You are on page 1of 65

Criminal Law Review- Midterm Consolidated Cases there is no doubt that Petrus is liable as principal of the crime of

kidnapping for ransom. Susana, on the other hand, is liable only as an
accomplice to the crime as correctly found by the lower courts. It must be
emphasized that there was no evidence indubitably proving that Susana
PEOPLE v PETRUS YAU AND SUSANA YAU y SUMOGBA; G.R. No. participated in the decision to commit the criminal act.
208170; August 20, 2014
Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements required, in accordance with
Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person may be considered an
accomplice, namely;
I. The elements of Kidnapping For Ransom under Article 267 of the
RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, are as follows: (1) that there be a community of design; that is, knowing the
criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he
(a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his concurs with the latter in his purpose;
(2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous or
(b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or
moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious
(c) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom for the release way; and
of the victim.
(3) that there be a relation between the acts done by the
All of the foregoing elements were duly established by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as
testimonial and documentary evidences for the prosecution in the case at accomplice.
bench. First, Petrus is a private individual. Second, Petrus kidnapped
Alastair by using sleeping substance which rendered the latter unconscious In the case at bench, Susana knew of the criminal design of her husband,
while inside a taxicab driven by the said accused-appellant. Third, Petrus Petrus, but she kept quiet and never reported the incident to the police
took and detained Alastair inside the house owned by him and Susana Yau authorities. Instead, she stayed with Petrus inside the house and gave food
in Bacoor, Cavite, where said victim was handcuffed and chained, and to the victim or accompanied her husband when he brought food to the
hence, deprived of his liberty. Fourth, Alastair was taken against his will. victim. Susana not only countenanced Petrus’ illegal act, but also supplied
And fifth, Petrus made demands for the delivery of a ransom in the amount him with material and moral aid. It has been held that being present and
of US$600,000.00 for the release of the victim. giving moral support when a crime is being committed make a person
responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed. As keenly observed
II. Criminal liability of each accused-appellant; As a Principal; As an by the RTC, the act of giving food by Susana to the victim was not essential
Accomplice and indispensable for the perpetration of the crime of kidnapping for
ransom but merely an expression of sympathy or feeling of support to her
husband. Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling in People v. De
Vera, where it was stressed that in case of doubt, the participation of the

offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a driver was asked to scroll down his window and was told that the
principal. vehicle was being used to victimize foreign nationals. Appellant
did not offer to make any comment. Hence, this prompted the
III. Penalty officers to ask for his name and since he answered that he was
Petrus Yau, a British national, they asked him for his driver’s
With respect to the penalty, the Court finds that the RTC was correct in license and car registration but appellant was not able to produce
imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole any. Since he could not produce any driver’s license and car
against Petrus as principal in the charge of kidnapping for ransom in view registration, they were supposed to bring him to the police station
of R.A. No. 9346, prohibiting the death penalty. Also, the Court finds that for investigation, however, when shown a picture of private
the penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as complainant and asked if he knew him, he answered that the man
minimum, to twelve (12) years and ten (10) months of reclusion is being kept in his house. He was immediately informed that he
temporal, as maximum, meted out against Susana, an accomplice, to be was being placed under arrest for kidnapping private complainant
proper. Alastair Onglingswam after being informed of his constitutional
rights. rescue operations of the victim proceeded thereafter;
The entire amount of the civil liabilities should be apportioned among all
those who cooperated in the commission of the crime according to the 4. When the police proceeded inside the house they found a man
degrees of their liability, respective responsibilities and actual participation. sitting on the floor chained and handcuffed. The man later
Accordingly, Petrus should shoulder a greater share in the total amount of identified himself as Alastair Onglingswam;
damages than Susana who was adjudged only as an accomplice. (People v.
Montesclaros) 5. RTC finds them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and rejected the
twin defenses of alibi and frame-up submitted by Petrus and
FACTS: Susana because the same were unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence
1. Petrus and Susana were charged with the crime of Kidnapping For
Ransom of private complainant Alastair Onglingswam, who was 6. The CA affirmed the conviction of Petrus and Susana, Hence this
put into sleep while riding a taxi (White Toyota taxi cab with plate assignment of errors.
number PVD-115) bound to San Juan, Manila. Subsequently, Chau
(Alastair girlfriend) received an email from the purported
kidnapper demanding US$2,000.00;
2. During twenty-two (22) days of captivity, he was allowed to
communicate with his family almost daily to prove that he was still  The focus of this case is the degree of responsibility of each
alive and was served with meals almost five times a day either by accused-appellant for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
Petrus or the other accused Susan Yau;
Case no. 2
3. The police were able to chance upon the said vehicle. they People of the Philippines v. Gonzales
followed it, then flagged it down and approached the driver. The 183 SSCRA 309, March 19, 1990

-Sixteen wounds: five fatal as they penetrated the
Doctrine: The commission of a felony under Art. 3 of the Revised Penal internal organs
Code requires that an act a punishable act or omission must be committed, -Multiple puncture, stab, incision, and lacerated
and that it must be committed with deceit and/or fault. wounds
-The day after the autopsy, Augusto appeared before the sub-
station and voluntarily surrendered to Police Corporal Sazon for
FACTS: detention and protective custody for having been involved in the
killing of the deceased. Augusto requests to be taken to where
The appellant is appealing to the court regarding his participation Fausta was already detained.
in the killing of a certain Loly Penacerrada. He claims that he did not
participate in the killing based on the claim that he was not present in the Based on the investigations conducted, an information for murder
said act. dated August 26, 1981, was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo against
the spouses. However, they pleaded ‘not guilty.’ Before the trial, however, a
The antecedent facts are as follows: certain Jose Huntoria presented himself to the wife of the deceased.
Huntoria claims to be a witness of the killing, and on October 6, 1981,
At around 9:00 p.m. of February 21, 1981, Bartolome Paja, volunteers as a witness for the prosecution. A reinvestigation of the case
barangay captain of Brgy. Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened by was called, in which several more were filed as accused, including the
two of the accused. Paja learns that Fausta killed their landlord, appellant. All the accused except for Lenida pleaded not guilty
Lloyd Penacerrada, and would like to surrender to authorities.
Knife used in killing was seen, and blood was found smeared on At the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Jesus Rojas, the
Fausta’s dress. physician who conducted the autopsy on the body, Paja, the patrolmen and
constabulary members who joined in the investigation, the widow, and
-Paja immediately ordered a nephew to take spouses to the police Huntoria.
at the Municipal Hall in Poblacon, Ajay, where the couple
informed the police on duty of the incident. Dr. Rojas testified that he performed the autopsy at around 11:20
a.m. on Feb. 1981 after the deceased was taken to the municipal hall. He
-Several patrolmen, along with Paja and Augusto proceeded to the found 4 puncture wounds, 7 stab wounds, 4 incisions, and1 laceration; five
residence at Sitio Nabitasan where the killing incident allegedly of these were fatal wounds. Rojas admitted one of two possibilities:-
occurred, and found the body of the deceased, clad in underwear,
sprawled face down inside the bedroom. -Only one weapon might have caused all the wounds-
-Multiple instruments were used due to the number and
-Group stayed for an hour in which the scene was inspected, and a different characteristics
rough sketch of the area was made.

-The next day, a patrolman, accompanied by a photographer, went The substance of the prosecution’s case rested on Huntoria’s
back to the scene for further investigations. Fausta was brought alleged eyewitness account of theincident, which was as follows:
back to the police station.
-Testified on July 27, 1982; at 5 pm on Feb. 21, 1981, he
-The autopsy of the deceased was performed at 11:20 a.m. Report left his work at Brgy. Central, and walked home, taking a
shows the following: short-cut.

