You are on page 1of 51

Criminal Law I – Case Digests

Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao |

---------------------------------------------------------------------Art. 8 Conspiracy- Levels of Conspiracy
Fernan Jr. et. Al v. People
G.R. No. 145927
24, 2007


86 million highway scam; 119 criminal cases filed
with the Sandiganbayan (SB) involving no less than 36
former officials and employees of the then Ministry of
Public Highways (MPH) and several suppliers of
construction materials for defalcation of public funds
arising from numerous transactions in the Cebu
First Highway Engineering District in 1977.
Accused Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia
Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget
Examiner), and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), all of MPH
Region VII came up with the plan to steal large sums
of money from government treasury. Mangubat
had found a way to withdraw government money
through the use of fake LAAs, vouchers and other
documents and to conceal traces thereof with the
connivance of other government officials and
employees. In fine, the fraudulent scheme involved
the splitting of LAAs and RSEs so that the amount
covered by each general voucher is less than
P50,000.00 to do away with the approval of the
Regional Auditor; the charging of disbursements to
unliquidated obligations due the previous year to


Criminal Law I – Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao |

provide the supposed source of funds; and the
manipulation of the books of account by negation or
adjustment, i.e., the cancellation of checks through
journal vouchers to conceal disbursements in excess of
the cash disbursement ceiling (CDC), so as not to reflect
such disbursements in the trial balances submitted to
the Regional Office.
Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join
him. All three agreed to help him carry out his plan.
o They typed the fake LAAs during Saturdays.
o Cruz and Sayson also took charge of negotiating
or selling the fake LAAs to contractors at 26% of
the gross amount.
o Preagido on her part manipulated the General
Ledger, Journal Vouchers and General Journal
thru negative entries to conceal the illegal
Thus, in the initial report of the auditors (Exhibit
D), it was discovered that the doubtful
allotments and other anomalies escaped notice
due to the following manipulations:
LAAs were generally not signed by the Finance Officer
nor recorded in the books of accounts. Disbursements
made on the basis of these fake LAAs were charged to
the unliquidated Obligations (Account 8-81-400),
although the obligations being paid were not among
those certified to the unliquidated obligations (Account
8-81-400) at the end of the preceding year.
The four formed the nucleus of the nefarious
conspiracy. Other government employees, tempted by
the prospect of earning big money, allowed their names
to be used and signed spurious documents.


Criminal Law I – Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao |

It was also made to appear that the payments were
made for alleged prior years obligations and chargeable
to Account 8-81-400, obviously because, they were not
properly funded.
The nuclei of this massive conspiracy, namely: Rolando
Mangubat, Jose Sayson, and Edgardo Cruz, all of MPH
Region VII, were found guilty in all 119 counts and
were accordingly sentenced by the SB. The other
conniver, Delia Preagido, after being found guilty in
some of the cases, became a state witness in the
remainder. On the basis of her testimony and pertinent
documents, Informations were filed, convictions were
obtained, and criminal penalties were imposed on the
rest of the accused.
On the other hand, petitioners were both Civil
Engineers of the MPH assigned to the Cebu First
Highway Engineering District.
 Petitioner Fernan, Jr. was included among the
accused in 6 criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos.
2879, 2880, 2881, 2885, 2914, and 2918)
allegedly for having signed six (6) tally sheets or
statements of deliveries of materials, used as
bases for the preparation of the corresponding
number of general vouchers. Fund releases were
made to the suppliers, contractors, and payees
based on these general vouchers.
 On the other hand, petitioner Torrevillas was
one of the accused in 9 criminal cases (Criminal
Case Nos. 2855, 2856, 2858, 2859, 2909, 2910,
2914, 2919, and 2932.)
The Sandiganbayans Ruling
Petitioners were charged with the complex crime
The anti-graft court was fully convinced of the guilt of
petitioner Fernan, Jr. Petitioner Torrevillas suffered the


Criminal Law I – Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao |

same fate and was convicted in the nine (9) criminal
cases, to wit:
Petitioners made the supplication before the court a quo
to recall the adverse judgments against them which was
declined by the August 29, 2000 SB Resolution.
Firm in their belief that they were innocent of any
wrongdoing, they now interpose the instant petition to
clear their names.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners are liable as coconspirators of the crimes committed.
HELD: YES. Petitioners’ guilt was established
beyond reasonable doubt
On the part of petitioners, they readily admitted that
they either signed the tally sheets and/or delivery
receipts, reports of inspection, requests for supplies and
materials, and other related documents which became
part of the supporting documents that led to the
issuance of general vouchers and eventually the
disbursement of public funds. The tally sheets are
statements of delivery that purportedly indicated the
specified quantities of materials for the construction and
maintenance of roads that have been delivered on
supposed project sites on given dates at specific places.
The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the
court a quo that all the essential elements of the
crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents were present. There is no question that
petitioners, at the time of the commission of the crime,
were public officers civil engineers assigned to the MPH.
Their signing of tally sheets and related
documents pertaining to the alleged deliveries of
supplies for road repair and construction
constitutes intervention and/or taking advantage
of their official positions, especially considering
that they had the duty to inspect the purported
deliveries and ascertain the veracity of the
documents and the statements contained in


