AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
The case is a review on certiorari of the decision of the RTC Aparri, Cagayan which
found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.
The Fozes with Garcia were having a drinking spree at the apartment unit of Bogie
Tacuboy which was adjacent to the house of Manuel Chy. Chy asked them to quiet
down because the noise of the videoke was blaring. Garcia commented that Chy
was being arrogant and that one day he would lay a hand on him. In their
succeeding drinking sessions, Garcia still made remarks about Chy and expressed
his intentions to hurt him.
2 days later, they decided to drink at the store of Chys sister, Esquibel, and Garcia
ordered her to call on Chy who was incidentally coming out of his house at that
time. Upon being summoned, Chy approached Garcia and the latter suddenly
punched him in the face. Despite Chys cries, Garcia kept on assaulting him. Foz
attempted to pacify Garcia but was himself hit on the nose while Chy continued to
parry on the blows. Garcia reached for a bottle of beer and struck the lower back
portion of his head.

victim was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony that petitioner
had intended to commit.
Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability shall be incurred
by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.

The essential requisites for the application of this

provision are: (a) the intended act is felonious; (b) the resulting act is likewise a
felony; and (c) the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the
actors wrongful acts.
In this case, petitioner was committing a felony when he boxed the victim and hit
him with a bottle. Hence, the fact that Chy was previously afflicted with a heart
ailment does not alter petitioners liability for his death.
In the case of United States v. Brobst, they held that:
x xx where death results as a direct consequence of the use of illegal violence, the
mere fact that the diseased or weakened condition of the injured person contributed
to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility.
In this jurisdiction, a person committing a felony is responsible for all the natural
and logical consequences resulting from it although the unlawful act performed is

Chy ran towards his house and phoned his wife to call the police. Upon reaching

different from the one he intended; el queescausa de la causaescausa del mal

Chys house, they found him lying unconscious on the kitchen floor, salivating. He

causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused). Thus,

was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

the circumstance that petitioner did not intend so grave an evil as the death of the
victim does not exempt him from criminal liability.

ISSUE:
WON petitioner is liable for the death of Chy.

Basically, petitioner disowns responsibility for Chys demise since the latter was

Since he committed an act prohibited by law, said condition simply mitigates his
guilt in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Nevertheless, we
must appreciate as mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner the fact that the
physical injuries he inflicted on the victim, could not have resulted naturally and

found to have died of myocardial infarction. In support, he amplifies the testimony

logically, in the actual death of the victim, if the latters heart was in good condition.

HELD:

of Dr. Cleofas C. Antonio that Chys medical condition could have resulted in his
death anytime. Petitioner asserts that, at most, he could be held liable for slight
physical injuries because none of the blows he inflicted on Chy was fatal.
The Office of the Solicitor General reiterates the trial courts assessment of the
witnesses and its conclusion that the beating of Chy was the proximate cause of his
death.
It can be inferred from the foregoing statements of the doctors that the emotional
strain from the beating aggravated Chys health condition and led to his death. The
inevitable conclusion then surfaces that the myocardial infarction suffered by the

URBANO v. IAC
FACTS:
On October 23, 1980, petitioner FilomenoUrbano was on his way to his ricefield. He
found the place where he stored palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation
canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion to see what happened, and there he saw
Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efre cutting grass. Javier admitted that he was the one
who opened the canal. A quarrel ensued, and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm
with his bolo, and again on the leg with the back of the bolo. On October 27, 1980,
Urbano and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano paid P700 for the medical

expenses of Javier. On November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the hospital where
he had lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor found the condition to be caused by
tetanus toxin which infected the healing wound in his palm. He died the following
day. Urbano was charged with homicide and was found guilty both by the trial court
and on appeal by the Court of Appeals. Urbano filed a motion for new trial based on
the affidavit of the Barangay Captain who stated that he saw the deceased catching
fish in the shallow irrigation canals on November 5. The motion was denied; hence,
this petition.

since we are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused
the victim's death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The
medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the
wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time
Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct
and foreign to the crime.
There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its
subsequent infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with

ISSUE:
Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the proximate cause of the
latters death
HELD:
A satisfactory definition of 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 ordinarily
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 therefrom."
If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by tetanus
germs at the time, it is more medically probable that Javier should have been
infected with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus
appeared on the 22nd day after the hacking incident or more than 14 days after the
infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should have been more than six
days. Javier, however, died on the second day from the onset time. The more
credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the
appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present.
Consequently, Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus after the
hacking incident. Considering the circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his
wound could have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days
before he died.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and
logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. And

tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which
the petitioner had nothing to do. "A prior and remote cause cannot be made the
be of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or
give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened
between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated,
and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened
but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except
because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause.
And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into
operation the instances which result in injury because of the prior defective
condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause."

