You are on page 1of 5


Bataclan vs Medina
Pass-midnight in September 1952, Juan Bataclan rode a bus owned by Mariano Medina from Cavite to Pasay.
While on its way, the driver of the bus was driving fast and when he applied the brakes it cause the bus to be
overturned. The driver, the conductor, and some passengers were able to free themselves from the bus except
Bataclan and 3 others. The passengers called the help of the villagers and as it was dark, the villagers brought
torch with them. The driver and the conductor failed to warn the would-be helpers of the fact that gasoline has
spilled from the overturned bus so a huge fire ensued which engulfed the bus thereby killing the 4 passengers
trapped inside. It was also found later in trial that the tires of the bus were old.
ISSUE: Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan et al was their burning by reason of the
torches which ignited the gasoline.
HELD: No. The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was caused by the negligence of the
driver because he was speeding and also he was already advised by Medina to change the tires yet he did not.
Such negligence resulted to the overturning of the bus. The torches carried by the would-be helpers are not to be
blamed. It is just but natural for the villagers to respond to the call for help from the passengers and since it is a
rural area which did not have flashlights, torches are the natural source of lighting. Further, the smell of gas could
have been all over the place yet the driver and the conductor failed to provide warning about said fact to the
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately
effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that
the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result
People vs alconga
Facts: On May 27, deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of the card game, was playing black jack against Maria
De Raposo. De Raposo and Alconga were partners in the game, they had one money. Alconga was seated behind
Barion and he gave signs to De Raposo. Barion, who was suffering losses in the game, found this out and he
expressed his anger at Alconga. The two almost fought outright this was stopped.

The two met again on May 29. when Alconga was doing his job as a home guard. While the said accused was
seated on a bench in the guardhouse, Barion came along and said Coroy, this is your breakfast followed by a
swing of his pingahan, a bamboo stick. Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground under the bench with
the intention to crawl out of the guardhouse. A second blow was given by Barion but failed to hit the accused,
hitting the bench instead. Alconga managed to go out of the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While
Barion was about to deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his revolver, causing him to stagger and hit
the ground. The deceased stood up, drew forth his dagger and directed a blow to the accused who was able to
parry the attack using his bolo. A hand to handfight ensued. The deceased, looking already beaten and having
sustained several wounds ran away. He was followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200 meters.

A second fight took place and the deceased received a mortal bolo blow, the one which slasehde the cranium. The
deceased fell face downward besides many other blows delivered. Alconga surrendered.

Issue: Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense by Alconga

Held: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide

The deceased ran and fled w/o having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other hand,
having been wounded with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury upon
him has ceased absolutely/ Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure. He could have only attacked
if there was reason to believe that he is still not safe. In the case at bar, it is apparent that it is Alconga who is the
superior fighter and his safety was already secured after the first fight ended. There was no more reason for him to
further chase Barion. The second fight will be treated differently and independently. Under the first fight, self-
defense would have been valid, but that is not the case in the second fight. In the second fight, there was illegal
aggression on the part of Alconga and as a result, he is found guilty of Homicide with no mitigating circumstance
(MC) of Provocation

Note Provocation in order to be an MC must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. It should be
proportionate to the act committed and adequate to stir one to its commission

People vs. OanisG.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943
Facts: As a group taking the route to Rizal street, Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and his co-accused Corporal
Alberto Galanta were under instructions to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, anotorious criminal and escaped convict,
and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on
seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their .32 and .45
caliberrevolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be a
peaceful and innocent citizen, Serapio Tecson who upon autopsy, multiple gunshot wounds were found on his
body which caused his death.
The defendants alleged and appealed that in the honest performance of their official duties,they acted in innocent
mistake of fact

.Issue: Whether or not Chief of Police Oanis and Corporal Galanta were guilty of murder.

unreasonable force
shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is
killed while asleep, the crime committed by both was murder
with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal,
theaccused would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping. In apprehending even the most
notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from justice is
determined to fight the officers of the law who are trying to capture him that killing him would be justified.