Criminal Law I – Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao |

The essential elements of estafa through
falsification of public documents are present in the cases
against petitioners, as follows:
1. Deceit: Petitioners Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas
made it appear that supplies for road construction and
maintenance were delivered by suppliers allegedly in
furtherance of alleged lawful projects when in fact said
supplies were not delivered and no actual asphalting or
repair of road was implemented. In doing so, petitioners:
1.1. Were public officers or employees at the time
of the commission of the offenses;
1.2. Took advantage of their official position as
highway engineers; and
1.3. Made untruthful statements in several
narrations of fact.
2. Damage: The government disbursed PhP
146,000 in the case of Fernan, Jr. and PhP 337,861.01 in
the case of Torrevillas, as payments to various suppliers
for the delivery of non-existent supplies.
By way of defense, petitioners posit that the tally
sheets and other documents could in fact be traced to
genuine LAAs that were in the custody of the NBI.
Unfortunately, these genuine LAAs were not introduced
in evidence. It is an age-old axiom that s/he who alleges
something must prove it. Petitioners assertion that the
documents they signed were all genuine and duly
covered by genuine LAAs was substantiated only by
their own self-serving and uncorroborated testimonies.
We hesitate to give much weight and credit to their bare
testimonies in the face of clear, convincing,
overwhelming, and hard evidence adduced by the State.
If the genuine LAAs were vital to their defense,
and they firmly believed that the documents were
indeed in the custody of the NBI, then petitioners could
have easily procured the compulsory process to compel
the production of said documents. However, petitioners
miserably failed to avail of subpoena duces tecum which
the court a quo could have readily granted. The inability


The State is not tasked to adduce direct proof of the agreement by petitioners with the other accused. Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner). After a close re-examination of the records. Their conviction was indeed supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt which was not overturned by defense evidence. Delia Preagido (Accountant III). who were similarly convicted in practically all the 119 counts of estafa. who controlled the separate spokes of the conspiracy. Undisturbed is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and in the absence of strong and compelling reasons or justifications. would border on near impossibility. settled jurisprudence finds no need to prove it by direct evidence. Petitioners were among the many spokes of the wheel. headed by Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat. namely: Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant). the difficulty in establishing the existence of conspiracy. The feeble defense of petitioners that they were not aware of the ingenuous plan of the group of accused Mangubat and the indispensable acts to defraud the government does not merit any consideration. for such requirement. Considering. Petitioners acted in conspiracy with one another Indeed. The 36 disparate persons who constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by a single hub. The Court finds that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the wheel conspiracy. however.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor to produce such important and exculpatory pieces of evidence proved disastrous to petitioners cause. in many cases. and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II). it will accord finality to the findings of facts of the SB. the Court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the antigraft court that petitioners are co-conspirators of the other accused. the burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy falls to the shoulders of the prosecution. The State needs to 6 .

Without such fabricated documents. 9 GRAVE. Petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer 7 .R. and requests for supplies and materials by petitioners on separate occasions is vital to the success of the Mangubat Group in siphoning off government funds. 168852 FACTS: Sharica (petitioner) and Steven Tan are married with 2 daughters. the signing of the fake tally sheets and/or delivery receipts. the required quantum of proof has been adduced by the State on the conspiracy among the accused including petitioners. In sum. ---------------------------------------------------------------------Art.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor adduce proof only when the accused committed acts that constitute a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. the general vouchers covering the supply of materials cannot be properly accomplished and submitted to the disbursing officer for the preparation of checks. No. The conviction of petitioners must perforce be sustained. TAN G. reports of inspection. In the case at bench. LESS GRAVE AND LIGHT FELONIES No CASES ASSIGNED ---------------------------------------------------------------------ARTICLE 10 – OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE GO-TAN V.

alleging that Steven. accordingly. otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. 9262 ISSUE: WON R. former marriage. No. No.A.A. No. were causing verbal. No.’ HELD: Yes. While Section 3 of R. Respondents contended that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since.A. R.A. 9262 may be liberally interpreted to include the parents-in-law as an ‘offender. in conspiracy with her parents in law. 9262 under a liberal interpretation thereof aimed at promoting the protection and safety of victims of violence.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven and her parents-in-law. No.A No. 9262 provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage. No. or a sexual or dating relationship. 8 . it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. 9262. they were not covered by Sec 3 of the said law which explicitly provides that the offender should be related to the victim only by marriage.A. psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5 of R. as parents-in-law of the petitioner. a former marriage. 9262 must be understood in the light of the provisions of Section 47 of R. or a dating or sexual relationship Petitioner argued that respondents were covered by R. the provision on conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC can be suppletorily applied to R.A. 9262 which explicitly provides for the suppletory RPC and.

legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws. such as R.A. No. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws. thus: SEC. Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code.For purposes of this Act. 10. the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws. With more reason. since all the conspirators are principals 9 . 9262. Thus. 9262. Parenthetically. Article 10 of the RPC provides: ART. shall have suppletory application. 47. No. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. Section 47 of R. 9262 because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. are necessarily applicable.Thus. the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. No. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown. and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary. may be applied suppletorily.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor Indeed. which by their nature. the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A.A. general provisions of the RPC. unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. No. in which the special law is silent on a particular matter. . therefore. Hence. Suppletory Application.A.

Believing that he was a thief (of palay). Pangasinan.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor ---------------------------------------------------------------------ARTICLE 11 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES A. ABRAZALDO ---------------------------------------------------------------------DOCTRINE OF RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE DELA CRUZ V. Umingan.Armed with a shotgun. the defendantcalled his attention but he ignored him. PEOPLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------B. that he had been woundedin the back by a shotgun. the barrio chief. the defendant andappellant Anastacio Apolinar alias Atong was at thattime the occupant of a parcel of land owned by JoaquinGonzales in Papallasen. 1936. SEL DEFENSE PEOPLE V.The defendant fired in the air and then at the person. APOLINAR Facts: Midnight of December 22. DEFENSE OF PROPERTY PEOPLE in each side of the spinal column which wounds were circular in formand a little bigger 10 .The man.He then showed the two wounds . identified as Domingo Petras. Atong was looking over said landwhen he observed that there was a man carrying abundle on his shoulder. was able to getback to his house and consequently narrated to AngelNatividad. La Paz.

