RPC provisions because law adopted penalties under RPC in their technical terms thus significations and effects will also apply. A man who could feel the pangs of jealousy & take violent measures to the extent of killing his wife who he suspected of being unfaithful to him. Rule: degrees applied depending on quantity then apply mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Issue: WON Abelardo is an imbecile at the time of the commission of the crime. -Adapt
. although he was feebleminded. (Note that definition is same as insanity) As to the strange behavior of the accused during his confinement. it may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or eccentric. Francisco Gomes. It was appealed for reversal alleging it was a frame-up (testimonies & evidence proved otherwise) & evidence was inadmissible (held. He is not an imbecile. Pampanga. refuse to take a bath & wash his clothes etc. Furthermore.D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. According Dr. It rules in people v. thus exempted from criminal liability Held: No. because there was no counsel). M. Conviction modified. But 2 mitigating circumstances are present: passion or obfuscation (having killed his wife in a jealous rage) & feeblemindedness. SC should be guided by rules in RPC that being the expert in criminal law administration. in his written statement. Judgment: In conclusion. is of little or no importance. 1988. & at the trial he made no effort to deny of repudiate said written statements. appellant is found guilty of parricide & the lower court‘s judgment is hereby affirmed w/ the modification that appellant will be credited with half of any preventive imprisonment he has undergone (because of the 2 mitigating circumstances) -Adapt People vs. There was overlapping error in the law thus the SC had to harmonize conflicting provisions by providing for degrees of graduation. thus saving the government all the trouble & expense of catching him & securing his conviction. Otherwise. he is not an imbecile as he could still distinguish between right & wrong & even feel remorse. Least penalty should be prision correccional so as not to depreciate seriousness of crime. Issue: WON correct penalty applied? Held: No. he was vindicating his honor.