You are on page 1of 5

Jeco

CRIMINAL LAW I
Article 12 (Insanity and Imbecility)
People v. Formigones, 87 Phil 658 (1950) Montemayor, J.:

Defendant: Abelardo Formigones | Deceased: Julia Agricola

FACTS:
Abelardo Formigones hwith his wife, Julia Agricola, and his five children moved from living on his farm in Bahao, Libmanan,
municipality of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, to the barrio of Binahian of the same municipality, his brother's house, to find employment as
harvesters of palay.

On December 28, 1946, about a month's stay in his brother's house, The accused, without any previous quarrel or provocation
whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house and stabbed his wife, Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating the right lung and
causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death not long thereafter. The blow sent Julia toppling down the stairs to the ground,
immediately followed by her husband Abelardo who, taking her up in his arms, carried her up the house, laid her on the floor of the
living room and then lay down beside her. In this position he was found by the people who came in response to the shouts for help
made by his eldest daughter, Irene Formigones, who witnessed and testified to the stabbing of her mother by her father

Abelardo signed a written statement wherein he admitted that he killed The motive was admittedly of jealousy because according to
his statement he used to have quarrels with his wife for the reason that he often saw her in the company of his brother Zacarias; that he
suspected that the two were maintaining illicit relations because he noticed that his had become indifferent to him.

ISSUE:
Whether the appellant is an imbecile and therefore exempt from criminal liability under article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.

HELD:
The trial court rejected this same theory and SC is inclined to agree with the lower court. According to the very witness of the
defendant, Dr. Francisco Gomez, who examined him, it was his opinion that Abelardo was suffering only from feeblemindedness and
not imbecility and that he could distinguish right from wrong.

In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile within the meaning of article 12 of the Revised Penal Code so as to be exempt
from criminal liability, he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the
crime.

SC ruled that the appellant is not an imbecile. According to the evidence, during his marriage of about 16 years, he has not done
anything or conducted himself in anyway so as to warrant an opinion that he was or is an imbecile. He regularly and dutifully
cultivated his farm, raised five children, and supported his family and even maintained in school his children of school age, with the
fruits of his work. Occasionally, as a side line he made copra. And a man who could feel the pangs of jealousy to take violent measure
to the extent of killing his wife whom he suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief that in doing so he was vindicating his
honor, could hardly be regarded as an imbecile. Whether or not his suspicions were justified, is of little or no import. The fact is that
he believed her faithless.

But to show that his feeling of jealousy had some color of justification and was not a mere product of hallucination and aberrations of
a disordered mind as that an imbecile or a lunatic, there is evidence to the following effect. It is said that when he and his wife first
went to live in the house of his half brother, Zacarias Formigones, the latter was living with his grandmother, and his house was
vacant. However, after the family of Abelardo was settled in the house, Zacarias not only frequented said house but also used to sleep
there nights. All this may have aroused and even partly confirmed the suspicions of Abelardo, at least to his way of thinking.

In conclusion, SC find the appellant guilty of parricide and hereby affirm the judgment of the lower court with the modification that
the appellant will be credited with one-half of any preventive imprisonment he has undergone.

Jeco
CRIMINAL LAW I
Article 12 (Accident)
People v. Agliday, 367 SCRA 273 (2001) Panganiban, J.:

Accused: Ricardo Agliday | Deceased: Richard Agliday

FACTS:
On or about February 25, 1999, in the evening, at Barangay Nalsian Sur, Municipality of Bayambang, Province of Pangasinan,
Ricardo Agliday, with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot his son Richard V. Agliday with a
shotgun, unlicensed causing his death shortly thereafter due to 'cardio respiratory arrest, hypovolemic shock, gunshot wound, pt. Of
entry at the upper inner quadrant of gluteus, 3 x 3 cm. + contusion collar', as per Certificate of Death.

Conchita Agliday, wife of appellant Reynaldo Agliday, testified that about 8:00 o'clock on the evening of February 25, 1999 while
washing dishes in the kitchen of their house, her son Richard Agliday was shot with a shotgun by her husband. As a result, her son
Richard fell on his belly; her husband-appellant ran away. Although shocked, Conchita was able to rush out of her house to call for
help. Before the shooting, Conchita and her husband quarreled over her working as a laundrywoman and his liquor drinking habits.