At the time of 11 . Fleischer responded with "No. On August 22. ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. Prior to the shooting. gadamit. the right to property is not of suchimportance as right to life." and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle with the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. He addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house and asking if they could talk things over. Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. proceed. 1968. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and found fence being made. NARVAEZ 121 SCRA 389 (1983) FACTS: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor than a quarter of an inch. Fleischer and Co. Mananquil. and defense of property canbe invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it iscoupled with an attack on the person of one entrustedwith said property. according tothe medical report of Dr.Petras died of the wounds he sustained.The defendant surrendered to the authoritiesimmediately after the incident and gave a swornstatement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on December 23. He also shot Rubia who was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. go ahead. 1936. Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defenseof property Held: No." Defendant lost his "equilibrium.

The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls of the house of the defendant was indeed a form of aggression on the part of the victim. 2. to indemnify the heirs. 30 of the civil code recognizing the right of owners to close and fence their land. 12 . the civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to Fleisher and Co. in consideration of the violation of property rights. defendant had leased his property from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. the courts did not err. On June 25. However. 3. WON the court erred in convicting defendantappellant although he acted in defence of his rights. WON he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable to pay the civil indemnity due to the offended party. the courts referred to Art. At time of the shooting. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For both murders. HELD: 1. However. to be annulled). CFI sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. CFI ruled that Narvaez was guilty. and to pay for moral damages.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor the shooting. NO. He was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Whether or not CFI erred in convicting defendantappellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property. ISSUES: 1. defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. this aggression was not done on the person of the victim but rather on his rights to property. Shooting was barely 2 months after letter. On the first issue.

YES. 2. Unlawful aggression .Here. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack . There was also no 13 . 13(6) RPC. However. 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites: a.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor Although is not in dispute. instead of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up fence. the victim was not in the position to subscribe to the article because his ownership of the land being awarded by the government was still pending. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. assault was not deliberately chosen with view to kill since slayer acted instantaneously. 536 of the Civil Code also provides that possession may not be acquired through force or intimidation. Since not all requisites present.In the case. the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3 requirements are fulfilled. 539 provides that every possessor has the right to be respected in his possession b. Art. while Art. c. defendant is credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left him in peace before time was up. therefore putting ownership into question. 405 explanation) Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder because treachery is not applicable on account of provocation by the deceased.In the case at bar. there was no provocation at all since he was asleep. . killing was disproportionate to the attack. It is accepted that the victim was the original aggressor. These mitigating circumstances are: voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation (read p. there was unlawful aggression towards appellant's property rights. Art. Also. pursuant to Art.

Gutierrez. 3. Art. it may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Art. 64) to arrestomayor. 22 of the RPC. RA 5465 made the provisions of Art. Appellant has already been detained 14 years so his immediate release is ordered. due to mitigating circumstances and incomplete defense. Defense of property can only be invoked when coupled with form of attack on person defending property. 39 applicable to fines only and not to reparation of damage caused. 14 . However. However. dissenting. it can be lowered three degrees (Art. He is not liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned for nonpayment of civil indemnity. this was not so. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. In the case at bar.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor direct evidence of planning or preparation to kill. by his wife Marivic Genosa. 9262) PEOPLE V. MARIVIC GENOSA FACTS: This case stemmed from the killing of Ben Genosa. since he has served more than that. Defendant was found guilty of homicide but with mitigating circumstances and extenuating circumstance of incomplete self defense. Appellant should then be sentenced to prision mayor. --------------------------------------------------------------------BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME (RA NO. Although it was enacted only after its conviction. he should be released. indemnification of consequential damages and costs of proceedings. NO. considering that RA 5465 is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent. appellant herein.

Ben changed and the couple would always quarrel and sometimes their quarrels became violent. (2) the examination of Marivic Genosa by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time she killed her husband. On the night of the killing. alleged that the cause of death of the victim was by beating through the use of a lead pipe. Dra. Appellant testified that every time her husband came home drunk. appellant and the victim were quarreled and the victim beat the appellant. she consulted medical doctors who testified during the trial. however. in the alternative. the Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide with an aggravating circumstance of treachery and imposed the penalty of death. It remanded the case to the trial court for reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the “battered woman syndrome” plea. On automatic review before the Supreme Court.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor During their first year of marriage. Pajarillo. appellant was able to run to another room. he would provoke her and sometimes beat her. The information for parricide against appellant. Whenever beaten by her husband. were presented and admitted by 15 . Appellant invoked self defense and defense of her unborn child. After trial. and finally. The Supreme Court partly granted the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION of the appellant. Marivic and Ben lived happily but apparently thereafter. Appellant admitted having killed the victim with the use of a gun. Testimonies of two expert witnesses on the “battered woman syndrome”. Dayan and Dr. However. (3) the inclusion of the said experts’ reports in the records of the case for purposes of the automatic review or. appellant filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION praying that the Honorable Court allow (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the re-examination of the cause of his death. a partial re-opening of the case a quo to take the testimony of said psychologists and psychiatrists.

Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor the trial court and subsequently submitted to the Supreme Court as part of the records. Whether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa. the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence. she is defined as a battered woman. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. in order to be classified as a battered woman. Furthermore. A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. The Court ruled in the negative as appellant failed to prove that she is afflicted with the “battered woman syndrome”. The Court. Second. (2) the acute battering incident. the final acute battering episode 16 . the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. If it occurs a second time. and she remains in the situation. Ruling: 1. ISSUE: 1. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men.” More graphically. First. is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the battered woman syndrome. loving (or. however. Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke the “battered woman syndrome” as constituting self defense. 2. and (3) the tranquil. nonviolent) phase. at least. each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner.” which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase.

she had gone through a similar pattern. sudden and 17 . not all of these elements were duly established. based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. No doubt there were acute battering incidents but appellant failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past. Thus. The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the “cycle of violence” supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. the Revised Penal Code provides that the following requisites of selfdefense must concur: (1) Unlawful aggression. Third.grave harm to the accused. (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Under the existing facts of the present case. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense. is the rule that the one who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on one’s life. In any event. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle. Taken altogether. and (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.not necessarily immediate and actual -. the batterer must have posed probable -. these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life. Settled in our jurisprudence. however. and the peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual. It presupposes actual. not merely imaginary. Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. at the time of the killing.

and (2) this act is not far 18 . there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him.psychological paralysis as well as passion and obfuscation -.on the life or safety of a person. however. As to the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation.did not arise from the same set of facts.or an imminent danger thereof -. That is. which was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her will power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts. It should be clarified that these two circumstances -. the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her psychological paralysis.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor unexpected attack -. She had already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their children’s bedroom. however. it has been held that this state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind. according to the testimony of Marivic herself. he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. To appreciate this circumstance. taken in favor of appellant. In the present case. The mitigating factors of psychological paralysis and passion and obfuscation were. The first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and the severity of the battery inflicted by the battererspouse upon appellant. The reality or even the imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. During that time. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety. the following requisites should concur: (1) there is an act.

overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid emotional and mental state. NO. to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. in order to appreciate alevosia. The acute battering she suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse. in spite of the fact that she was eight (8) months pregnant with their child. which overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and that of her unborn child. during which the accused might recover her normal equanimity.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time. Besides. the penalty is reduced to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum. Because of the gravity of the resulting offense. Moreover. However. the method of assault adopted by the aggressor must have been consciously and deliberately chosen for the specific purpose of accomplishing the unlawful act without risk from any defense that might be put up by the party attacked. The appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion or obfuscation. 2. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellant for parricide. the director of the Bureau of Corrections may immediately RELEASE her from custody upon due 19 . considering the presence of two (2) mitigating circumstances and without any aggravating circumstance. treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself. Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more than the minimum penalty hereby imposed upon her. treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel. because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from the assailant.

R.95. 9262. She averred that she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her mother whom the hospital inhumanely and harshly 20 . 26 of said law provides that "xxx.P 22. they were all dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. However. For her" ---------------------------------------------------------------------C. Sec. 149275. otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 was enacted. unless she is being held for some other lawful cause. September 27. STATE OF NECESSITY TY V PEOPLE [G. Since the bill reached 1.075.R.592. Soon thereafter. Victimsurvivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability nothwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. Ty drew 7 PDCs covering 30k each against Metrobank payable to the hospital.A. Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. the complainant hospital filed 7 counts of violation of B. 2004] Tys mother and her sister were confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital for almost 2 years. No.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor determination that she is eligible for parole. NOTE: After this case was decided by the Supreme Court.

11 of the Revised Penal Code may find application in this case. By her own admission. She alleged that her mother was deprived of room facilities. ISSUE: WON the justifying circumstance of state of necessity under par. she had the choice to give jewelry or other 21 . such as the air-condition unit. (2) that the injury feared be greater than the one done to avoid it. (3) that there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to exempt the actor from liability under this paragraph: (1) that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists. Ty could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a crime. Art. thus. refrigerator and television set. 4. The hospital also suspended medical treatment of her mother. In the instant case. the defense is not applicable. HELD: No. and subject to inconveniences such as the cutting off of the telephone line. the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor treated and would not discharge unless the hospital bills are paid. late delivery of her mothers food and refusal to change the latters gown and bedsheets.

for the defense of state of necessity to be availing. more so. AS AMENDED BY RA 10630  AM NO. INSANITY PEOPLE V. Moreover. DOMINGO ---------------------------------------------------------------------B. the willful inaction of the actor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------ARTICLE 12 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES A.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor forms of security instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation. 2009) 22 . the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Tys own failure to pay her mother’s hospital bills. the greater injury feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or imprudence. In this case. MINORITY  RA 9344 (JUVENILLE JUSTICE AND WELFARE LAW). 02-1-18-SC (NOVEMBER 24.

In the afternoon a Toyota Corolla arrived. PEOPLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------JOSE V. the informant called SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra and informed the latter that Sonny Zarraga had with him100 grams of shabu. P/Supt Joseph Castro received an information from an unnamed informant that a big time group of drug pushers from Greenhills will deliver 100 grams of shabu at Chowking. Then. They positioned their cars at the parking area where they had a commanding view of people going in and out. Sonny Zarraga was the driver. PEOPLE (G. SPO1 Guevarra offered 23 . and with him was Alvin Jose.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor  RA 10630 (AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE JUVENILE SYSTEM)  IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF RA 10630 ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. Acting on such report. 162052 January 13.SPO1 Bonifacio Gueverra was assigned to act as a poseur buyer. ALCABAO ---------------------------------------------------------------------LLAVE V. No. The unnamed informant approached and talked to Sonny Zarraga. 2005) Facts: On November 14. 1995.R.

handed the bundle of "money bills. inturn.On appeal to the CA. In the present case. The appellate court reduced the penalty imposed on appellant Alvin Jose. Then the other police approached and introduced themselves as Narcom Operatives. Issue: Whether or not Alvin Jose can be exempt from criminal liability underthe mitigating circumstances of minority. it is the burden of the minor to prove his age in order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. filed his petition for review on certiorari. SPO1 Guevarra. who was thirteen (13) years of age when the crime charged was 24 . on its finding that he was only thirteen (13) years old when he committed the crime. Appellant Jose. Guevarra said yes. a minor over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability if charged with a felony. He showed the aforecited bundle of "money bills. a minor over nine (9) and under fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime is exempt from criminal liability. 6425. the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision appealed from with modification. Sonny Zarraga asked SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra if he had the money. The reason for the exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of a crime. for violation of R. The law applies even if such minor is charged with a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law. The RTC finds both the accused Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt. now the petitioner. In such case.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor to buy the shabu.A. the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner. They arrested Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose. Ruling: Yes. Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code. alleging that under paragraph 3." Sonny Zarraga then asked Alvin Jose to bring out the shabu and handover to Guevarra.