PEOPLE vs. VILLORENTE

FACTS:
That on or about the 25th day of March, 1986, in the Municipality of Kalibo,
Province of Aklan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, with deceit and abuse of confidence, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, abduct one JONA NERON, a woman of tender
age from the house of Claire Tioco at New Buswang, Kalibo, Aklan, where said JONA
NERON was working as domestic servant, to Ogsip, Libacao, Aklan and once there in
the house of the accused, the above-named accused CHARLIE VILLORENTE, in
conspiracy with the other accused TERESITA VILLORENTE, by force and intimidation
employed upon the person of the offended party, have sexual intercourse with JONA
NERON against her will.
ISSUE:
WON the accused are criminally liable.
HELD:
YES. The accused are criminally liable.
Since as Jona was only fifteen years old when she agreed to leave her employer's
house to go with Charlie and his mother Teresita, the crime committed was forcible

abduction under Art. 342 of the Revised Penal Code.Jona's virginity may be
presumed from the fact that she was an unmarried barrio girl when the crime was
committed. The element of lewd design on the part of Charlie may also be inferred
from the fact that while Jona was then a naive fifteen-year old, Charlie was ten
years her senior and although unmarried, was much wise, in the ways of the world
than she was (Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, 1988 Ed., p. 454).
Charlie's alleged desire to marry Jona is not a defense considering that no
marriage license was presented and parental consent was wanting (Ibid., p.
456). Moreover, had Charlie really intended to marry her, he could have gone to her
parents' house considering that he was invited by Jona's uncle to do just that.
Inasmuch as the abduction was proven to have been perpetrated as a necessary
means for the commission of the rape, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code,
appellants committed the complex crime of abduction with rape for which
the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed by the lower court on both
appellants. Charlie and his mother are equally liable for the crime in view of the
conspiracy between them which was alleged in the information and duly proven at
the trial. However. the penalty is too excessive for Teresita Villorente. Unschooled
like her son who also affixed his thumbmark in the documents pertinent to this
case, she appears to have acquiesced to cooperate with Charlie on account of
maternal concern. She must have agonized with Charlie who did not know how to
court the girl of his dreams. As the lower court aptly observes, "not knowing how to
court (Jona), (Charlie) just looked at her from a distance until he could no longer
hold his desire for Jona Neron and, with the complicity of his mother, abducted and
raped her." it is therefore, necessary that, under the provision of Art. 5 of the
Revised Penal Code, the attention of the President should be called on the matter.
Significantly, appellants, through their counsel, filed a motion for new trial before
this Court on the ground of a new and material evidence consisting of an Affidavit
of Desistance purportedly executed by the complainant and sworn to before the
Municipal Mayor of Kalibo, Aklan. The affidavit states that the case below arose
out of a misunderstanding between her and the appellants and that she is
no longer interested in prosecuting this case (Rollo, pp. 60-61).
This Court is not impressed by the said document. After completion of the trial and
the rendition of judgment convicting the accused, an affidavit of desistance of the
complaining witness has no probative value and is ineffectual to nullify a judgment.
The real aggrieved party in a criminal prosecution is the People of the
Philippines whose collective sense of morality, decency and justice has
been outraged. Once filed, tried, and decided, control of the prosecution for the
crime of rape is removed from the victim's hands. To warrant the dismissal of the
complaint, the victim's retraction or pardon should be made prior to the institution
of the criminal action (People v. Soliao, supra).