and rejected defense of alibi. felony of murder. he hid himself behind a NO. the appellant contended that the trial court erred in convicting him on the basis of the testimony of the lone On the criminal liability of the appellant: witness. Except Fausta who admitted killing the deceased as he was trying to rape her. who claimed that Gonzales surrendered to him. Huntoria’s claims in his testimony did scene of the crime. in the cross-examination. Fausta’s related to her what he saw admission that she was the only killer is plausible. hence the appeal -Furthermore. the accused lifted of the incident his body and carried it to the house. Upon reaching his house. The Court found no -There is nothing in the findings or the evidence that establishes merit in the errors. Furthermore. the . he heard cries for help. Sazon -Eight months after the incident. The appellant claimed -Huntoria’s testimony. state clearly the reason for the surrender. On appeal to the Court of Appeals. which will be discussed later. However. the prosecution’s version. under the evidence presented. there is nothing in the findings or evidence that inculpates him by inducement. and upgraded the penalty to under Art. and in not appreciating his defense of alibi. needs to be examined further. that of murder —reclusion temporal/death. Curiosity prompted him to approach the place where the shouts were from. 1981. and he knew of the crime only when his grandchildren not exactly match with those from his cross-examination. the rest denied participation in the crime. failed to his wife and mother before going to sleep. The case is now brought upon certification by the Court of Appeals. in moonlight.” This implies that he may not have recognized anyone The trial court disregarded the version of the defense. and saw all the accused ganging upon the deceased near a threshing platform. there were only five fatal wounds. 17. Based ISSUE: on the definition of felonies in Art. as it did not effectively indicate the extent of the blood stains in the scenes of crime. HELD: -15-20 m away from the scene. Out of his own volition. he “only saw flashes. deceased. and -Rojas’ statement showed two possibilities for the killing. He first claimed went to his house that night that he recognized the people involved. para. he travelled to the widow’s house. Huntoria then left home. Centeno gave clearly recognized all the accused as the place was awash the date of commission as March 21. has committed the home at around 8:00 pm. The sketch made was troubling. of which the prosecution’s argument solely that he was asleep in his house which was one kilometer away from the rests. bothered by his also admitted that Augusto never mentioned to him the participation of conscience and the fact that his father was a tenant of the other persons in the killing. under paragraph 2 of the same article. he thought of helping the widow. It may even be possible that Augusto surrendered just so he could be safe from the victim’s kin. 1 of the Revised PenalCode. it believed at all. He said he -Investigation conducted left much to be desired. -While passing at the vicinity of the Gonzales spouses’ Whether or not the client. This would have added a lot of weight to any one of the versions -After stabbing and hacking the victim. Worsening this is that the the criminal liability of the appellant as a principal for direct participation appellate court found the sentence erroneous. he related what he saw to -Sazon. Court’s analysis of the evidence: clump of banana trees. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the lone witness:. where the consequences of a mistake are necessarily so serious. However. Recall that the aging parents are usually sheltered and insulated from possible harm. it weakens the arguments against the appellant. No. DOCTRINE: There can be no conviction under the Penal Code where by reason of a mistake of fact the intention to commit the crime does not exist. for the appellant to be in the scene of the crime. He stated that he does not know who participation of the appellant is not clear. and given that there is no evidence that the appellant caused any G. the mother of Gonzales informed her that her son was dead and she believed Finally. it may be considered.1900. Gonzales landlords to their favor. Appellant acquitted -Furthermore. the fact that there were five stab wounds and six CASE No. he would still . they would do everything to get the July 12. He claims that he govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is to feared for his life.- After some time. based on Philippine customs and traditions. how many people actually took part in the killing). circumstances. In a matter so important to the good order of society as that in threatened.prosecution’s evidence could not establish intent nor fault. way to do this. and it was unlikely for the appellant to -An act or omission offer his services as they were more or less enough to handle what could -Act or omission must be punishable have been a perceived enemy. coupled with the prosecution’s failure to prove the presence of conspiracy (that is.S. He came out eight months after the killing. with Gonzales living elsewhere while -Under our socioeconomic set-up. Posing as a witness would have been a convenient filed for a case of bigamy against his wife. she testified that she honestly believed that her husband was 1981. Gonzales testified that after he left their house. thus implying that he does not know what the the evidence on record. vs. nothing less than the highest degree of diligence will satisfy the standard 2. As such. the two separated. He admitted prescribed by the law. the essential elements of felonies may not even be present. 4 accused would imply tha one of them may not have caused a grave wound (especially given the statement of the physician). but there was no proof that he was being perform. it is unlikely this to be true. He is not exactly a disinterested/neutral witness. It is elements of felonies include: improbable for the accused to bring their aging father when they were clearly in better shape than he was. 1902 of the wounds. nor was the length of time reasonable given the question. Delos Reyes remarried to Ramon Martinez. As witness. Decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. appellant did. a tenant owes the source of his Delos Reyes stayed at their home where Gonzales’ mother also lived. especially as he ceased to be employed as early as May As her defense. That sometime after they separated. to being a tenant of the deceased. Thus. and stated that one of the FACTS: reasons why he testified was because the victim was his Julian Gonzales and Accused Tomasa Delos Reyes were married in 1897. in cases like this where the omissions done by the appellant. Huntoria’s credibility as a witness is tarnished by two points: the diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to 1. as under our family culture. On livelihood from his landlord.R. DELOS REYES appellant. With this. it may be sufficient for an acquittal. landlord. In light of hacked or stabbed the victim. 504 – September 16. dead when she married Martinez. This may have been the U. -Act is performed or omission incurred by deceit or fault -The lone witness could not properly establish any acts or Although alibi is a weak defense.

fearing Acquittal for bigamy was proper. himself In the absence of evidence to the contrary. was employed as a cook at “Officers’ quarters. On the night. the law presumes that every If the victim was really a robber. The Court acquits Ah Chong. 3.S. with freedom. should be adjudged or held 3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired. however.” He was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair and he thought that the blow had been inflicted by the person who had forced the door open. 1. he would have been murder in the case at bar.Deliberate intent was his roommate. 12. may be the knife would have been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such overthrown by other factors. 488) defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who. Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose 2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the between good and evil. and one of these is insanity which exempts the aggression. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow. there would have been unlawful aggression. whom he supposed to be a burglar. Doctrines and Decision: Requisites (Honest Mistake of Fact): The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him. there would have been presumption under our law is that freedom and intelligence constitute the a necessity on the part of Ah Chong to defend himself and/or his home and normal condition of a person. 568 (Old Penal Code: reckless imprudence) you enter the room. The act done by Ah Chong was merely an act done due to Honest Mistake ART. Doctrine/Topic: Art. I will kill you. the defendant.i.Mistake of fact ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong may be held criminally responsible for Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be. the requisites must be present. however. The roommate eventually died. intelligence and intent. Ah Chong (15 Phil.. the basis of criminal liability is human free will. (Dolo) . actor from criminal liability. Ah Chong. Art XI of the Revised Penal Code People v Estrada (RPC) provides that in order for the act to be justified. was suddenly awakened by some trying to force open the door of the room. Par. When he commits a felonious or criminal act (delito unlawful aggression doloso). accused should be convicted that the intruder was a robber or a thief. Under the classical theory on which our 1) Unlawful agression on the part of the victim penal code is mainly based. The moral and legal Chong. leaped to his feet and called out: “If under Art. therefore. “Who is there?” He heard no answer and was Was acquittal of the accused for the crime of bigamy proper? – YES convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by RULING: someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. who had received for the night. vs.The of Fact. a few days before the trial of this case.visit his relatives who were left living in their house almost every day until The defendant. the U. it afterwards turned out. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. Mental element (Mens rea) . He sat up in ISSUE: bed and called out twice. forcing his way into the room of Ah person is of sound mind and that all acts are voluntary. following are exempt from criminal liability: FACTS: . justified in killing the intrude. the act is presumed to have been done voluntarily.e. Man. The defendant. This presumption.

Once a medical or absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. wilfully. An acquittal of the accused does not result in his appellant but by the trial court because of his refusal to plead. He must be deprived of and more comprehensive diagnosis of his mental condition than laymen can reason and act without the least discernment because there is a complete make through observation of his overt behavior. unlawfully and (b) x x x. Rule 116 speaks of an unsound mental condition that effectively renders [the accused] unable to An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he has acted fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. order such confinement and appellant could not properly and intelligently enter a plea because he was examination. he shall be acquitted but the court shall understand the charge against him. Stab Wound as per Autopsy Report and to render him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead Certificate of Death. unless the latter has acted at the time he is informed at the arraignment of the nature and cause of the during a lucid interval. (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental Facts: condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand That on or about the 27th day of December 1994 in the City of Dagupan. stand trial and assist in his defense. filed intelligently thereto. but rather in a verdict which is followed by commitment of the accused to a mental institution. being then armed with a butchers case.The arraignment shall be suspended. did then and there. 1. It during a lucid interval. the accuseds abilities may be at the time thereof: measured against the specific demands a trial will make upon him. Section 12. hitting him on vital parts of his body with the said weapon. and understanding it is In the eyes of the law. The human mind is an entity. then can the legal question of incompetency Sec. the accused. outright release. the court shall order his mental examination and. appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition of such nature as Massive Intrathoracic Hemorrhage. and if Psychiatric Ward at Baguio General Hospital. Section 12. defines as a felony (delito). The arraignment of an accused shall be suspended if at the time thereof he thereby causing his death shortly thereafter due to Cardiorespiratory Arrest. he . that before the commission of the crime. which he The fact that accused-appellant was able to answer the questions asked by shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the the trial court is not conclusive evidence that he was competent enough to same court. If the accused is not in full possession of his mental faculties suffering from a mental defect. Mere abnormality of the mental emotional and psychological appreciation. The plea of not guilty was not made by accused- released without danger. At the arraignment. knife. attack. Under these circumstances. Suspension of arraignment. psychiatric diagnosis is made. the process is itself a felo de se. By this time. if be determined by the trial court. with intent to kill one Rogelio Mararac with treachery and committed his confinement for such purpose. the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted. An imbecile or an insane person. 12. the court must suspend the an Urgent Motion to Suspend Arraignment and to Commit Accused to proceedings and order the mental examination of the accused. accused-appellants counsel. insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation not purely an intellectual process but depends to a large degree upon of intelligence in committing the act.Thus. an intelligent determination faculties will not exclude imputability. criminally. accusation against him. It was alleged that accused- confinement be necessary for examination. the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. in a holy place of worship. It is also not certain whether his plea order his confinement in a hospital or asylum for treatment until he may be was made intelligently. Roberto Estrada. In such Philippines. If the court therefore finds the accused insane when is not clear whether accused-appellant was of such sound mind as to fully the alleged crime was committed. for he can neither comprehend the full import of the charge nor can he give an intelligent plea When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law thereto. if necessary. The accused must be so insane as to of an accuseds capacity for rational understanding ought to rest on a deeper be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent. assault and use personal violence upon the latter by stabbing him. Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure speaks of a mental examination.