Tinggang (6). Butchoy (12).R. accused . one of whom was Leah who was still 8 years old at that time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------US V. CORTEZANO & CORTEZANO [G. Indeed. MARALIT ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. 25 . 140732.Joel (13).Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor committed. acted with discernment relative to the sale of shabu to the poseur-buyer. and their nephew Boyet (6). She left her 3 children to the care of her parents-in-law who were living under the same roof with their children. the petitioner merely sat inside the car and had no other participation whatsoever in the transaction between the accused Zarraga and the poseur-buyer. January 29. Aside from bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to accused Zarraga. No. There is no evidence that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic and soft white paper before and at the time he handed over the same to his cousin. the poseurbuyer did not bother to ask the petitioner his age because he knew that pushers used young boys in their transactions for illegal drugs. 2002] FACTS: Lourney Cortezano had 3 children.

Joel and Bernardo subjected her to sexual abuse daily. she struggled as they raped her. 12 and 13 years of age. HELD: NO. They are not exempt from criminal liability. Joel and Bernardo then called Leah Lou and Lionel into the room. Joel and Bernardo ordered him to rape Leah and threatened to box him if he refused. 26 .Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor Early in the afternoon of May 6. respectively. being minors. Leah did not reveal to her grandparents what happened to her. After that first harrowing incident. Joel and Bernardo threatened to kill her and the members of the family if she told anyone about what happened to her. ISSUE: WON the Joel and Bernardo. Joel and Bernardo were charged with 4 counts of rape. letting them see their sister naked. Joel threatened to whip her if she refused. Joel and Bernardo laughed as Boyet was having his turn with Leah. should be exempt from criminal liability. 1990. Petrified. When Boyet arrived. Joel and Bernardo ordered their niece Leah to sleep in their parents room. She was woken up by her uncles Joel and Butchoy who were undressing her.

unless he acted with discernment. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove that a minor acted with discernment when he committed the crime charged. A minor who is over nine years old and under fifteen years old at the time of the commission of the crimes is exempt from criminal liability only when the said minor acted without discernment. the very appearance. who commits an act prohibited by law. the very attitude. such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor Article 12. Duquea[34] is instructive: The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine. (3) The following are exempt from criminal liability: (3). is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. In determining if such a minor acted with discernment. the Courts pronouncement in Valentin v. in which case. 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. the very comportment 27 .

(e) they laughed as Boyet was raping the victim. thus: (a) they wetted the victims vagina before they raped her. the evidence on record shows beyond cavil that the appellants acted with discernment when they raped the victim.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor and behavior of said minor. (f) they ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to look at their sister naked after the appellants had raped her. ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. In this case. not only before and during the commission of the act. PEOPLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------ROBERT SIERRA V. (c) they threatened to kill the victim if she divulged to her parents what they did to her. (b) one of them acted as a lookout while the other was raping the victim. (d) they forced Boyet to rape the victim. CAPISTRANO ---------------------------------------------------------------------VALCESAR ESTIOCA V. PEOPLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 . but also after and even during the trial.

Jr. a certain Eugenio Murchanto reported to the police authorities about a dead man found in Barangay ZZZ near the Romblon National High School. did not divulge the incident to anyone for the next few days.. the three assailants warned Jovencio not to reveal the incident to anyone. and then three malefactors pulled the body up a tree. Raymund then placed his handkerchief around the neck of AAA. who was wearing brass knuckles. along with paraphernalia for inhaling rugby. he received punches to his head and body from Rodel. AAA replied. Bernardino at once blurted out. with its ends tied to a dog chain. Floresto P. No. near the Romblon National High School. who conducted the autopsy. Raymund took his turn clobbering AAA at the back of his thighs with the same coconut frond. and the witness. Dr. Raymund.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor RAYMUND MADALI V.” Bernardino then struck AAA thrice with a fresh and hard coconut frond. empty bottles of gin and a coconut frond. 2009) CHICO-NAZARIO. Out of fear for his life. The policemen went there and found the hung cadaver. Rodel. 180380. PEOPLE (G. went with the three accused. “That’s enough. Before leaving the scene. The group proceeded to climb the stairs leading to the reservoir. declaring that the victim was already dead when he was tied to the tree. Three days later. August 4.: FACTS: AAA. As soon as they reached the reservoir. and that 29 . or he would be next. Before AAA could recover.R. and Bernardino. Jovencio. Arizala. AAA lost consciousness. Join the rugby boys. J. the victim. Bernardino blindfolded AAA with the handkerchief of Raymund. opined that the victim died due to head injuries and not to asphyxiation by hanging.