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ACURAM

FACTS:
Rolando Manabat (victim), Oscar Manabat, BartolomeNabe, and Peterson Valendres
proceeded to the market in El Salvador, Misamis Oriental to buy fish after work.
Since no fish was available at that time, they decided to go home. When they were
on the national highway, they flagged down an approaching passenger jeepney
which swerved dangerously towards them. At this juncture, Rolando Manabat
shouted at the jeep and a passenger inside shouted back. Immediately thereafter,
two gunshots rang out in the air, accompanied by sparks coming from the front
right side of the jeepney. Rolando was shot on the right knee but the vehicle did not
stop but instead speeded. Rolando was brought by his companions to the Cagayan
de Oro Medical Center. Later on, they were informed that Rolando needed blood
transfusion and so they transferred him to the Northern Mindanao Regional Hospital
in the same city and was examined by Dr. Ismael Naypa, Jr.
The following day, the victim underwent surgery but unfortunately he died. Dr.
Naypa later testified that the cause of Rolando's death was "secondary to huddle
respiratory syndrome secondary to blood loss, secondary to gunshot wounds", or
briefly, massive loss of blood due to gunshot wound.
The El Salvador police conducted investigation on the incident. It was discovered
that Orlando Acuram, a policeman, was among the passengers of the jeepney. He
was seated at the front, right side of the jeepney and was the only one among its
passengers who was carrying a firearm. Upon orders of his commanding officer, he
was later surrendered by his commanding officer to the custody of the court on the
basis of the warrant of arrest.
Acuram raised the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:
1.
Court failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
2.
The trial court erred in declaring that the killing was attended by the
qualifying circumstance of treachery, granting arguendo that the accused
appellant is guilty.
3.
He was not properly and conclusively identified, and the alleged weapon
not positively tested.
4.
There is an existence of efficient intervening cause, which is the
proximate cause of the death of the victim.
ISSUE/S:
1.
WON the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.

2.

WON the delay in giving proper medical attendance to the victim

constitutes an efficient intervening cause which exempts him from
criminal responsibility.

HELD:
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to
give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because
he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. In this case, it was appellants
commanding officer who surrendered him to the custody of the court.
Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that the killing was qualified
by treachery. The court finds it meritorious. For treachery to be considered an
aggravating circumstance there must be proof that the accused consciously adopted
a mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.
In this case, the shooting was done at the spur of the moment out of the exchange
of curses. Treachery cannot be appreciated where the accused shot the victim as a
result of a rash and impetuous impulse rather than from a deliberate act of the will.
Also, in his attempt to exculpate himself, Acuram blames the death of the victim on
the lack of prompt and proper medical attention given. He insists that the delay in
giving proper medical attendance to the victim constitutes an efficient intervening
cause which exempts him from criminal responsibility. This assertion is
disingenuous. Acuram never introduced proof to support his allegation that the
attending doctors in this case were negligent in treating the victim. On the contrary,
Dr. Ismael Naypa, Jr., testified that the attending doctor at the Cagayan de Oro
Medical Center tried his best in treating the victim.
To conclude, since the qualifying circumstance was not proved in this case, the
crime committed is only homicide, not murder. Under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code, the applicable penalty for homicide is only reclusion temporal. As there
is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance found by the trial court the
penalty in the case will be reclusion temporal.

Yu Lon was rushed to the hospital but he died. Upon post mortem examination, if
was found that he had lacerations and fractures at the back of his skull. He also had
early-stage Tuberculosis, and a tumor in one of his kidneys. Cerebral Hemorrhage
was pronounced as the cause of death.
Yu Yee reported the matter to the police immediately, and after a few days of
investigation, a suspect was found. Yu Yee was made to identify the suspect from
among 11 other people. Yu Yee was able to pinpoint the suspect right away. He
claimed he's able to do so because he saw the suspect's features quite clearly since
he was facing him when he was walking back and forth behind Yu Long that fateful
night.
Through Yu Yee's identification of Cagoco, with a few more witnesses who
corroborated his story, and through the investigation of the prosecution, the trial
court convicted Cagoco of Murder. Cagoco appealed his case, adamant on his
denial of being guilty of homicide, let alone, murder of Yu Yong.
ISSUE:
WON appellant is guilty of Murder, and not Homicide
RULING:
YES. The court did not find any evidence to say otherwise. Cagoco was found guilty
of murder because Yu Long's death was directly due to his felonious act of hitting
the victim at the back of his head. The way he fell on the pavement cracking his
skull is the proximate cause of death, and Yu Long's physical condition were
mitigating circumstances that Cagoco could use to excuse himself from the crime
committed which severity is more than what he intended.
Appealed decision was affirmed.