Rey Agliday, another son of appellant, testified that he was in their house resting on a wooden bed at the time of the incident in
question. Rey saw his father-appellant shoot his brother Richard with a shotgun, as he was about four (4) meters from them. Before
the shooting incident, Rey recounted [that] his mother and his father-appellant had a quarrel, but he did not interfere. His brother
Richard, on the other hand, intervened and for that reason appellant got his shotgun and shot Richard.

Sometime on February 25, 1999, at or about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, appellant was at the first floor of his house. He was cleaning
a homemade shotgun which he intended to bring to [his] night patrol in their barangay, with fellow barangay tanods. While his wife
Conchita and his son Richard were about to go upstairs, and while appellant was cleaning the homemade shotgun, the gun accidentally
went off and Richard's buttock was hit.

ISSUE:
Whether the court erred in convicting accused appellant of parricide.

HELD:
No. Under Article 12 (paragraph 4) of the Code, criminal liability does not arise in a case a crime is committed by "any person who,
while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it." The exemption
from criminal liability under the circumstance showing accident is based on the lack of criminal intent.

The declarations of innocence by appellant are contradicted by the testimonies of his wife and son.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED.

Note:
Before the accused may be exempted from criminal liability by reason of Article 12 (paragraph 4), the following elements must
concur: (1) a person is performing a lawful act (2) with due care, and (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident and (4)
without any fault or intention of causing it.

For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful
act.

An accident is an occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences." It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state, the
existence of which is shown by a person's overt acts.

In the case at bar, appellant got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his son, who had intervened in the quarrel between the
former and Conchita. It must also be pointed out that the firearm was a shotgun that would not have fired off without first being
cocked. Undoubtedly, appellant cocked the shotgun before discharging it, showing a clear intent to fire it at someone.

Jeco
CRIMINAL LAW I
Article 12 (Insuperable or Lawful Causes)
US v. Vincentillo, 19 Phil 118 (1911) Carson, J.:

Defendant: Isidro Vincentillo

FACTS:
Isidro Vincetillo, municipal president, was being charged of illegal and Arbitrary Detention of the complaining witness for a period of
3 days.

A prisoner was brought before a justice of peace as soon as "practibcable" after his arrest. Three days were expended in doing,but it
was conclusively proven at the trial that at the time of the arrest neither the local justice of the peace nor his auxiliary were in the
municipality, and to reach the justice of the peace of either of the two adjoining municipalities, it was necessary to take a long journey
by boat.

ISSUE:
Whether long journey by boat to the court is an insuperable cause.

HELD:
There is nothing in this record upon which to base a finding that his defendant caused the arrest and the subsequent detention of the
prisoner otherwise than in the due performance of his official duties; and there can be no doubt of his lawfully authority in the
premises.

It was not necessary, or at least expedient, to make an arrest and send the offender forthwith to the justice of the peace of a
neighboring municipality, if only to convince all would-be offenders that the forces of law and order were supreme, even in the
absence of the local municipal judicial officers.

Jeco
CRIMINAL LAW I
Article 13 (Passion or Obfuscation)
People v. Bates, 400 SCRA 95 (2003) Austria-Martinez, J.:

Deceased: Jose Boholst | Accused: Marcelo Bates, Jr.

FACTS:
On or about the 28th day of November 1995, at around 5:30 oclock in the afternoon, in Brgy. Esperanza, Ormoc City, MARCELO
BATES and MARCELO BATES, JR., conspiring together and confederating with and mutually helping and aiding one another, with
treachery, evident premeditation and intent to kill, being then armed with long bolos, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously stab and hack to death the person of the victim, JOSE BOHOLST, without giving the latter sufficient time to defend
himself, thereby inflicting upon him multiple wounds which caused his instantaneous death.

Prosecution's Version:
Around 2:00 in the afternoon of November 28, 1995, Edgar Fuentes, Simon Fuentes and Jose Boholst left Barangay Esperanza,
Ormoc City to deliver copra to a certain Fely Rodado at Barangay Green Valley, Ormoc City. After delivering copra, the three men
headed back to Barangay Esperanza. While they were along a trail leading to the house of Carlito Bates, the latter suddenly emerged
from the thick banana plantation surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Jose Boholst who was then walking ahead of his
companions.