Jovencio narrated the incident and pointed to Raymund. Rodel and Bernardino as the perpetrators of the crime. he was with his father Rodolfo Madali in the house of a friend named Noel Mindoro. and Bernardino declared that they were in their respective houses on the night in question. 14 years of age. Rodel’s conviction was sustained but the 30 . The RTC also appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in favor of the three accused. Thus. Raymund. Upon investigation. 16 years old. Sr. Bernardino applied for probation. an uncle of Raymund and Rodel. Rodel’s testimony was corroborated by his father and Noel Mindoro. Pastor Mario Fajiculay backed up the formers alibi. Raymunds friend. Bernardino’s testimony was supported by his father Bernardino Maestro. Later he reverted to his first affidavit.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor the variety of injuries sustained by the victim could be attributed to more than one assailant. only Raymund and Rodel elevated their convictions to the Court of Appeals. Because of the threat made on him by a certain Wilson. According to Rodel. and by his neighbor Diana Mendez. they were only convicted of homicide. 9344 which exempts from criminal liability a minor 15) years or below at the time of the commission of the offense. Jovencio executed a second affidavit repudiating his first affidavit. On account of the prosecutions failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The RTC rendered a guilty verdict against the three accused. The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC but pursuant to Section 64 of Republic Act No. Raymund’s case was dismissed. The accused advanced the defense of denial and alibi.

A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. 9344. Raymund.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor imposition of said penalty was suspended pursuant to Republic Act No.Raymond is exempt. who was only 14 years of age at the time he committed the crime. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. which gave weight and credence to the account of the incident given by prosecution witness Jovencio. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. 6. whose testimony according to them was replete with patent and substantial inconsistencies. 9344. SEC. petitioners contend that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in disbelieving the defense of alibi they interposed. and that said defense was corroborated by testimonies of the other defense witnesses. Moreover. Petitioners Raymund and Rodel assail both the RTC and the Court of Appeals findings. the authority which will have an initial contact with the child 31 . ISSUE: What are the criminal liabilities of the accused? HELD: 1. However. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability. Raymond . to wit: SEC. considering that the prosecution failed to muster the required quantum of proof. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals. should be exempt from criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act No. If it has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below. 20.

Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian. neglected or abused by his parents. when and where appropriate. although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. the DSWD. 9344. guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located. the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Raymund who was not shown to be a habitual criminal. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006. 603. 32 . otherwise known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code. If the parents. or. who is not a habitual criminal. a local social welfare and development officer." Although the crime was committed on 13 April 1999 and Republic Act No. or if they refuse to take custody. the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to Presidential Decree No. If the child referred to herein has been found by the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned. a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC). or in the absence thereof. the child's nearest relative. While Raymund is exempt from criminal liability. Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the child. Republic Act No. or in the event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program. the child may be released to any of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization. This is based on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony. his civil liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6. as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code.

38. Rodel – Rodel was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. but always in the proper period. However.Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged. 6. which states: SEC. 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. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility -. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which 33 . Rodel knew. The CA could not have been more accurate when it opined that Rodel acted with discernment. together with his cohorts. warned Jovencio not to reveal their hideous act to anyone. the penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 but above 15 shall be the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor 2. otherwise. the sentence to be imposed against Rodel should be suspended pursuant to Section 38 of Republic Act No. Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.A child above 15 years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program. Rodel. A determination of whether he acted with or without discernment is necessary pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. unless he/she has acted with discernment. 9344. Automatic Suspension of Sentence-. that killing AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. 9344. they would kill him. viz: SEC. such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. in which case. therefore. He fully appreciated the consequences of his unlawful act.

the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence. 151085 August 20. without need of application. PEOPLE GR No. That the rape happened in 3 occasions. That the petitioner woke up AAA and led her in the sala and raped her. Luzviminda. the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. who was then 14 years old. instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction. The petition is DENIED. Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child. who was about 8 years old. In all the instances. ---------------------------------------------------------------------JOMAR ORTEGA V. was charged with the crime of rape for allegedly raping AAA. However. That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. however. The second occasion happened the next day when the petitioner led AAA into the bathroom and raped her there. Provided. petitioner warned AAA to not 34 . Joemar Ortega. when AAA’s mother left her in the care of the petitioner smother. 2008 FACTS: The petitioner. the first one happened sometime August 1999.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor may have resulted from the offense committed.

The third and last time happened in the house of AAA. a year later. he can be relieved from criminal liability.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor tell her parents or he will spank her. however. During the pendency of the case in the SC. the two families reached an amicable settlement that requires the petitioner to depart from their house and stay with a certain priest. Luzviminda then demanded that AAA should be brought to a doctor for examination. MMM testified that when she asked AAA what happened. Subsequently. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. the family of AAA charged the petitioner with 3 counts of rape. The Rural Health Officer. However. RA 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act was enacted that establishes a comprehensive system to manage children in conflict with the law. HELD: Yes 35 . where her brother caught her and the petitioner naked waist down and having intercourse. did not find any indication that AAA was molested. MMM called Luzviminda and confronted her about what happened. And when MMM examined the private part of her daughter. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can avail exempting circumstance provided by the newly enacted law on minors in conflict with law. she noticed that it was reddish and white fluid was coming out of it. in which the petitioner plead not guilty. The RTC ruled that the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of rape and is sentenced to reclusion temporal. The brother then told the incident to his mother. At the case at bar. because the petitioner was a minor under 15 years of age at the commission of the crime. AAA told her that petitioner inserted his fingers and penis into her vagina.

shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer. Petitioner is hereby referred to the local social welfare and development officer of the locality for the appropriate intervention program. The Court therefore held that the case against Joemar Ortega is hereby DISMISSED. 2009) FACTS: Robert was charged with a crime of rape against a minor allegedly committed on March and May 1997. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act provides that a child under 15 years of age in the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. and is therefore retroactive in application. October 9. He waited for AAA’s parents to leave the house before defiling the latter and threatening to kick her if she should shout for help. PEOPLE (GR 184874. but is subject to an intervention program.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor RATIO: The petitioner can avail the exempting circumstance that will relieve him from criminal liability because the law enacted was favorable to the accused. ---------------------------------------------------------------------REMIENDO V. however. He was a minor whose age is 36 . Section 64 of the newly enacted law also provides that cases of children under 15 years of age at the commission of the crime. Exemption from criminal liability. does not include exemption from civil liability.