PEOPLE vs. DOMASIAN

PEOPLE vs. CAGOCO
FACTS:
On July 24, 1932, father and Son, Yu Lon, and Yu Lee talked along a sidewalk. Yu
Lon had his back to the street, at the outer edge of the sidewalk. Yu Yee noticed
that while they were talking, a man would pass by behind his father, back and forth.
When Yu Yee was about to leave his father, the man who had been walking back
and forth suddenly approached his father from behind and hit Yu Yon with his fist at
the back of his head. Yu Lon lost his balance and fell backwards, after which the
perpetrator ran. Yu Yee pursued but lost him.

FACTS:
Enrico, son of Dr. Enrique Agra, and his classmate, where walking along a street
when a man came to him to ask for help for his medical certificate. Enrique agreed
to assist him and with the man, got in a tricycle. They made a few stops, and when
Enrique noticed that they seem not to be going to the hospital, which is what the
man told him theyre headed for. A tricycle driver, Grate noticed that Enrique had
started crying. He got even more suspicious when the man said they were
brothers--- the age gap being too wide, and their features different. Grate reported
this to the barangay Tanods who saw that the man was dragging the boy. The man,

after noticing that they were being followed, ran, leaving Enrique behind. Enrique
got reunited with this parents soon after.
In the afternoon of the same day, Dr. Agra received a ransom note asking for one
million pesos, stating if it s not given the boy will be hurt. Agra noticed that the

seeing his nephew fall, Fernando Iligan drew from his back a bolo and hacked Zaldy
but missed. Terrified the trio ran, pursued by the three accused. They ran for a
good while and even passed the house of Quinones, when they noticed that they
were no longer being chased the three decided to head back to Quinones house. On
the way back the three accused suddenly emerged from the road side, Fernando

penmanship on the note was familiar, and so had the note investigated. It was
found out that very possibly, the handwriting is that of Dr. Samson Tan. Enrico

Iligan then hacked Quinones Jr.on the forehead with his bolo causing him to fall

identified his captor from a folder of with felons pictures.

dead with his head busted. The postmortem examination report and the death

A case of Kidnapping with serious legal detention was filed against Tan and
Domasian who both in their defense pleaded not guilty. Both their alibis were not
substantiated, and they were found guilty. They appealed the case, further denying
that they conspired to commit the crime, since at the time it was committed, Tan
claimed to be in Manila, and Domasian was gambling with friends.
ISSUE:
WON Tan and Domasian were guilty of Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
HELD:
YES. The act of serious illegal detention was consummated even before the ransom
note was given to Enricos father . The fact that for a time, about three hours,
Domasian deprived Enrico of his liberty, constitutes the crime of illegal detention.

down. Felix and Zaldy ran. Upon returning they saw that Quinones Jr. was already
certificate indicates that the victim died of shock and massive cerebral
hemorrhages due to vehicular accident.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused are liable for the victims death given that it was due to
a vehicular accident and not the hacking.
HELD: YES.
We are convinced beyond peradventure that indeed after Quinones, Jr. had fallen
from the bolo hacking perpetrated by Iligan, he was run over by a vehicle. This
finding, however, does not in any way exonerate Iligan from liability for the death
of Quinones Jr. This being under ART 4 of the RPC which states that criminal liability
shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done

On the part of Tan, it was found out that his action could have rooted from an
earlier issue on a loan he asked for from Dr. Agra, a sum of Php 15,000.00, which
was not granted by the same. From this, the court inferred that the Dr. Agras
refusal prompted Tan to kidnap Enrico. Although Tan said he was in Manila the day
the kidnapping took place, it did not mean that he could not have written on some
other dates, the ransom note, which has his handwriting, as validated by an NBI
expert.
The court affirmed the trial courts decision that the two were in conspiracy in the
crime of Kidnapping with serious illegal detention.

be different from that which he intended. The essential requisites of Art 4 are: that
an intentional felony has been committed and that the wrong done to the aggrieved
party be the direct natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender.
It is held that the essential elements are present in this case. The intentional felony
committed was the hacking of the head of Quinones the fact that it was considered
superficial by the physician is immaterial. The location of the wound intended to do
away with him.
The hacking incident happened on the national highway where vehicles pass anymom
ent, the hacking blow received by Quinones weakened him and was run over by a