would only serve to grams of dried marijuana leaves. either of these crimes. she has already served five and a half years of her life and postpone the trial for a case against him. the penalty is reduced to a range of prision Article 14 – Aggravating Circumstances correccional to reclusion perpetua and that where the marijuana is less than 250 grams. filed. She argues that the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the Whether the judge through intelligent questions can validly determine the trial court is excessive considering that the marijuana allegedly taken from mental capacity of a person in determining whether to continue with the her was only 5. there penalized under the Revised Penal Code and to increase the penalty for being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances illegal possession of firearm where such a firearm is used in killing a person. 1996 less than 750 grams. ISSUE: After having served five and a half years of her life sentence. the penalty imposable The unequivocal intent of the second paragraph of Section 1 of P. Although her penalty of life imprisonment aggravate the offense of illegal possession of firearm and would not had already become final.A 6425. inter alia.5 grams of prohibited drugs. sentence. as the case may be.D. No. July 24. NO 125672 Septmeber 27. trial and with his liability in a criminal case.R. dried marijuana leaves -.e. Petitioner alleges that. 7659 should be extended to petitioner. The motion was FACTS: opposed by the City Prosecutor. presently confined at the Correctional several questions on accused-appellant. Finding that the questions were understood and answered by him intelligently. may JESUSA CRUZ VS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN petitioner -.who was convicted of selling 5. Nos.R. which took effect on December 13.was confined at the psychiatric ward of the Baguio General Hospital in Baguio City. in such The petitioner should now be deemed to have served the maximum a way that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of homicide period imposable for the crime for which she was convicted. the penalty to be imposed shall be prision correccional. selling now entitled to the beneficent penalty G. partly modified the penalties prescribed by R. the present petition for habeas corpus. as of the date of filing of her herein Whether or not insanity of a person can exempt him from criminal liability petition. pro tanto. i.A. applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. where the quantity of prohibited drugs involved is People of the Philippines v. 1993.A. Indeed. IN MANDALUYONG namely.. the beneficial effects of the amendment provided anymore be separately punished. Issue: Article II of R. is further reduced to any period within arresto mayor. 1996 provisions of R.5 grams or less than 750 grams. to 1866 is to respect and preserve homicide or murder as a distinct offense the medium period of prision correccional as the maximum term. 7659 and be now released from imprisonment? RA 7659. that is. the court denied the motion Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City serving the penalty of life that same day. The trial court. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of Case #7 1972). Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code. through her counsel. propounded Petitoner Jesusa Cruz. as minimum term.5 or murder. are palpably clear to exclude any suggestion that either of the crimes of . Ruling: Moreover. the words of the subject provision under R. Daniel Quijada G. imprisonment imposed upon her as a consequence of her conviction which became final and executory last March 1. motu proprio. He prayed for the suspension of his arraignment and the issuance of an order confining him at the said hospital. 115008-09. 1993 for violation of Section 4. Its clear language yields no intention of the lawmaker to repeal or modify.

as crimes mala in se under the Revised Penal Code.. as maximum. murder under Article 248 of to death. did then and there willfully. and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion destroying human life or committing some other perpetua for the first crime and an indeterminate penalty ranging from crime. 1866 that manifests. murder.In the performance of a Public defeat the clear intent to preserve the law on homicide and murder and Duty impose a higher penalty for illegal possession of firearm if such firearm is AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE . Philippines. Night time. in the municipality of Dauis. without first obtaining the necessary permit or the penalty for illegal possession of firearm and not the penalty for license to possess the said firearm from competent authorities which firearm homicide or murder. to absolve having harbored a grudge against the victim a week prior to the incident of the accused from any criminal liability for the death of the victim. as minimum.homicide and murder. Taking Advantage of Public Position MOTIVE . Under an information charging homicide or murder. with treachery and abuse of superior strength. the accused.Mistake in the Identity . with intent to kill and without killing a person. used in the commission of homicide or murder. committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. death. suddenly attacked the victim without giving the latter the accused's manifest arrogant defiance and contempt of the law in using an opportunity to defend himself. the fact that the death weapon was an Accused-appellant Daniel Quijada now appeals from the decision of the unlicensed firearm cannot be used to increase the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol convicting him of the two offenses penalty for the second offense of homicide or murder separately charged in two informations. 1866. No. to twenty years circumstances set out in Article 14 of the Revised and one day. and with evident premeditation. is Facts: obliterated as such and reduced as a mere aggravating circumstance in On or about the 30th day of December. is not included in the inventory of aggravating seventeen years. there is nothing in P. unlawfully and feloniously attack. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the deceased. illegal possession of firearm whenever the unlicensed firearm is used in province of Bohol.Needed to prove Circumstantial Evidence ABERATTIO ICTUS . i. and one day.38 cal. Neither is the second paragraph of Section 1 meant to punish homicide or assault and shoot Diosdado Iroy y Nesnea with the use of the said firearm.reclusion temporal in its accused being then armed with a . Penal Code. The essential point is that the unlicensed the Revised Penal Code and illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated character or condition of the instrument used in form under P. custody and control a firearm because the term "penalty" in the subject provision is obviously meant to be (hand gun) with ammunition. the prescribed in the first paragraph of Section 1 -. Issue: In short. The only purpose of the provision is to increase the penalty any justifiable motive. We explicitly stated in Tac-an: was carried by the said accused outside of his residence and was used by There is no law which renders the use of an unlicensed him in committing the crime of Murder with Diosdado Iroy y Nesnea as the firearm as an aggravating circumstance in homicide or victim. to consider such use merely as a qualifying circumstance and his death. while the victim was maximum period to reclusion perpetua -. seemingly because of the unarmed. murder with death if either crime is committed with the use of an unlicensed hitting the latter on his head and causing serious injuries which resulted to firearm. No. the accused unlicensed weapon to kill another.Evident Premeditation. revolver. murder. a Whether or not the RTC is correct in convicting the accused of two separate legislative intent to decriminalize homicide or murder if either crime is crimes. four months. Unlawful Aggression.. viz. but never. so illegally possessed is used in the commission of homicide or murder. To charge the lawmaker with that intent is to impute an absurdity that would JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE . at the same time. or to convert the offense of illegal possession of firearm as a qualifying circumstance if the firearm People v. Pinto Jr.D.e. That could not have been the intention of the lawmaker accused carried and had in his possession.D. for the second crime. even vaguely. That the not as an offense.

ammunition of a garand rifle. searching party left for headquarters (1) shoot one Rosalio Andes. they "chanced upon a house" wherein Bello and his group were staying. From the kitchen. Mr. CONSPIRACY . Inocencia went near the pili tree where Rosalio's body was. knelt intentions" or hold-uppers. Just then a man. Mrs. Zenaida Stilianopolous Tiongson. crouching near the stairs one PC Romero heard rumbling of a jeep. II ================================= Buenaflor and Pinto were charged: without any justifiable cause or motive. On the jeep which passed by the deployed policemen were Fr. 30 owned respectively by Thereafter. and Mrs. were patrolling the area. fearing that there might be "people with bad was dead. his team member running towards Inocencia was about to rush to Bello. Inocencia did not notice any weapon near Rosalio's body After the shooting incident.Acting in concert captives he saw a man with a bolo in his hand running towards him. man answered that Rosalio fought back. Anduiza. inflicting upon him gunshot wounds Team 3 was instrued by a "superior officer" "to remain and maintain peace causing upon said Rosalio Andes serious and mortal wounds which led to and order in (the) vicinity including Mariawa". were not around. Capellan told the driver to go faster. III ================================= ================================= Pt. Fr. Sub-Machine Gun and a US Carbin Inland. As the man was menacingly near him. identified as Buenaflor. ammunition of a carbine. pointed a gun at Inocencia and her husband and told them to lay flat on the floor. I ================================= Inocencia's husband was about to offer Bello a cup of coffee when she heard a successive burst of gunfire. Although Bello and his parents. Pinto shot the man later identified as ================================= Rosalio Andes when he was at a distance of around three meters Pt. when man. he told Inocencia that Rosalio driver returning from mass. Inocencia rushed to the door from where she saw automatic pistols a man holding a long firearm. However. a thompson submachinegun and two gunfire. by means of a Cal. police searched the area and found a Japanese Springfield rifle. gradually fell to Francisco Bello on the ground that the police had probable cause that Bello the floor with his hands above his head. Then there was another burst of illegally possessed a garand rifle. the Chief of Police declared the search terminated and the entire said accused. the police pursued the mission searching the premises. and another 1 of 3 teams were walking on the Mariawa road toward the premises.23y/o. Cal. Bello. at around midnight. ================================= Pt. her six children and the When Francisco Andes went up the house. live ammunition for a .38 caliber with treachery and evident premeditation. Felix Cappellan. the with intent to kill. whom Inocencia the same. who was the balcony facing the Search warrant was issued for inspecting the house and premises of copra kiln ("agonan") with his back towards the pili tree. heard gunshots and saw flashes of light from the direction of Buenaflor. The were fired at the jeep. whom she later identified as Pinto. Shots down and asked the man with a long firearm why he killed Rosalio. came up the house. While he and Buenaflor his instantaneous death. 45 Thompson pistol and 380 bullets for an automatic pistol. also holding a gun. near the pili tree which was around eight meters from where Bello was. They captured four of Bello's bodyguards and tied them to a pili tree with the torn shirt of one of the .

Aberratio ictus or of their lives. no such effort was made in securing warrant of arrest for Bello's alleged frustrated killing of Botin (3) another for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson.(2) one for the murder of Richard Tiongson. ================================= Such motive provided a circumstantial evidence leading to the inference RULING that indeed he fired his gun ================================= All these pieces of circumstantial evidence point to no other inference than (1) Originally set out to perform a legal duty: the service of a search warrant that Pinto and Buenaflor fired their guns in defiance of their superior on Bello. In the process. we have to stamp full credibility on his statement alone. however. the present as Aggravating Circumstances? appellants acted obviously in the belief that Bello was its passenger and (3) Is the defense of unlawful aggression tenable? posthaste they fired upon it even without any inquiry as to the identity of its (4) Is the defense of mistake in the identity of those who were shot in the passengers jeep tenable? Buenaflor's motive for wanting to do away with Bello has been established. public position (4) On the jeep coming towards them was owned by the Anduizas. Richard was operated at the hospital but he died against Bello even on Christmas day which was supposed to be a holiday. Armed with only a search warrant and the oral order to apprehend Bello. Even Buenaflor admitted that he did not see Rosalio Andes (1) Is the defense of fulfillment of a duty under Article 11(5) of the RPC attack Pinto. Neither may the fact that the accused made a justification becomes an incomplete one thereby converting it into a mistake in killing one man instead of another be considered a mitigating mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the same Code circumstance . 9y/o. suffering a hemorrage. case but we find that the appellants indeed took advantage of their public position in perpetrating the crime. In the absence of the second requisite. mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim. (2) On Killing Bello and Andres: (4) Bello died because of "shock secondary to massive hemorrhage due to Evident premeditation has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt in this multiple gunshot wounds. sustained a gunshot The police had obtained a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms wound at the back. ================================= ISSUES (3) As regards the unlawful aggression of Rosalio Andes against Pinto. The main reason behind this The defense has to prove that these two requisites are present: (a) the conclusion is the fact that the accused had acted with such a disregard for offender acted in the performance of a duty and (b) the injury or offense the life of the victim(s) — without checking carefully the latter's identity as committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful to place himself on the same legal plane as one who kills another willfully. the unlawfully and feloniously. they went The fact that the victims were different from the ones the appellants beyond the ambit of their mission and deprived Bello and two other persons intended to injure cannot save them from conviction. appellants abused their authority officer's order only "to find the whereabouts" of Bello resulting in unauthorized and unlawful moves and consequences. night time. treachery. tenable? (2) Is there evident premeditation. we ================================= find that if we are to believe Pinto. exercise of such duty.