thus exempting the petitioner. he was already 22 years old. HELD: NO. he was already 22 years old. 6 of RA 9344.A. 38 and 40 of RA 9344. Pursuant to Sec. being able to distinguish between right and wrong and knowing fully well the consequences of his acts. who is convicted by RTC & already 22 y/o before the case was elevated to CA. Pursuant to Sec. No. it is manifested that Robert acted with discernment. He was born on 37 . He was then convicted of rape but on appeal invoked a suspension of sentence pursuant to R. Culled from the records of this case. the suspension of sentence can no longer be availed since by the time his sentence was imposed by the trial court.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor above 15 but below 18 years old at the time of the crime. ISSUE: WON RA 9344 may be given retroactive effect. 9344. the finding of discernment is necessary to determine if he would be exempted from criminal liability. His act of waiting for the AAA’s parents to leave the house before defiling the latter and threatening to kick her if she should shout prove that Robert can differentiate what is right and wrong. By the time he was convicted by the trial court and before the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals. if a child is above 15 and below 18 years old.

The prosecution is burdened to discernment prove by that evidence the accused of physical acted with appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. but also after and during the trial. he was already 22 years old and could no longer be considered a child for the purposes of the application of R. Thus.A. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. at the time of the imposition of his sentence. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness. ACCIDENT PEOPLE V. No. 9344. Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. BANDIAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------US V.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor January 21.2004. HERMIE JACINTO ---------------------------------------------------------------------C. attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act. TANEDO 38 . 1982. The Joint Judgment was promulgated on October 27.

hitting his nape and right hand. AYAYA ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. appellant who was drunk and armed with an M-14 rifle. hitting his left leg. he was a member of the CAFGU and was on his way to the camp. March 11. The two victims died. According to him. FALLORINA ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLEV. He was told to come back. asked Reynaldo for a Christmas gift. while the victims Reynaldo Timbal and Jesus Bascon were loading firewood in a truck. He soon returned and fired his gun at Jesus’ feet.R. GENITA [G. suddenly 39 . Then he changed the magazine of his gun and fired again at Jesus. hitting his right leg. Appellant then went near the truck’s bumper and fired at the tire near the chassis. and so he did. when. this time. 126171. No. Reynaldo ran away but appellant chased him and fired at him. Appellant contended that the incident was a mere accident. 2004] FACTS: One night.

appellants manner of carrying 40 .Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor somebody grasped his neck. Appellants version that he accidentally shot the two victims is incredible. Considering the number of gunshot wounds. First. As a result. appellant has the burden of the evidence and it was incumbent upon him to establish that he was exempt from criminal liability. ISSUE: WON the appellant should be exempted from criminal liability given his contention that the incident was an accident. he accidentally pulled the trigger of the M-14 rifle slung on his shoulder. Accident is an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. the shooting could not have been an accident. it is clear that the requisites of accident as an exempting circumstance were not proven. Considering appellants evidence. and 3) he had no fault or intention of causing the injury. which automatically fired. Montealto who placed the camp on alert. HELD: NO. It must be stressed that in raising this defense. Immediately he rushed to the camp and reported the incident to Sgt. 2) the injury caused was by a mere accident.[9] He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1) he was performing a lawful act with due care.

Knowing that his rifle was automatic. That appellant chased the victims and shot them several times clearly show 41 . Jesus had already sought refuge by jumping into the truck when another bullet hit his right leg. [10] For one. he never presented his trainer to corroborate his statement. he admitted that his finger was constantly on the trigger. Worse. appellant manifested an unmistakable intent to kill the victims when he re loaded his rifle after his first unsuccessful attempt to kill them. While it could have been possible that the first wound sustained by both victims was by accident. Reynaldo was already running away when he was shot on his nape and right hand. Second. And third. and for another. how can we conclude that he acted with due care? We cannot accept his version that he was just following his trainers instruction to release the safety lock while in a critical area. With the safety lock released and his finger on the trigger.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor his M-14 rifle negates his claim of due care in the performance of an act. Both that the victims shooting sustained was not more merely than one wound. the subsequent wounds sustained by them in different parts of their bodies could not have been similarly inflicted. the number of wounds sustained by the victims shows accidental. he was not in a critical area. however. he should have seen to it that its safety lock was intact.

Moreover. No. Dejectedly. CASTILLO (G. an indication that it is fabricated. and then threw the electric fan away.R. The accused kicked the door and table. And not a single witness corroborated his version of accidental shooting. 172695. 1993. PEOPLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. if it were true that someone attacked appellant. J. thus causing him to accidentally pull the trigger of his rifle. the accused came home drunk and was in an angry mood. he did not present any evidence to support his allegation that the CAFGU was placed on alert. He was prevailed upon by Guillermo to take a rest. he rushed towards the camp.: Facts: Guillermo Antiporta. then his natural reaction should have been to defend himself. Guillermo transferred to the adjacent house of his 42 .Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor that he had the intent to kill them. father of the victim. Furthermore. narrated in Court that in the evening of November 5. 2007) YNARES-SANTIAGO. Instead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------AMPLOYO V. between 9:00 o’clock to 10:00 o’clock. [11] His defense must necessarily fail. June 29. But the accused did not heed the advice of Guillermo as he took instead his sling and arrow from the house ceiling where he was keeping them.