PEOPLE vs. ILIGAN (1990)

FACTS:
At around 2 in the morning Esmeraldo Quinones and his companions ZaldyAsis and
Felix Lukban were walking home from barangay Sto. Domingo after attending

vehicle. The hacking by Iligan is thus deemed as the proximate cause of the victims
death. Iligan is held liable for homicide absent any qualifying circumstances

a barrio fiesta. On the way they met the accused Fernando Iligan and his nephew
EdmundoAsis and Juan Macandog. Edmundo Asis pushed them aside prompting
Zaldy Asis to boxhim. Felix quickly said that they had no desire to fight. Upon

JACINTO vs. PEOPLE (2009)

Ricablanca alighted from the jeep and entered the premises of Baby Aquino,
FACTS:
Baby Aquino handed petitioner Gemma Jacinto a Banco De Oro (BDO) Check in the
amount of P10,000.00. The check was payment for Baby Aquino's purchases from
Mega

Foam Int'l.,

Inc.,

and

petitioner

was

then

the

collector

of

pretending that she was getting cash from Baby Aquino. However, the cash she
actually brought out from the premises was theP10,000.00 marked money
previously given to her by Dyhengco. Ricablanca divided the money and upon
returning to the jeep, gave P5,000.00 each to Valencia and petitioner. Thereafter,

MegaFoam. Somehow, the check was deposited in the Land Bank account of

petitioner and Valencia were arrested by NBI agents, who had been watching the

Generoso Capitle, the husband of Jacqueline Capitle; the latter is the sister

whole time. A case was filed against the three accused, Jacinto, Valencia and

of petitioner and the former pricing, merchandising and inventory clerk of Mega

Capitle. RTC rendered its Decision finding them GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt

Foam. Later, Rowena Ricablanca, another employee of Mega Foam, received a

of the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT and sentenced each imprisonment of FIVE (5)

phone call from an employee of Land Bank, who was looking for Generoso

YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS AND ELEVEN (11) DAYS, as minimum, to SIX(6)

Capitle. The reason for the call was to inform Capitle that the subject BDO check

YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND TWENTY (20) DAYS, as maximum. The three

deposited in his account had been dishonored.

appealed

Ricablanca then called and relayed the message through accusedAnita Valencia, a
former employee/collector of Mega Foam, because the Capitles did not have a
phone; but they could be reached through Valencia, a neighbor and former coemployee of Jacqueline Capitle at Mega Foam.Valencia then told Ricablanca that the
check came from Baby Aquino, and instructed Ricablanca to ask Baby Aquinoto
replace the check with cash. Valencia also told Ricablanca of a plan to take the cash

to

the

CA

and

the

decision

of

the

trial

court was

MODIFIED, in that:(a) the sentence against accused Gemma Jacinto stands;

(b) the sentence against accused Anita Valencia is reduced to 4 months arresto
mayor medium, and (c) The accused Jacqueline Capitle is acquitted. Hence, the
present Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner alone.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a worthless check can be the object of theft.

and divide it equally into four: for herself, Ricablanca, petitioner Jacinto and
Jacqueline Capitle. Ricablanca, upon the advice of Mega Foam's accountant,

HELD:

reported the matter to the owner of Mega Foam, Joseph Dyhengco. Thereafter,

As may be gleaned from the aforementioned Articles of the Revised Penal Code,

Joseph Dyhengco talked to Baby Aquino and was able to confirm that the latter

the personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the

indeed handed petitioner a BDO check for P10,000.00 as payment for her purchases
from Mega Foam. Baby Aquino further testified that petitioner Jacinto also called her
on the phone to tell her that the BDO check bounced. Verification from company

intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further
bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the penalty to be imposed
on the accused is dependent on the value of the thing stolen. In this case, petitioner

records showed that petitioner never remitted the subject check to Mega Foam.

unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was

However, Baby Aquino said that she had already paid Mega Foam P10,000.00 cash

apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. Thus, the question

as replacement for the dishonored check.

arises on whether the crime of qualified theft was actually produced. The Court

Dyhengco filed a Complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)

and worked out an entrapment operation with its agents. Ten pieces of P1,000.00
bills provided by Dyhengco were marked and dusted with fluorescent powder by the
NBI. Thereafter, the bills were given to Ricablanca, who was tasked to pretend that
she was going along with Valencia's plan. Ricablanca, petitioner, her husband, and
Valencia then boarded petitioner's jeep and went on to Baby Aquino's factory. Only

must resolve the issue in the negative.