the testimonies of the defendants were contrary to each other but such was corroborated by Irene's testimony that the defendants fired at There is. an incomplete justifying circumstance. bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive". had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him. however. The inspector divided the party into 2 groups to locate Balagtas. with his back towards the door where they were were. Defendants contended that they incur no criminal liability because they for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson believed that the man was Balagtas and they acted in innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of their official duties. and instructed to arrest In the case of Ah Chong. On trial. to follow the instruction contained in the fact committed without any fault or carelessness because the accused. Sec. 5 of RPC Issue: WON they should be held responsible for the death caused to Art. 2 Held: Yes. who was Irene's paramour. 1938. The same instructions were given to Chief of Polic Oanis. appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves. no. par. simultaneously or successively fired at him with their revolvers. Upon In the instant case. and senteced each an indeterminate penatly and a fine to pay the heirs of Tecson.It is not even necessary to pinpoint who between Pinto and Buenaflor Tecson while he was lying in bed. they are responsible for tge death of Tecson. telegram. Only one requisite was present as the "offenders acted . the killing being intentional and not accidental. The lower court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that appellants shall solidarily be liable for each of the three murders they committed and. and if overpowered. Oanis Art. 11 no. The person in the room being asleep. that "a deloberate intent to di an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. by the having no time or opportunity to make a further inquiry. The Constabulary Provincial inspector specially mitigated. 5 of the RPC. Oanis approached brigida Mallare and asked Irenes would press them to immediate action. 24. location. It turned out that the person The SC also held that the crime committed by appellants is not merely shot and killed was not the notorious Balagtas. Included is Alberto Galanta. People vs. The contention of the defendants that they are not liable received a telegram stating " escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with because of their defense of "mistake of fact" is not applicable. by circumstances to act immediately. but an innocent Serapio criminal negligence. Stating Tecson. 11. The Inspector then called his men. and being pressed Inspector. appellants found no circumstances whatsorever which reaching the house. Galanta and Oanis were group together and proceeded to Irene's house. falling under Art. Facts: The SC are of the opinion that the crime committed is murder though In the afternoon of Dec. it was shown that there was an innocent mistake of Balagtas. and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any Defendants then went to the room of Irene and upon seeing a man sleeping reasonable effort to that end had been made. actually caused the death of Richard or the wounding of Maria Theresa in the presence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that they acted in conspiracy The RTC charged the defendants of Homicide through reckless impudence with each other. 69 of RPC Tecson? Murder Rule 109. 2.

and to pay the costs G. 188551 February 27. 4 (2) HELD: YES.cannot be held liable for any crime crime under Art. may be before or simultaneous with the infliction of 2. there is a performance of the intended physical act with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Such being persons or property. Thereafter. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. o Ex: man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the • RTC: convicted Intod of attempted murder based on the testimony of the intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty witness • United States: where the offense sought to be committed is factually impossible or accomplishment . sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto ESCAMILLA V. the . 1979 10:00 pm: All of them armed arrived at Palangpangan's the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended house and fired at Palangpangan's bedroom but there was no one in the crime – this case room. Intod vs. the penalty lower by one or two accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or degress than that prescribed by law shall be imposed. Jorge Pangasian. legally ISSUE: W/N Intod is guilty attempted murder since it is an impossible impossible of accomplishment . the motive. Otherwise. as an essential element of homicide at xxx xxx xxx whatever stage. Santos Tubio and 2. PEOPLE mayor. recognizes in the offender his formidability to punish criminal tendencies in Art. 4(2). were it not for the inherent impossibility of its the case. • The Revised Penal Code. 2013 HOMICIDE • Art. 4(2) • Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts. they had a the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right". — Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred: DOCTRINE: The intent to kill. petition is hereby GRANTED. desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of FACTS: the law • February 4. the decision of respondent Case # 12 Court of Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is hereby MODIFIED. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan who told Mandaya that he wanted crime Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that o Ex: The impossibility of killing a person already dead Mandaya should accompany them. No. The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of.attempt to commit a crime. and applying Art 69 od the RPC. he would also be killed. 1979: Sulpicio Intod. there is intention to perform the physical act Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house and asked him to go 3. inspired by the Positivist School. inter alia.R. even if completed. Petitioner contends that. Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against injuries. • Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to • February 4. together with the accessory penalties provided by the law. Court of Appeals would not amount to a crime • Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where 1. ineffectual means.

He evaded her blows and pulled up his pants. 30 meters away from putting her legs close together and that she did not feel any intense pain but Mendol. the victim saw his nephew in front of the house and asked for help. hitting him once in the upper right portion just felt "not happy" about what Primo did to her. at the time of. who was standing in front of his store. 2000] victim. Using a gun. aray ko! • no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact between the 3. went to the ground floor of their house to prepare Milo 5. Crysthel Pamintuan. No. Manila. who was then busy filling small identified the petitioner as the shooter of Mendol. Corazon P. petitioner continued to shoot at Costs de oficio. survived because of timely medical attention. MODIFIED. De la Peña: labia majora must be entered for rape to be immediately brought to the hospital. mother of 4-year old petitioner with frustrated homicide. Pamintuan. The victim was brought to the Ospital ng Makati for treatment and accused and the victim.t . brother of Corazon. he shot the victim in the chest. • Crysthel made a categorical statement denying penetration but her vocabulary is yet as underdeveloped FACTS: • Corazon narrated that Primo had to hold his penis with his right hand. who all positively of Conrado Plata Jr. • the possibility of Primo's penis having breached Crysthel's vagina is belied by the child's own assertion that she resisted Primo's advances by 2. March 30.R. While running. helper Velasco (Velasco) and Iluminado Garcelazo(Garcelazo). Mendol was about to ride his tricycle at this victim intersection while facing Arellano Street. ayo'ko!" so she went upstairs and saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room kneeling before Crysthel CA: affirmed the conviction whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were already removed. He pushed . location and number of wounds sustained by the 13. and the conduct of the malefactors before. The victim was • People v. ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko. People vs Campuhan [G. Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila Fled an Information charging • April 25.l1 Ruling: NO. to fourteen (14) years ten (10) Petitioner’s intent to kill was simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. The doctor said that the victim would consummated have died if the latter were not brought immediately to the hospital. RTC: found petitioner guilty of frustrated homicide. During trial. albeit unsuccessfully. Joseph chocolate drinks for her 2 children. the prosecution presented the testimonies of Mendol. "Ayo'ko. 1996 4 pm: Ma. Petitioner. or immediately after the killing of the victim. "Ayo'ko. a brawl ensued at the comer of Estrada thus showing that he had yet to attain an erection to be able to penetrate his and Arellano Streets.. All • Primo's kneeling position rendered an unbridled observation impossible these facts belie the absence of petitioner’s intent to kill the victim. months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium as minimum. while Issue: Whether or not the CA is correct in affirming the conviction of his short pants were down to his knees and his hands holding his penis with frustrated homicide? his right hand • Horrified. anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several times. she only shouted of his chest. FACTS: 4. Around 2am of 01 August 1999. Thus.means used. 129433. plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer located at the second ina mo. him three more times. shot the later four times. the nature. There she met Primo Campuhan. • Then she heard Crysthel cry. she cursed "P . 1.

defendants. her brother. of them. Two of who were living within their compound. an information for robbery with homicide was filed against Villacorte. vs.45 caliber pistol as pointed • Physical examination yielded negative results as Crysthel ‘s hymen was at Ching while he was held. His common- • RTC: guilty of statutory rape. For. Roque Guerrero (“Roque’). Labantino fled. 4 men accosted them..R. subject to automatic review Galvez and Labantino both identified Villacorte as one of the men who accosted them. After on the floor. is inherently a weak defense. the court should not at once have a mental prejudice against him. Libantino and Galvez.Corazon aside who she tried to block his path. AMADEO PERALTA. FACTS: After closing his shop for the day. the gun was shot • Campuhan: Crysthel was in a playing mood and wanted to ride on his resulting to a gun wound on Ching. defendants-appellants. and used as a state witness. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. plaintiff-appellee. The information was VILLACORTE. unconvincing and. They called the barangay officials who detained. "it is not . While walking shouted for help thus prompting Vicente. Ching was able to walk to home. Chinese merchant Benito Ching Proof of conspiracy. Consequently. He brought with him a paper preconceived plan or agreement. A . No. to establish conspiracy. et al. to chase the Campuhan who was the men held Ching and Galvez while Labantino continued to walk in front apprehended. record. The trial court acquitted INOFERIO Y ALINDAO alias SANTE. while Galvez finally back when she suddenly pulled him down causing both of them to fall down freed himself from the men holding him. 1974 Only Inoferio pursued this appeal. the evidence Villacorte and Handig while in Police custody for the investigation. He presented by an accused in support of that defense must be scrutinized with claims that he knew Guerrero as they played cara y cruz together. He should be acquitted upon the ground that although his defense. Villacorte admitted to the crime and ISSUE: W/N it was a consummated statutory rape identified his companions as "Roque". a cousin and an uncle with his 2 companions. VIOLETO “Sante” whose identity was not yet ascertained. taken in the light of all the evidence on ISSUE: Whether or not Inoferio’s weak alibi could warrant a conviction. insufficient to prove the guilt of Generally. considered sufficient as in this case. When Ching tried to call Labantino’s name for help. the same care that evidence supporting other defenses deserves. by and large. however. as in the case of appellant Inoferio. Corazon then ran out and bag where all the proceeds of his sale for the day are placed. Guerrero was discharged MANCING (appeal withdrawn res. falling from the gun shot. provides a penalty therefore as in treason. to tilt the scale of justice in favor of the Doctrine: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an accused because the evidence for the prosecution is itself weak and agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. "Sante" and "Fred". Alfredo Handig (“Fred”) and an alias PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. it may be sufficient to acquit him. Inoferio testified that he first met RULING: Although inherently weak and easily fabricated. of 7/10/67). G. CRISANTO eventually amended to implicate Crisanto Inoferio. alias BONGING. therefore. Conspiracy presupposes the existence of a left his store in the public market of Caloocan. rebellion and sedition. ET in the nature of an alibi. When an accused puts up the defense of alibi. and MARCIANO YUSAY alias Handig and found Villacorte and Inoferio guilty. while another man snatched the paper bag from intact him. it should be AL. L-21860 February 28. He died a day after. The men eventually fled too. Upon interrogation. initially unaware of the commotion. death • Thus. conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically the accused beyond reasonable doubt. sentenced him to the extreme penalty of law wife brought him to the hospital.