He then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The accused’s omission to surrender himself to the authorities is a clear indication of guilt. the accused stayed outside the hospital premises. the infliction of the fatal injury upon Consorcia was preceded by a quarrel between her and the accused. and lends credence to the prosecution’s contention that the shooting was intentional. he sounded remorseful. To sustain the accused’s assertion that he was practicing the use of said weapon at the time of the incident is patently absurd. then he disappeared. From there. Guillermo. 43 . Guillermo concernedly ordered Yolanda to see what was happening inside the house of Consorcia. Guillermo heard the victim crying and. It might be true that the accused was one of those who rushed the victim to the hospital and while on the way. Yolanda met the accused carrying the bloodied body of Consorcia. the accused. and Yolanda brought Consorcia to the hospital but to no avail.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor daughter in-law Yolanda. But Guillermo Antiporta further testified that while the victim was being attended to by the medical personnel of said hospital. He was later on apprehended by police authorities while hiding inside the comfort room of a premises in an adjoining barangay. shouting at the accused. and Yolanda obeyed. This spat negated the accused’s version that he was practicing the use of the weapon when Consorcia was hit by the arrow. afterwards. From all the circumstances gathered. On her way. The defense even failed to rebut Guillermo Antiporta’s testimony that the accused was keeping said sling and arrow inside his house. The trial court found Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE: WoN the exempting circumstance of accident is attendant in this case HELD: NO. provides: ART. the appeal to the Supreme Court. while performing a lawful act with due care.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor alleging that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. are: 1. The essential requisites for this exempting circumstance. 2. – The following are exempt from criminal liability: 4. causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.21 The defense miserably failed to discharge its burden of proof. hence. the same was accidental and not intentional. the exempting circumstance of accident is not applicable in the instant case. Article 12. Any person who. "Accident" is an affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to prove. Among the appellant’s contention in the appeal is that if indeed he was the one who killed his wife. 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. 12. with clear and convincing evidence. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. A person is performing a lawful act. par. With due care. however the CA denied appellant’s appeal and affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court. 44 .

To sustain the accused’s assertion that he was practicing the use of said weapon at the time of the incident is patently absurd. by claiming appellant has that the the killing burden of was by proof of establishing the presence of any circumstance which may relieve him of responsibility. The defense even failed to rebut Guillermo Antiporta’s testimony that the accused was keeping said sling and arrow inside his house. Let it be stressed that this crude weapon cannot attain the standards as an instrument for archery competitions. and to prove justification he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. mere possession of sling and arrow is punishable under the law. upon other persons. appellant’s defense of accident must be struck down because he was performing an unlawful act during the incident.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor 3. mostly fatal. In penalizing the act. 4. on this ground alone.24 Other than his claim that the killing was accidental. for even if this be weak. but to inflict injury. As correctly found by the trial court: Furthermore. accident. Furthermore. Without fault or intention of causing it. By no stretch of imagination could playing with or using a deadly sling and arrow be considered as performing a "lawful act. it can not be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing. the legislator took into consideration that the deadly weapon was used for no legal purpose. appellant failed to adduce any evidence to prove the same. He causes an injury to another by mere accident." Thus. 45 .

Amado professed his love for her which was 46 . MORENO ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE 13 . NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE (C. 384 February 21.MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE A. 1946) FACTS: started Amado Capina is Avelina’s admired.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. LATOSA ---------------------------------------------------------------------D. ABRAZALDO ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. No. when he snatched Avelina’s It all handkerchief bearing her nickname while it was washed by her cousin.A. Later. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR PEOPLE V. PRAETER INTENTIONEM PEOPLE V.

they learned that Amado had been falsely boasting in the neighbourhood of having taken liberties with her person. Avelina Jaurigue and her father went to the chapel of Seventh Day Adventists. Amado climbed up the house of Avelina and entered the room where she was sleeping. slapped She armed herself with a long fan knife whenever she went out. and without saying a word. Later. Nicolas. She appealed to completely absolve her of all criminal responsibility 47 . and thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and touched her breasts. He died in a few minutes. Few days after.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor refused. placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. One night. She then him. Amado seized her right hand but she quickly grabbed the knife on her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck inflicting upon him a mortal wound (4 ½ in deep). Amado came out from where he had hidden and kissed the hand of Avelina’s father. She felt her forehead and she immediately screamed for help which awakened her parents and brought them to her side. Amado went and sat by Avelina’s right side. gave him fist blows and kicked him. This prompted her to pull out the fan knife with the intention of punishing Amado’s offending hand. Avelina was found guilty of homicide.

and agreed to go to her house shortly thereafter and to remain there subject to the order of the said barrio lieutenant. immediately after the incident. Mitigating circumstances are considered in her favour. and upon such provocation as to produce passion and 48 . which produced self-control of the defendant and lack of intent to kill the deceased evidenced by infliction of only one single wound. to find in her favour additional mitigating circumstances and omit aggravating circumstance. an agent of the authorities. presence of provocation and absence of intent in her favour. admitting having stabbed the deceased. ISSUES: WON should mitigating circumstances find of the additional voluntary surrender. and the further fact that she had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her a few moments before.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor for having acted in defense of her honor. The defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to the barrio lieutenant in said chapel. Circumstances include her voluntary and unconditional provocation temporary surrender from loss the to the barrio deceased of reason and lieutenant. HELD: YES.

as shown by the fact that she inflicted upon him only one single wound.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor obfuscation. should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor. And this is another mitigating circumstance which should be considered in her favor. VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE AS V. Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not intended to kill the deceased but merely wanted to punish his offending hand with her knife. DAVID ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 . IGNAS ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. or temporary loss of reason and self-control. ---------------------------------------------------------------------B. AMPAR ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. BENITO ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V.

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION US V. ABOLIDOR ET. RABAO ---------------------------------------------------------------------D. DAWATON ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. VIERNES ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V.Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor C. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------US V. HICKS ---------------------------------------------------------------------SANICO V. DELA CRUZ ---------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. AL 50 . VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE V.

Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor 51 .