United States vs.

Ah Chong 15 Phil 488

Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley who has a roommate named Pascual. Due to a series of robberies in their area, he and his roommate had an agreement wherein if one person comes home late he should let the other person know or knock on the door and introduce himself when he arrives. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, Who is there, but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed & called out again, If you enter the room I will kill you. But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, believing that he was being attacked he seized kitchen knife hidden under his pillow and struck the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Issue: The issue is whether or not Ah Chong was liable for the death of his roommate Pascual. Supreme Court Ruling: No, Ah Chong was not held liable for the death of his roommate Pascual. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts conviction of homicide, saying that Ah Chong committed a mistake of fact. The court was convinced that he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right to selfdefense. He would not have stabbed the person if he had known that it was his roommate, if a the person was really an intruder he would not be criminally liable if he stabbed the person in self-defense.

People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Sabella y Bragais G.R. No. 183092. May 30, 2011

Facts: One night Antonia Sabella a resident of Barangay Nato, Sagnay, Camarines Sur stabbed Prudencio Labides from behind with a use of bolo, which resulted to the death of the latter. The appellants version says that on the night of September 28, 1998, the appellant was sleeping when he was awakened by the noise of someone trying to break into his house. The unidentified man attacked him with a piece of rounded wood, but he parried the blow and took hold of an object from his bedside which he initially thought of a nightstick. He hit the man once and then only realized that his weapon was a bolo. When the intruder went to a lighted side of his house the appellant recognized the man as Prudencio. The appellant surrendered to the police and turned over his bolo. The appellants story was corroborated by two other witnesses who said that they saw Prudencio coming out of the appellants house wounded where he shouted for help. The two witnesses did not help Prudencio, but they said that they two men arrived in a tricycle, which Prudencio boarded and drove away. The prosecutions versions consisted of the testimonies of the victims wife and four other witnesses. One of the witnesses Romulo Competente was walking home, along the way Romulo encountered the appellant who suddenly hit him with the bolo at his back and threatened him to cut off his head if he did not go home. Feeling the pain in his back he decided to rest in a nearby banana tree. Moments later he saw the appellant stab Prudencio in the abdomen with the bolo. When the victim turned away from the appellant, the latter stabbed Prudencio the second time at the back. Competent got scared of what he just saw and hurried to go home. The two other witnesses helped Prudencio to get an ambulance, when they asked who stabbed him Prudencio said Antonio Sabella, when they loaded the victim in the ambulance, Prudencio was already very weak. When the ambulance arrived at the hospital the victim was already declared dead. The doctors examination revealed that Prudencio died due to massive blood loss from two stabbed wound sustained in the abdomen and the back. Issues: The issue is whether or not the appellant can invoke self-defense to escape criminal liability of the death of Prudencio Labides. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts brushing off the appellants claim of self-defense; the appellant failed to produce any evidence to his claim and failed to establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The most important element of selfdefense is unlawful aggression; there can be no self-defense against the victim first committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. In this case, the appellant failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Both the RTC and CA observed, there was no evidence to support the appellants claim that Prudencio broke into his house by destroying the door and there is no evidence that the victim tried to attacked him with a piece of wood.

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the lower courts to murder and was penalized under Article 248 the Revised Penal Code.

People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Mercado G.R. No. 189847. May 30, 2011

Facts:

AAA was the fifth child of the appellant and BBB. In 2000 BBB and AAAs sister went to Ambalite, Pugo, La Union. AAA, two of her siblings and the appellant were left in their house at Rosario, La Union. At 8:00 am, AAA was doing her assignment when the appellant enter her room and sat beside AAA kissed her in the cheeks and removed her shorts and panty. The appellant removed his shorts and briefs went on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. The victim also recalled that sometime in July 2000, when her mother went to the market and her siblings were at her aunts house, the appellant again sexually abused her. Sometime in 2003 when the victim and the appellant were cleaning a banana grove when the latter told her to take a rest, AAA did what her father instructed her to do and while she was resting, the appellant embraced her and kissed her in the cheeks and lips. The appellant laid her in the grass and removed her clothing. The appellant took off his own shorts and briefs and inserted hid penis to AAAs vagina. According to the victim she was sexually abused by her father five times from 2000 to 2003. Dr. Sheila Fe, a physician at the Rosario District Hospital, conducted a medical examination of AAA on August 2003 and found healed lacerations in her private parts. Issue: Whether or not the appellant Ernesto Mercado was guilty of rape of his own daughter. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the July 14, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals, saying that AAA positively identified the appellant as the culprit even though the appellant denied the crime and said that his brother is the one who raped her daughter. Even though AAA failed to specify the exact dates of the rapes it did not detract from her credibility. It is too much to require for the victims, who have been raped several times, to mechanically recall the exact dates of each rape. The testimony of the victim was corroborated by Dr. Fe, who found lacerations in the victims private parts. That held that the victims testimony of a rape is consistent with the medical findings.