accused. While it Doctrines: is true that Parumog. committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.essential that there be proof as to previous agreement to commit a crime. Mere presence does not amount to conspiracy– indispensable that a co-conspirator should take a direct part in every act and criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts. perforce. as the inmates of brigade 4- Imposition of multiple penalties where conspirators commit A. each of them is guilty of three which swiftly resulted in their death — before they could be brought to the murders and shall suffer the corresponding penalty for each offense. destroyed the lock of their more than one offense. it is not participation in all the details being sufficient that the malefactors committed shall have acted in concert of the execution of the crime. as co-conspirators they are equally guilty and Conspiracy . . and those involved were led away for investigation. mostly "OXO" members and sympathizers. EDWIN DE furtherance of a conspiracy VERA yGARCIA. an inmate of 4-B. The evidence on record proves beyond peradventure that the VERA yGARCIA. Consequently. The concerted action of the conspirators in consummating their prisoners were assembled. It is not beyond reasonable doubt. Liability of conspirators. Therefore there appears to be no legal reason why conspirators may not be sentenced to multiple death penalties corresponding to the nature and number of crimes they commit in PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Larita and Luna did not participate in the actual killing of Carriego. door and then rampaged from one brigade to another." Hence. Since in conspiracy. appellant. Santos Cruz. nonetheless. and another accused to thirteen (13) separate death penalties with conspiracy? for the 13 killings he perpetrated. all of the conspirators who Facts: On February 16. conspiracy is proved if there is cooperate in the consummation of a felony previously planned are co- convincing evidence to sustain a finding that the malefactors committed an principals. another riot erupted in Bldg. not on mere surmises or should know the part which the others have to perform. that a fight between two rival members of rule of collective criminal liability emanates from the ensnaring nature of the "Sigue-Sigue" and "OXO" gangs occurred in the plaza where the conspiracy. Carriego. Legality and practicality of imposing multiple death penalties upon conspirators. Conspiracy is the conjectures. the act of one is the act of all. All those who in one way or another help and pursuant to the same objective. namely. The fight was. while the inmates of the penitentiary were acted in furtherance of the common design are liable as co-principals. vs. 4. Hence. quelled. An accused who was charged with three distinct crimes of murder in a single information was sentenced to two death penalties for Issue: Whether or not the commission of the murders was attended two murders.It is axiomatic that the prosecution must establish conspiracy collectively liable for in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. This preparing to attend Sunday mass. while consequences of such criminal enterprise they must be held solidarity liable. hospital. The three victims sustained injuries effecting their common design and purpose. common purpose is a patent display of their evil partnership. Barbosa and Santos Cruz — each is guilty of three separate and distinct crimes of murder. accused acted in concert from the moment they bolted their common brigade. RODERICK GARCIA y GALAMGAM. and for the however. The invading “OXO” then. up until the time they killed their last victim. KENNETH FLORENDO and ELMER CASTRO. all of the six accused are guilty of the slaughter of offense in furtherance of a common objective pursued in concert. if the they forcibly opened the door of 4-C and killed two more inmates. Moments later. each of the conspirators is liable for all of the crimes clubbed and stabbed to death Jose Carriego. the rest of the prisoners were ordered to return to their respective quarters. A time-honored rule in the corpus of our jurisprudence is that once conspiracy is proved. Afterwards. plaintiff-appellee. 1958. causing a big commotion. conspirators commit three separate and distinct crimes of murder in Eugenio Barbosa and Santos Cruz. EDWIN DE Ruling. it common design to commit a felony.

there are other whether the crime should be committed. hitting him between his eyes To hold a person liable as an accomplice. the liability is one degree lower than that of Such witness. the victim was clearly struck with a blunt object while inside the car. that is. The Court has held that an accomplice is “one who knows the criminal design of the principal and cooperates knowingly or intentionally therewith Facts: by an act which. they merely assent to the two aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation and abuse plan and cooperate in its accomplishment.– circumstance. it was impossible for De Vera and Garcia to have 1 Once conspiracy is proven. Issues: 3 Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed. Abuse of Superior 1 that two or more persons came to an agreement. he concurs with the there was conspiracy and sentenced all of the accused to suffer reclusion latter in his purpose–. Accomplices. moreover. 4 Conspirators are the authors of a crime. he saw Florendo drag out of 2 Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they the vehicle an apparently disabled Capulong and shoot the victim in the know and agree with the criminal design.– Defined. and it was unlikely for Florendo to have done it “Conspirator– and “Accomplice. Accomplices do not decide 2 WON the trial court erred in aside from treachery. knowing the criminal inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds. attack. The act of one of them is deemed the act of all. 1 YES. the liability is collective and not been unaware of Florendo’s dark design on Roderick. and perpetua mainly on the testimony of an eyewitness. To prove conspiracy. the bare testimony of Cacao fails to do so. . assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one FREDERICK CAPULONG y DIZON. no upon such course of action. and Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength. strength. Here. testified that he saw Appellant De Vera in the car. accused inside the victim’s car. however. Aggravating Circumstances. But. The trial court found that the 3 that the execution of the felony [was] decided upon. after the principals have reached the decision. killing was attended by treachery. 1 WON the trial court erred in deciding that there is conspiracy? accomplices merely concur in it. Accomplices come to know about it other act was imputed to him. the prosecution must establish the following three requisites: Murder. individual. Elements. thereby 1 the “community of criminal design. and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. Strength. not two. where an altercation later occurred. Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength 2 that the agreement concerned the commission of a crime. Treachery. Requisites of Conspiracy: The penalty of an accomplice is one degree lower than that of a principal.– all by himself. accomplices are merely their instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration Ruling: of the offense. The prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of an accomplice. Specifically. it based its 2 the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not conclusions on the following facts: appellant was seen with the other indispensable to the commission of the crime. Conspirators. Cacao’s testimony contains nothing that could know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided inculpate appellant De Vera aside from the fact that he was inside the car. The trial court ruled that design of the principal by direct participation. Thereafter. treachery and use of superior the same. two elements must be present: and striking him with the use of a baseball bat in the mouth. there is only one generic aggravating Accomplice. evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. even if not rendered. of superior strength). a principal. head moments later. Cacao. Penalties. the crime would be committed just The accused with evident premeditation.– Distinguished. Hence.

and attempted felonies.”. If the with evident premeditation. we distinguished a frustrated felony from an hospital wherein Gregorio was treated and fully recovered Judy was attempted felony in this manner: declared dead on arrival due to “cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to 1 In a frustrated felony. the offender has performed all the acts Cardiac Tamponade due to gunshot wound”. Mere presence does not amount to conspiracy. The existence of imputed to him. People. Appellant. Regie Labiaga shot Judy and told the Article 6 Consummated. that is by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Gregorio Conde which prevented his death. unlawfully and evidence fails to convince the court that the wound sustained would feloniously attack.” only one generic aggravating circumstance. then treachery may 2 YES. x x x thereby performing all the acts of execution which would accused should be convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated produce the crime of Murder as a consequence. If it Criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts. conspiring. Judy and Gregorio were rushed to the  “In Serrano v. there must be evidence showing that the wound deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill. and they left the vicinity. Cacao’s testimony contains nothing that could inculpate appellant. the reason for the non-accomplishment that when he tried to wrest the gun from Gregorio. reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous The accused were charged with Murder with the Use of Unlicensed desistance. July 15. armed with unlicensed firearm. 2013 According to the Prosecution. Regie Labiaga admitted that he was present merely commences the commission of a felony directly by during the shooting incident and claimed that he acted in self-defense when overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution. other accused Balatong Barcenas and Cristy Demapanag that “she is already dead. Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength. He alleged 2 In a frustrated felony.R.” produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused. not two PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence. assault and shoot Gregorio Conde with said unlicensed have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention.” Firearm. The information stated that “the accused. No. in an attempted felony. Demapanag alleged that she was perpetrator. the offender According to the defense. v. whereas in an attempted felony. there is be properly appreciated against the accused. the shotgun fired without of the crime is some cause independent of the will of the him knowing whether somebody was hit. Regie Labiaga shot Gregorio Conde outside ARTICLE – PRINCIPLE OF LAW the latter’s house. FACTS G. frustrated. on the other hand. Hence. Appellee. but nevertheless did not murder. 202867. Gregorio challenged him to a fight while armed with a shotgun. did then and there willfully. and to render the victim defenseless.” . REGIE LABAIGA. confederating and helping one another. treachery is not solely determined by the type of weapon used. the 14 km away from the crime scene which was corroborated by her brother. Conde cried for help which prompted his daughters Judy and Glenelyn to rush towards him. with  “In frustrated murder. no other act was opportunity to defend himself or resist the attack. by means of treachery and would have been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. the firearm.  “A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was not afforded any Aside from the fact that he was inside the car. not on mere appears that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the execution surmises or conjectures of the crime.