G.R. No. L-28356, People v. Gayrama, 31 SCRA
Republic of the Philippines
January 30, 1970
G.R. No. L-28356
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
MARCIANO CORPIN and HONORIO GAYRAMA, defendant appellants.
Francisco A. Tan counsel de officio for defendants appellants. Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo,
Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Solicitor Ceferino S. Gaddi for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal taken by Marciano Corpin and Honorio Gayrama from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte
finding them guilty of the crime of robbery with rape committed in the municipality of Naval, Leyte on November
28, 1964, and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessories
provided for by law; to indemnify, jointly and severally, Lydia Layon in the sum of P5,000.00 and Pilar Mondelo
in the sum of P1,000.00, and to pay the costs. They now urge us to reverse said decision claiming that the trial
court committed the following errors:
The prosecution evidence has conclusively established the following facts:
At about 10:30 in the evening of November 28, 1964, while Pilar Mondelo and her granddaughter Lydia Layon
were asleep in the former's house located in sitio Panimbangan, Catmon, Naval, Leyte, Lydia was awakened by
the noise produced by the opening of a window. Frightened, she covered her face with her blanket, but when she
heard footsteps inside the house she uncovered her face and then saw the appellants approaching her grandmother.
Corpin awakened the latter by kicking her and once she had been awakened, he demanded money from her. When
she told him that she had no money, she was boxed, and thereafter appellants tied her hands and made her lie face
downward. Appellant Gayrama then ransacked the house and found P25.00 in a small cardboard box, took a
guitar worth P9.00, a pair of pants valued at P8.00, a mat worth P4.00 and a chicken, all of which he handed to a
companion who had remained downstairs. Thereafter, Gayrama also tied the hands of Lydia with a rope and,
having thus rendered her helpless, started mashing her. She was later brought downstairs by both appellants and
once there Corpin, through force, succeeded in felling her to the ground. He then grabbed and pulled out her panty
and, in spite of Lydia's resistance, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, Gayrama and their

other companions took turns in raping her. After thus satisfying their lust, appellants took Lydia upstairs and then
left their loot not without first warning her and her grandmother not to tell anybody of what had happened.
Shortly after the events just stated. Avelino Liquiran, son-in-law of the old woman Pilar Mondelo, arrived and
after being told of what had happened, he took both women to his house, one and one-half kilometers away, and
early the following morning, he accompanied them to file the corresponding complaint with the authorities. In the
afternoon of the same day (November 29) Pilar Mondelo was examined at the Naval General Hospital and was
found to have been suffering from a 2 by 1 centimeter Hematoma in the scapular region. Two days later Lydia
was also examined at the same hospital and was found suffering from, and was treated for the following injuries ?
1. Fading linear petechiae both wrist on lateral medial & dorsal surface, I cm. maximum width.
2. INTERNAL EXAMINATION: Bleeding from vaginal orifice moderate in amount with fleshy smell.
Laceration of the hymen & vagina lip at 6:00 o'clock 2 cm. in length at posterior end. (Exh. A, B; pp. 87, 88 t.s.n.,
Aug. 10, 1965).
Appellants rely on an alibi claiming that on November 28, 1964 they attended the barrio fiesta of Villacaneja,
within the same municipality of Naval, having stayed there until they went home to barrio Caray-Caray between
five and six o'clock in the afternoon; that both of them remained in their respective houses the whole night of
November 28.
The only issues before us are, on the one hand, the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence identifying appellants
herein as the men who committed the acts mentioned heretofore, and, on the other, the sufficiency of the defense
evidence to prove the defense of alibi.
After going over the record, We are fully convinced that the identity of the two appellants as the perpetrators of
the crime charged has been established beyond question. Lydia Layon saw them from the moment they succeeded
in entering the house of her grandmother through the window. She could not have been mistaken as to their
identity because at that time there was a big petroleum lamp inside the house. Her grandmother likewise
recognized them and she, as well as her granddaughter, informed her son-in-law of what had happened when the
latter arrived in the house shortly after the departure of the malefactors. Moreover, Pilar Mondelo and her
granddaughter gave the authorities the names of both appellants herein as the perpetrator of the crime charged the
very day following the commission of the crime, and lodged the complaint on the same day. On December 2,
1964 Lydia made a sworn statement before the P.C. Detachment, pointing to the two appellants herein as the ones
who had committed the robbery and that they were the first to rape her on that tragic evening.
Upon the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence showing bias or malice on the part of the old woman Pilar
Mondelo and her granddaughter, nor on the part of the former's son-in-law, sufficient to have impelled them to
falsely charge appellants with such a grave crime as that of robbery with rape.
In connection with their defense, appellants claim that they had gone to barrio Villacaneja to attend the fiesta on
board a passenger jeep, but the truth is that they could not even give the name of the driver of the vehicle.
Moreover, the barrio of their residence, Caray-Caray, was only one and one-half kilometers away from the scene
of the crime and it is obvious that this circumstance does not make it physically impossible for them to have
committed the crime after they had reached home. Besides, their testimony is not supported by any other solid and
credible evidence.
The information filed against appellants charges them only with robbery with rape. The lower court, however,
found them guilty of the crime of robbery with rape, and slight physical injuries. We agree with the office of the
Solicitor General that the conviction for slight physical injuries should be disregarded. Likewise, the indemnity
awarded to the offended parties should be reduced to the sum of P58.00 which, according to the evidence, is the
total value of the cash and articles of which the victims were robbed.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
4111, whenever the crime of rape is committed by two or more persons ? as in the present case ? the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death. As the record does not show conclusively the existence of any aggravating
circumstance attending the commission of the offense charged, We are of the opinion that the penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed by the trial court is in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, modified as above indicated, the appealed decision is affirmed in all other respects.