While the two were grappling for possession, the gun fired, hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the ground. At that instant,
Marcelo Bates and his son Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and nephew of Carlito, respectively, emerged from the banana plantation, each
brandishing a bolo. They immediately attacked Jose hacking him several times. Jose fell to the ground and rolled but Marcelo and his
son kept on hacking him. Marcelo, then, turned to Simon and Edgar and shouted huwes de kutsilyo. Upon hearing the same, Simon
and Edgar ran.

Defense's Version:
Around 5:00 in the afternoon of November 28, 1995, Ponciano Sano went to the house of Marcelo Bates. Ponciano was sent by
Barangay Captain Feliseo Sano to get a chicken from Marcelo. While they were trying to catch a chicken, they noticed Jose Boholst,
Edgar Fuentes, and Simon Fuentes approach the house of Carlito Bates which is about twenty meters away from Marcelos house.

Thereafter, they saw Jose drag Carlito out of the latters house while both were arguing and grappling. Marcelo immediately ran
towards Jose and Carlito but when Marcelo was about to approach them, Jose shot Carlito with a gun. Edgar and Simon ran away.
Upon seeing Carlito fall to the ground, Marcelo attacked Jose but the latter also fired a shot at him. However, Marcelo was able to
duck and avoid being shot. Jose was about to shoot Marcelo a second time but the latter retaliated by hacking Jose with a bolo hitting
him on his neck and causing him to fall to the ground. Marcelo then went to the aid of his brother Carlito but upon seeing that he was
already dead, he went back to where Jose was lying and again hacked him.

Thereafter, Ponciano picked up the gun used by Jose and surrendered it to Barangay Captain Sano. Marcelo also surrendered himself
to the said barangay captain. During the whole incident Marcelo Bates, Jr. was not present.

ISSUE:
Whether the Trial Court gravely erred in not considering passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused.

HELD:
No. Passion and obfuscation may not be properly appreciated in favor of appellant.

To be considered as a mitigating circumstance, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of
lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment.

In the case of Marcelo, he was infuriated upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot by Jose. However, a distinction must be made between
the first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the second time that the former hacked the latter.

When Marcelo hacked Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if appellant refrained from doing anything else after that,
he could have validly invoked the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. But when, upon seeing his brother Carlito
dead, Marcelo went back to Jose, who by then was already prostrate on the ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose again was a clear
case of someone acting out of anger in the spirit of revenge.

Jeco
CRIMINAL LAW I
Article 13 (Vindication of Grave Offense)
US v. Ampar, 37 Phil 201 (1917) Macolm, J.:

Defendant: Clemente Ampar | Deceased: Modesto Patobo

FACTS:
A fiesta was in progress in the barrio of Magbaboy, municipality of San Carlos, Province of Occidental Negros. Roast pig was being
served. The accused Clemente Ampar, 70 years of age, proceeded to the kitchen and asked Modesto Patobo for some of the delicacy.
Patobo's answer was; "There is no more. Come here and I will make roast pig of you."

With this as the provocation, a little later while the said Modesto Patobo was squatting down, the accused came up behind him and
struck him on the head with an ax, causing death the following day.

ISSUE:
Whether mitigating circumstances was rightly applied.

HELD:
Yes.The court gave the accused the benefit of a mitigating circumstance. This mitigating circumstance was that the act was committed
in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony.

There was immediate vindication of whatever one may term the remarks of Patobo to the accused is admitted.

The offense which the defendant was endeavoring to vindicate would to the average person be considered as a mere trifle. But to this
defendant, an old man, it evidently was a serious matter to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests.


Hence, it is believed that the lower court very properly gave defendant the benefit of a mitigating circumstance, and correctly
sentenced him to the minimum degree of the penalty provided for the crime of murder.

Note:
The Supreme court of Spain has held the words "gato que araaba a todo el mundo," "landrones," and "era tonto, como toda su
familia" as not sufficient to justify a finding of this mitigating circumstance.

But the same court has held the words "tan landron eres tu como tu padre" to be a grave offense.