there was an aggression. go ahead. the second element is not Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. and to pay for moral damages.R. CA-Cebu under Art. L-33466-67 "equilibrium. Narvaez and rice mill. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. attempted murder shall be two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated murder under Article 248. but in order for it to be affirmed the conviction. 1. HELD: In the instant case." Defendant lost his G. Under before the commission of the crime. 1983 the heirs. par. to indemnify April 20. as amended). proceed. it does not appear that the wound sustained by Gregorio Conde was mortal. 11. ISSUES: Second. Revised Penal Code. This was admitted by Dr. that is. There was also no provocation at all since the appellant was asleep should be convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder. In this case. Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia as the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house People vs. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. the corresponding penalty for present as the killing was disproportionate to the attack. Nos. gadamit. but on his property rights when the victims angrily ordered the continuance of the Since Gregorio’s gunshot wound was not mortal. the following requisites must occur: First. Edwin Figura. Third.The RTC acquitted Demapanag due to insufficiency of evidence while Defense of one's person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance Regie Labiaga was convicted of murder and frustrated murder. Facts: Case No. par. 18 On August 22. 1968. who examined Gregorio after the shooting incident. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and found fence being made. appreciated. Whether Regie Labiaga is guilty of frustrated or attempted murder. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property but the CFI ruled that Narvaez was guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. He tried to stop the group from 121 SCRA 389 destroying his house and asked if they could talk things over but Fleischer responded with "No. However. Unlawful aggression. prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. the SC held that appellant fencing. . not on the person of appellant. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself (Art. and therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability." and shot Fleisher and Rubia with his shotgun. Issue: Whether or not the act of killing of the accused is in defense of his person Intro: and of his rights. 11.

Laguna. Flores failed to discharge his burden. he heard several gunshots prompting him to duck under the table.4 defense. Jesus was brought to the hospital by his wife and children. any person who acts in defense of the victim provide physical evidence that eloquently refutes allegations of his person or rights does not incur any criminal liability provided that self-defense. Marvin (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending Avenido.6 medial portion of the left shoulder. Considering the number of gunshot wounds sustained by the victim. When they arrived. Under this regard that the location and presence of several wounds on the body of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. Duran focused his attention back to the table. present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s Right after the shooting. Duran did of self-defense by the accused. It is Suddenly. February 27. Rosa. however. whether complete or incomplete. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it."30 "Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault. imminent danger––not merely threatening and intimidating action. Jesus. Noli de Mesa.R. at any time during the occasion. on the left hypogastric region through the upper right quadrant of the abdomen. his first shot on Jesus’ shoulder. which already caused the house when he saw Flores and his father talking to each other from a latter to fall on the ground. unexpected or each other near the terrace. and Duran. on the right shoulder. upon a person. "There Sta. notice the victim carrying a gun with gunshot wounds in the different parts of his body. Thereafter. In case of Duran testified that Jesus stood up from his seat and met Flores who was threat. anxiously waiting for the arrival of his parents on the right flank towards the umbilicus.5 warranting self-defense. After glancing at the two. Flores was no longer in sight. if not continuous. Records show that Jesus suffered four (4) not. it must be offensive and strong. certain visitors. positively showing the wrongful heading towards the terrace. on the eve of the barangay fiesta in San Roque. Indeed. were drinking at the terrace of the house of Jesus. Flores continued shooting even as Jesus was already lying flat on the ground. The drinking at the had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self.36 If there was any truth to Flores’ claim that he merely acted in company of some members of the CAFGU. the accused must Flores acted to defend himself to preserve his own life. Gerry testified that he felt hurt to have lost his father. does not constitute aggression Jesus lying on the ground. sudden. and Alaminos. the Court finds it difficult to believe that Article #/Doctrine: To successfully claim self-defense. hitting him allegedly initiated by the latter. 2013 But Flores continued shooting Jesus. He was on his way back to the self-defense. "It has been held in satisfactorily prove the concurrence of the elements of self-defense. and shooting incident took place. Ronnie de Mesa."37 the following circumstances concur: (1) unlawful aggression. between the clavicle and the first rib. Ronnie de Mesa and Noli de Mesa went number of the gunshot wounds inflicted upon Jesus further negate the claim home. Laguna. or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury. Flores shot his father. 181354. specifically: on the him. (2) Facts: On August 15. By then. who began talking to intent to cause injury. His parents were then attending to his problem regarding a vehicular accident. Ruben Escueta. Gerry narrated that he was going in and out of their house before the on the tip of the left buttocks to the tip of the sacral bone or hip bone. who performed the autopsy on the victim. Flores vs People G. They started drinking at 8:30 o’clock in the evening."31"Aggression. who later joined their visitors at the terrace. Suddenly. Gerry had a short According to Dr. Rosa. from Sta. Laguna."32 Duran immediately helped board Jesus in an owner-type jeep to be brought In this case. 1989. terrace was ongoing when Flores arrived with an M-16 armalite rifle. conversation with his father. 7 the latter died of massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage due to laceration of Gerry was outside their house when he saw Flores across the street in the the liver.8 . No. It presupposes actual. himself. unless the victim vehicular accident involving one of their children. the nature and to a hospital. he looked around and saw the bloodied body of life. would have been sufficient to repel the attack distance of about six (6) meters. where they tried to settle a problem regarding a can be no self-defense. Duran. joined his visitors only at around 11:00 o’clock after he and his wife arrived from The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression.

having admitted the killing. number and gravity of the wounds inflicted on the victims belie the appellants contention that they acted in [G. FIRST DIVISION. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person players. Complying therewith. ordered the game stopped). ARTICLE 11. circumstances concur: John Villarosa and Remolito Calalas. CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE. vs. In response. 1986. For self. No. reprimanded Tunggak (son of Adronico) from peeping at the cards of other Third. to Adronico . to attend the wake of the latters grandson. The location. Carlos Catorse approached and begged Adronico self-defense. If the appellants stabbed Carlos Catorse and Marcelo Lo to defend themselves it certainly defies the reason why they had to inflict 16 stab wounds and 6 respectively. repel it. (2) that the means employed to prevent Issue: WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN. Carlos Catorse together with his fifteen year old son Romeo Catorse arrived at the house of appellant ARTICLE Adronico Gregorio at Sitio Bug-as. Barangay Sta. Adronico ordered his son downstairs and right According to the court the guiding jurisprudential principle has there and then scolded and boxed him several times. appellant has to with a samurai (the same samurai deposited by Carlos to Adronico) and justify his taking of a life by the exacting standards of the law. and (3) that there was lack of GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE CREDIT TO PETITIONER’S sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Negros Occidental. provided the following trouble. Murcia. Carlos was in this act of pacifying the matter between the father and And that he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the son when suddenly appellant Ricardo stealthily stabbed Carlos from behind weakness of the prosecution. or repel such aggression were reasonable. Carlos Catorse handed over his samurai. Around 1:00 oclock in the morning of May 8. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or pusoy was still in progress. Having admitted the killing. 109614-15. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The nature and extent of the wounds inflicted on a victim negate an accused claim of self-defense. First. conviction is inescapable. the burden of proof is shifted to him to prove the elements of from further hurting his son so as not to put him to shame before the that claim. unlawful aggression by the victim. While Adronico was always been that when an accused invokes the justifying circumstance of severely beating Tunggak. otherwise. 1996] self-defense. Overhearing the incident. FACTS Around 8:00 PM of May 7. plaintiff-appellee. crowd. March 29. in a very loud voice. ADRONICO GREGORIO and RICARDO GREGORIO. Tunggak stood up and also in a very loud voice defending himself.defendants- appellants. Cruz. Unlawful aggression. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – The following do Persons attending the wake were requested by appellant Adronico to deposit not incur any criminal liability: with him any weapon in their possession for safekeeping so as to avoid 1. while the game of Second. the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be .R. appellant Ricardo. their respective knives. Anyone who acts in defense of is person or rights. thereafter hacked and stabbed him several times more in different parts of defense to prosper. 1986.

In the instant case. THE PHILIPPINES does not constitute an act of self-defense. (Banzuela 31 Phil. Adronico on the other hand interposed self- defense to exculpate himself from criminal liability. safety. L-60159. The harm caused by one person to another who offended or caused P/CPL. since the latter had already been disarmed. with the same samurai used against Carlos hacked him on his forearm. Jovito Nicavera Criminal Law: also tried to get out of the house but Adronico hacked him instead with a bolo hitting his left shoulder. 56). principles. No. Adronico then hacked him again. jurisprudence): xxx xxx xxx The petitioner failed to prove the defense he had raised. sometime after he suffered such offense or such injury. 564) G. without an appreciable interval of time. but an act of revenge.his body: Right after Carlos fell to the ground. The primordial requisite of self-defense is unlawful aggression. Ricardo died during the trial. there must be a real danger to life or personal . Marcelo was able to run out of the house defendant be simultaneous with the killing. son of Carlos Catorse. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF him injury. Although wounded. it is essential that the attack upon on the nape. Adronico immediately followed and using a bolo hacked Marcelo In order to justify self-defense. Marcelo Lo tried to help his uncle Jovito but Ricardo. FAUSTO ANDAL v. (Ferrer. 1 Phil. Adronico. the respondent Court held (which the Supreme Court affirmed): Introduction (Provisions involved. there was no imminent and real danger to the life repeatedly hacked the victim with a bolo. ISSUE xxx xxx xxx Whether or not the appellant can validly invoke self-defense. or limb of the petitioner when he shot the deceased. for his part. And for unlawful aggression to be present. As former Chief Justice Aquino states in his book on Romeo Catorse. 06 November 1989 In imposing on the appellant the penalty of just one (1) year of prision correccional. or preceded the latter but Adronico ran after and overtook him.R. ran out of the house.