Santiago Paera vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 181626 May 30, 2011 Facts: Santiago Paera was a punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong, Negros Occidnetal, he allocated his constituents use of communal water coming from a communal tank by limiting the distribution to the residents he governs. The tanks sits on a land located to the neighboring barangay, owned by Vicente Darong the complainant, father of the complainant Indalencio Darong. Despite the petitioners scheme, Indalencio continued drawing water from the tank. On

April 7, 1999 the petitioner reminded Indalencio of the water scheme distribution and cut Indalencios access. The following day some of the residents of barangay Mampas complained to Santiago about an interruption of the water supply. Petitioner discovered a tap from the main line which he promptly disconnected. To stop the flow of eater from the ensuing leak, the petitioner borrowed a bolo to create a wooden plug. It was this point where Indalencio arrived at the area. According to the prosecution, petitioner, without any warning, picked-up the bolo and charged at Indalencio shouting I will kill you! Indalencio ran for safety, passing along the way was his wife Diosetea Daring who had followed him in the water tank. Upon seeing her husband run he asked Santiago what was happening. The petitioner answered I dont spare anyone, even if you are a woman, I will kill you! Diosetea ran and found refuge to a relative house. Unable to pursue the complainants wife, petitioner tried to follow Indalecio and passed by Vicente the father of the complainant and said that Even you are old I will crack open your skull! According to Santiago it was Indalencio who threatened him with a bolo, angrily inquiring why the petitioner severed his water connection. This left the petitioner with no choice take a defensive stance and took the borrowed bolo prompting Indalencio to scamper. Issue: The question is whether the petitioner Santiago Paera is guilty of three counts of Grave Threats. Supreme Court Ruling: The lower court found the petitioner guilty of the three counts of grave threats due to the petitioner was defenses lone witness and found the prosecutions evidence sufficient to prove the elements of grave threats under Article 282. The Supreme Court denies the petition and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts.

People of the Philippines vs. Arielito Alivio y Oliveros and Ernesto Dela Vega y Cabbarobias G.R. No. 177771. May 30, 2011

Facts: The police apprehended the appellants during a buy bust operation conducted at Alivios residence. During the operation the police found drug paraphernalia at the residence while a search at Dela Vegas person yielded one plastic of shabu which the police seized. The prosecutions evidence showed that at around 9:30 p.m. of May 20, 2003, the Pasig City Police received a tip from an asset that one Ariel was rampantly selling illegal drugs in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City. A buy bust team immediately formed in coordination with PDEA. The

buy bust money which consisted of two 100 pesos bill, was prepared and marked. PO2 Laro was designated to act as the buyer. Together with SPO3 Matias and PO1 Mapula, PO2 Laro and the asset went to the house of Ariel. The asset introduced PO2 Laro to Ariel who was later identified as Alivio. The asset told Alivio they wanted to buy shabu. Alivio asked how many would they like to buy Laro told Alivio they would buy 200 pesos worth of shabu. The assest were ushered to the second floor of the house where they saw Dela Vega seated at the table with drug paraphernalia. The asset gave the money to Alivio and handed it to Dela Vega. The latter took out his pocket one plastic of shabu and gave it to the asset. After the exchange PO2 Laro introduced himself as a police and arrested both Alivio and Dela Vega. The appellants denied the allegations and said that it was a set up. They denied selling shabu and said that they were together that night but they were just drinking. They also claimed that 5 men who are policemen suddenly barged in on them looking for person named BonBon. When they said that neither of them was Bon-Bon the policemen frisked and arrested them. The policeman took from the appellants their earning of 5,000.00 pesos. The appellants tried to resist the arrest and suffered injuries as a result. Alivio additionally asserted that he could not sell Laro shabu because he knows that he is a police and was the former driver of Atty. Fajardo. On February 28, 2005 the RTC convicted the appellants of all charges laid. The RTC relied on the presumptions of regularity in the buy bust operations and the lack of improper motive on the part of the policemen. The RTC denied the denial and the frame up as defense of the appellants. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA took account of the presucutions witnesses to support the presumption that the police officers regulary perform a buy bust operation and ruled the appellant to produce a substantial evidence to prove their innocence. Issues: The appellants questioned the decision of the lower court erred in evaluating the testimonies and evidence that showed Alivios familiarity to Laro as a policeman, which was confirmed by Atty. Fajardo that Laro was his former driver. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court found no reversible error on the ruling of the lower courts in convincing the appellants of the crime charged.