Intod v. Court of Appeals is highly instructive and applicable to the present case. In
Intod, the Court went on to give an example of an offense that involved factual
impossibility, i.e., a man puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the
intention to steal the latter's wallet, but gets nothing since the pocket is empty.

of Rape with Homicide under Art 335 of the RPC, as amended by section 11 of RA #
7659,subject to automatic review by this court of the decision imposing the death
penalty.

PEOPLE VS VENERACION, 12 October 1995

FACTS:
On August 2, 1994, the lifeless body of Angel Alquiza, 7 years old, was found
floating along Del Pan St., near the corner of Lavesares st., Binondo Manila.
Abundio Lagunday a.k.a. Jr. Jeofrey of no fixed address and Lagarto of Tondo Manila
were later charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide. Subsequently, Cordero,
Manlangit, Baltazar and Yaon were accused of the same crime of Rape with
Homicide. On January 31, 1995 finding the defendants Henry Lagarto and Ernesto
Cordero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide and

BRINAS VS. PEOPLE

sentenced with reclusion perpetua with all the accessories provided by law. The

Tiaong, Quezon.

(125 SCRA 687)

FACTS:
In the afternoon of January 6, 1957, Juanito Gesmundo bought a train ticket at the
railroad station in Tagkawayan, Quezon for his 55-year old mother Martina Bool and
his 3-year old daughter Emelita Gesmundo. The two were bound for Lusacan in

City Prosecutor of Manila filed a motion for Reconsideration on February 8, 1995

praying that the decision be modified in that the penalty of death be imposed
against the respondents Lagarto and Cordero.

They boarded the train of Manila Railroad Company at about 2pm. Upon
approaching Barrio Lagalag at 8pm, the train slowed down and the conductor,
accused-appellant, Clemente Brinas, shouted Lusacan, Lusacan!

On February 10, 1995, the judge issued an order denying the same for lack of
jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in
excess of jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to impose the mandatory
penalty of death under RA # 7659, after finding the accused guilty of the crime
Rape with Homicide.
RULING:
Obedience

to

the rule of law forms

the bedrock of the

justice system.

If judges under the guise of religious or political beliefs were allowed toroam
unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise
the duties of their office, then law becomes meaningless. A government of laws, not
of men, excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under
its authority. In the case of bench, since the law in force at the time of the

The old woman walked towards the train exit carrying the child with one hand and
holding her baggage with the other. When they were near the door, the train
suddenly picked up speed. The old woman and the child stumbled from the train
causing them to fall down the tracks and were hit by an oncoming train, causing
their instant death.
A criminal information was filed against Victor Milan, the driver, Hermogenes
Buencamino, the assistant conductor and Clemente Brinas for Double Homicide thru
Reckless Imprudence. But the lower court acquitted Milan and Buencamino. On
appeal to the CA, respondent CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling the accused-appellant was negligent?

commission of the crime for which respondent judge found the accused guilty, of he
was bound by its provisions. After an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose

HELD:

the proper penalty and civil liability provided for the law on the accused. This is a

There was no error in the factual findings of the respondent court and in the
conclusion drawn from the findings.

case in which a judge, fully aware of the appropriate provisions of the law refuses to
impose a penalty to which he disagrees.
The instant petition is Granted. The case is hereby Remanded to theRTC for the
imposition of the penalty of death upon privateers pondents in consonance with
respondent judges findings that the private respondents had committed the crime

It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like

trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop they slow down and the
conductor announces the name of the place. It is also a matter of common
experience that as the train or bus slackens its speed, some passengers usually
stand and proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disembark as the train or bus comes

to a full stop. This is especially true of a train because passengers feel that if the
train resumes its run before they are able to disembark; there is no way to stop it
as a bus may be stopped. The appellant was negligent because his announcement
was premature and erroneous, for it took a full 3 minutes more before the next
barrio of Lusacan was reached. The premature announcement prompted the two
victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. Without said announcement, the
victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train
jerked and picked up speed. The proximate cause of the death of the victims was
the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner-appellant.