e. The laudable patience of accused in not retaliating in the middle aspect. But still Macaraig incomplete justifying circumstance exists in a given case like the challenged the petitioner and fired his gun at the petitioner.” Case no. supsup. "Why did you fire at me?" (2) He even turned his head a tricycle driven by Police Pfc. challenged deceased to a fight "Sportsman like. The petitioner was able to wrest the despite repeated insults by a subordinate. Batangas City to check on one of his men. (5) Pfc. his obsession to two (2) successive shots were fired at Macaraig by the petitioner which inculcate discipline in his men. went to the police station at towards his son and instructed him just to stay in the jeep." (4) Maximo Macaraig. Burgos Street. hitting the latter case at bar. while on patrol aboard asked deceased. lower right knee. 25 When petitioner Fausto Andal and Quinio went back to the poblacion of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. (3) His son. Batangas City. GERARDO SAZON." at P. Domingo Andal. Pfc. because the said Macaraig had Deceased moved backward — 2 meters away from accused. alias Batangas City and parked their vehicle in front of the Philbanking Building "INSIK. 89684 | September 18. entitle accused to a caused Macaraig’s death. then a there was. the pier located at Sta. 1990 embarrassed him in front of so many people. ka. Petitioner Fausto Andal. Brief issue: Brief facts: Was there an appreciable time lapse between the first aggression. This is what happened after accused had grabbed the gun: (1) He corporal in the Batangas Integrated National Police. No. Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code vests discretion to the court charge and Quinio told Macaraig that the petitioner did not utter defamatory in lowering the penalty either by one or two degrees whenever words against him and asked him to forget the incident.R. his length of service in gun from Macaraig when they grappled for the possession of the gun and the government (since 1957). The petitioner denied the . Casiano Quinio. and most important. Macaraig arrived and went straight to the petitioner as he was furious and demanded why the petitioner had G. when deceased shot accused on his knee and the time accused resorted to force by way of firing the two shots at the deceased? The facts unfolded indicate that At about 0700pm on 25 September 1980. Clara. who was stationed there. to OUR mind. Our attitude is a signal to the men in uniform that while WE condemn felonious violence WE support efforts to maintain discipline in the service. i. two-degree reduction of the penalty prescribed by law. Quinio failed to report to police headquarters for briefing but Macaraig replied that even thought the trouble was over as he started to get his tricycle he did not have to report to police headquarters since he already had his orders and told the petitioner: "You report.

just shoot. Cornelio Altejos. Upon confrontation. The coordinated acts of appellant and Altejos of immediately following the victim and jointly confronting him DOCTRINE / RULING: thereafter reveal a concordance and unity of thought which resulted in the Self-Defense. The fact that appellant did not inflict the mortal wound upon the deceased is of no moment. since the existence of conspiracy was satisfactorily shown by the evidence. Longno then faced appellant and said. appellant and Altejos left their softdrinks half-consumed and aggravate or qualify a crime. It is sufficient that the accused be shown to have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. calculation or reflection. therefore. saying.” (“Watch out Inday for I will kill appreciated to qualify the killing to murder. it could not be disbelieved Proof of a previous agreement to commit the crime is not absolutely after the accused himself had admitted the killing. “Just do it. There can be no self-defense. meditation. indicate closeness and coordination of strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. Two days later. a finding to that effect by the trial court cannot be going to do?”). He must rely on the Altejos stabbed the victim to death. J. while he and the victim were grappling for appellant’s gun. it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing forearm and. the plea of self-defense must fail. Superior strength may Thereupon. Under such considerations and there being no scene. This apparently angered appellant who. The circumstances qualifying or you”) to which Longno retorted. appellant and his cousin. evident premeditation cannot be “Andam ka lang Inday kay patyon ta guid. Wilfredo Longno. unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the fatal wound is not required to sustain a conviction. The narrations of the sequence of events by FACTS: the accused. approached and helped the fallen Romualdez and pushed appellant other evidence to prove that the death of the victim was the result of away. appellant and Altejos arrived and appellant that the accused purposely sought to use their superior strength to their accosted and pointed a gun at Longno. a showing as to who inflicted incomplete. Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused invokes encounter. in his native dialect said. are Ernesto Romualdez was accosted by appellant near the barangay hall for unconvincing primarily on account of their inherent inconsistency and allegedly circulating the rumor that appellant and his companions were conflict with each other. even if the prosecution evidence is weak. evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. the aggravating circumstance of abuse of softdrinks at the store of Gloria Aposaga when Longno passed by.” sustained. appellant boxed Romualdez which caused the latter to fall. the burden of evidence killing the victim becomes the act of all the accused. having been shifted. Absence of any evidence to show where a group of guys were sitting and joined the group in their conversation. Shortly thereafter. superior strength cannot be appreciated in this case. REGALADO. For.” aggravating the act must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner. complete or The rule is that where a conspiracy is proven. circumstance of self-defense. to kill the victim.”) . “Maano ka?” (“What are you advantage in this case. In the present case. and by the lone alleged eyewitness for the defense. that is. tiruha lang. The circumstances that after the accused shot the victim in the self-defense. The act of one in the person defending himself. were drinking Thus. their action geared towards a common purpose. Conspiracy. (“Brod. the presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. as such It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that for the justifying circumstance is invariably indicative of a conspiratorial agreement. engaged in stealing. “Brod. essential to establish a conspiracy. only if it is clearly shown that there was followed Longno who eventually reached the bench near the public faucet deliberate intent to take advantage of it. who was then present at the Qualifying Circumstances. They must be proved as conclusively as the acts constituting the offense. for the same reason. we hold that the defense failed to establish the primary element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and.

however. parried the gun but it fired 2 Whether or not Barion’s provocation is considered a mitigating hitting one of appellant’s left fingers which was later amputated. Appellant and Longno afterwards grappled for the gun. however. I heard that you are not afraid of me. it is noteworthy to mention that at Alconga. given that the 2 Whether or not qualifying circumstances are present? aggression must be deemed to have ceased upon the flight of the 3 Is there a conspiracy between the accused and Altejos? deceased during the first stage. Altejos allegedly tried to Ruling: separate appellant and Longno but he was brushed aside by the latter. 22 caliber revolver repaired and appellant was taking the revolver to a slashing the latter’s cranium. appellant saw Longno from a Alconga.” It would seem self-evident that Alconga could never have succeeded in showing that Barion’s aggression was proportionate to his killing his already defeated PEOPLE v. Sufficiency. the trial court never sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party acquired jurisdiction over him and he can neither be convicted nor immediately preceding the act.the first wherein the deceased was the aggressor and the second wherein there is no more aggression. distance. appellant fired the gun. by firing his revolver at Barion and eventually inflicting a mortal bolo blow. Maybe you want to be taught a lesson. “Insik. Under such circumstances.Apparently irked by the response. There were two (2) stages in the fight. Alconga’s plea of self-defense (as a justifying ISSUE/S: circumstance) during the second stage of the fight cannot be sustained. 2 NO. It was while the As the deceased Barion and the defendant Alconga were playing black jack. since Barion was already injured and fleeing. two were thus struggling that Altejos stabbed Longno in the chest. Dullete. He admits having shot stick. The argument of self defense was raised by policeman friend of his. Barion approached the defendant and swung his pingahan. He claims that Altejos for help to have a . hitting Longno in Facts: the left forearm. after the former became outraged and expressed his rage at the latter for his which both appellant and Altejos ran away. as a guard . therefore. Note: Section 4. differs. “I stabbed Inday. References in this judgment to him are. It was then circumstance that appellant pulled out his gun and shot Longno in the forearm. run. In the 1 NO. Longno allegedly said. On their way. cheating tactics. He. upon which Alconga gained the upper hand Longno but pleads self-defense. Altejos then shouted to appellant. Two (2) days later. course of their struggle. Also. Upon his approach. obiter Albert. therefore. as defined by Justice exculpated herein. A fight ensued afterwards. ALCONGA adversary.” and so he and Altejos ran away.” Issues: Appellant claims that the deceased had a revolver tucked in his waist and 1 Whether or not the Alconga’s plea of self defense can be sustained was about to draw the same. A fleeing man is not dangerous to the one from whom he flees. means “that it should be proportionate to the act committed and and with no binding effect on him. adequate to stir one to its commission. Canoso and Ramos then scampered for safety as appellant and the wounded Longno grappled for the gun. 1 Did the accused act in self-defense? There can be no defense where there is no aggression. Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code requires that there be Insofar as Cornelio Altejos is concerned. a bamboo Appellant’s version of the incident. making good the threat uttered after the game.

hitting him on the head. That the act be committed Benjamin on top of him. provided that the following circumstances concur: believe that. that such remarks led to an altercation with Piol. Just why. chapter. Benjamin stabbed Piol twice from behind. alias "BEN". Justifying Circumstances. when Piol allegedly squeezed the neck of Benjamin. for. but on his stomach with Benjamin on top of him. Those mentioned in the preceding the dagger and the time he would retrieve it. in turn. at the employed to prevent or repel it. It. The part of the person defending himself. that Benjamin had provoked the incident. when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. by profession. We cannot believe that he. he put the dagger in a convenient place from which. was the holder of more deadly weapons and has superior (Benjamin). It should be noted that.1. Lack of sufficient provocation on the opportune moment. he got it back to inflict the second stab wound. Mitigating Circumstance. whose protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted and neither can invoke the impartiality and veracity are not contested — is that Piol was then lying right to self-defense because aggression which is incident in the fight is down. The reason for the rule is that each of the has been established by the testimony of the Chief of Police. directly or indirectly. Anyone who acts in defense of the stone away and picked up the dagger once more. shows that Piol could not have struck Benjamin on the Unlawful aggression must come. much less squeezed his neck. BENJAMIN GONDAYAO. that matter. or forms in the execution thereof which awkward. Benjamin chose to stab Piol in such an person. with his left hand. was subsequently attacked by the accused. ET AL. without risk to himself tried to explain. context of Benjamin's story does not convey the idea that he had such a control of the situation as to be able to choose the place where he would put Article 13. however. Unlawful aggression. The fact of the matter — and this to a fight must be accepted. causing therein another stab wound almost at right angle with his body. instead of No unlawful aggression when there is an agreement to fight. would have been impossible.16. . fashion on Piol's back. being in the precarious There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the condition he depicted himself. like the first. one of whom dagger. RULING: Benjamin’s story is manifestly artificious and unworthy of Considering. likewise. Second. the defense has not even tend directly and specially to insure its execution. not on his back. The challenge being almost perpendicular to the body. that the dagger was still in was Piol. inconvenient and unbelievable manner. He would thus have Us his person or rights. This fighting ability than Barion. that when. by credence. employing means. which was allegedly pressed against the ground. Instead of stabbing Piol on the stomach. by this time. he was again lying down on his back — according to the defense — with Article 14. this is not all. Third.1. Regardless of the foregoing. unless Benjamin first released the dagger. stones were thrown at him. would have done so under the circumstances. according to Benjamin. would have necessarily been much more slanting than the first. But. Again. even before they fell from the "papag". This explains why and how he (Benjamin) managed to stab Piol on the back. and that he of which. and hit Piol with it. moreover. Reasonable necessity of the means on the head. into the back of Piol. which he then held. an injury inflicted in this arising from the defense which the offended party might make. methods. took another piece of stone. but. or anybody for THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. after disarming him. Aggravating Circumstance. he (Benjamin) thrust the dagger. with treachery (alevosia). from the person who face with a stone. in order to get the stone with which he claimed to have hit Piol First. the latter threw Article 11. in consequence his hand when Piol allegedly struck his face with a stone. he held the hurling uncomplimentary remarks at his political opponents. bound to arise from one or the other of the combatants.

eventually. Piol prepared himself to the part of the winner in the elections. that. taken by defendants Benjamin Gondayao and Anoy Gondayao from a decision convicting them of the crime of murder of Orlando Piol. forthwith. 4 to 4-1/2 inches deep. . that. L-28129 October 31. petitioner. that. the group headed by Benjamin picked up stones and threw them at Piol.The following do not incur any criminal liability After consuming a bottle of gin. an exchange of unfriendly utterances followed. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Benjamin cannot be given the benefit of either complete or incomplete self-defense. and same was not aimed at him. Benjamin testified that his remark. qualified by treachery. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in "Nacionalistas" for not offering a drink despite their victory in the polls. the penalty therefor (reclusion temporal) should be imposed in its medium period.R. that of vs. repeatedly cursed the Paragraph 5. was addressed to his nephew. Justifying circumstances. perhaps. FACTS: Appeal. homicide. which had begun with both contenders facing each other. that. 11. interest. would be to the great detriment of public inflicted in self-defense. when Piol resented said remark. he should. about the failure to give a blow-out on and the lacerated injuries thus sustained by him. he (Piol) is a "nacionalista". ART. Benjamin did not act with treachery. that. replied by cursing the losers in the elections. as minimum. by petitioner. This of course. the lawful exercise of a right or office. Benjamin accepted the challenge resulting Natividad. which unfortunately resulted in the death of the escaping grappling with each other. Piol drew out a The facts and circumstances constrain us to hold that the act thus performed dagger and approached Benjamin. accordingly. 1969 prepared for the fight that ensued. Benjamin replied that the from this act. To hold him guilty of homicide may have the After grappling with Benjamin Gondayao. 8 months and 1 day of reclusion RULING temporal as maximum. therefore. Benjamin would have half-hearted and dispirited efforts on their part to comply with assumed full responsibility for said injuries. which he claimed to have such official duty. ELIAS VALCORZA. Orlando Piol appeared to have effect of demoralizing police officers discharging official functions identical — in addition to several lacerations on the head — two (2) stab wounds on or similar to those in the performance of which petitioner was engaged at the back. as Piol who was nearby. they both fell down. . to 14 years. Benjamin. respondent. Immediately after the occurrence. detainee. was committed in the performance of his official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law. be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day of prison mayor. embraced him. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused acted in self-defense. The petitioner is acquitted. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. for this was merely an incident of their struggle. in consequence of which he died due to a the time he fired at the deceased Pimentel. as the same began to bleed. and that.owing to the impact of said stone. The crime committed by Benjamin Gondayao is. that. with the corresponding accessory penalties. by "rushing" to his encounter and grappling with him. and no modifying circumstance having attended its perpetration. which could have rendered him groggy. who was hit several times on the head. who. Rudy fight by drawing out his dagger. each G. accordingly. with the result that thereafter We massive internal hemorrhage. Although Piol was stabbed from behind.

Roberto Pimentel emerged suddenly from the bushes and lunged at cannot be said that Jose's cooperation was such that without it the offense the appellant Valcorza. Withal it bridge. He must therefore be held liable as The members of the patrol team went down into the water to locate an accomplice. as the deceased did not heed his order to stop. Roberto Pimentel was a detention prisoner who escaped. jumped down into the creek spanned by the down on the bamboo bed with Avelino still pressing the attack. In this case.17. killing was agreed upon between them beforehand. No motive for it has been shown other than the provocation given by the deceased. Jose principal by the CFI? Manansala was found guilty as co-principal on the ground that there was concert of action between him and his nephew. for it has been established that even after the first While in search for the escaped prisoner. it was to FACTS: stop him from further hitting Avelino with his fists. cooperation facilitated their infliction. When Avelino said he was willing to pay for the services rendered Whether or not peace officer Valcorza was justified in shooting the deceased at noon. The latter word or overt act.R. and Jose's latter was in an act of again jumping down into another part of the creek. Appellant Valcorza regained his composure and immediately contributing factor. Avelino G. with a wound on his back. but not for those rendered earlier in the morning. it was a the ground. The circumstances indicate that if Jose embraced Rodrigo and rendered him helpless. The evidence does not justify this finding beyond reasonable doubt. and such People of the Philippines vs Jose Encomienda . tainted after he saw the first knife thrust delivered. Instead Jose continued to hold Rodrigo. AVELINO MANANSALA. and a fifth shot at Pimentel as the must have taken an appreciable interval of time to inflict. motive was true only insofar as Avelino was concerned. when Rodrigo Aringo alias Diego. either by approaching slowly under the bridge and he ordered him to halt. But although not indispensable. JR. Pimentel and they saw him floating. Daiton saw a person knife thrust had been delivered he did not try to stop Avelino. or Batangas knife thirteen times which resulted to Rodrigo's death. The thirteen wounds appellant fired four times into the air. Avelino's PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Sgt. L-23514. it became chased the deceased. Jose is not The deceased. approached him and demanded his fee for having carried Avelino's baggage. noticed the commotion and so he went there and had Rodrigo in a and JOSE MANANSALA tight embrace. a baggage boy in the same ISSUE: market. not being included in Art. Article 17 of the RPC. Jose were charged with murder and Jose was considered as a co-principal by the CFI. Article 18 of the RPC states that Accomplices are those persons who. entirely free from liability. However. February 17. even forced him instead of doing so. There is no showing that the Case #32. Elias Valcorza surrendered himself and his firearm to the Chief of Police Facts: Avelino was eating his lunch inside one of the eateries dotting the market site. hitting him with a stone and causing him to fall to would not have been accomplished. While in that position. A quarrel between them ensued and Jose Manansala. Avelino stabbed him with a balisong. uncle. Rodrigo brusquely brushed Avelino's hand aside and instantly gave him a fist blow in the face. 1970 and his uncle. If Jose's initial intent was free from guilt. No. cooperate in the execution Issue: Whether or not Jose Manansala was correctly considered as a co- of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Provocation came from the deceased (not the accused) as he means. what constitutes: Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and Article 13 of the RPC: Incomplete Self Defense defense.  Illegal Aggression. Constante. Facts: Accused was charged with the crime of murder aggravated by Issue: recidivism. GR No L-26750. the imminent danger to which the person attacked is Facts: exposed and the instinct. the accused’s act of hacking the left arm of deceased is justified due to Article 11. and the proportionateness thereof does not prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur for the crime of depend upon the harm done. he is responsible for provoking and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending the attack. in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency. were impels the defense. but rests upon the imminent danger of homicide. and Vicente. August 18. Elements are: (1) unlawful aggression on part of the victim. inflicted a mortal wound upon him which he died in a few minutes afterwards. 1930  Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed. employed to prevent or repel the attack. HERNANDEZ . December 13. although the defense. that moves or The Sotelo brothers. employed to prevent or repel the attack. 1972 It was the deceased who drew his gun towards the accused. and (3) lack of sufficient ordered the accused to vacate land and drew his gun when he did not like provocation on the part of the person defending himself the response of the former. The selfdefense invoked by the accused was incomplete. the accused sufficiently proved the elements for lawful self. He interposed the lawful self-defense as per Article 11 of the Whether or not the accused Constante can invoke self defense? Revised Penal Code. himself. elements: (1) immediate danger to his life as the former was about to grab gun from his unlawful aggression on part of the victim. Not having enough time to think rationally how to deal with the situation. PEOPLE vs. Dominador. more than the reason. what constitutes: Illegal aggression is People vs Sotelo equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of immediate and 55 PHIL 403 imminent kind. employ reasonable means to defend himself. Revised Penal Code/ Legitimate Self-Defense. namely. Issue: Whether or not the accused satisfied the elements of lawful self- defense? Ruling: Held: Yes. (2) reasonable necessity of the free left hand. The said accused conspired to attack Ignacio Cambaliza and such injury. (2) appellant was unlawfully attacked by the deceased and compelled to reasonable necessity of the means. for. When the law requires is rational equivalence.

does he become guilty of conspiracy to G. pillage. L-6025. etc. Insofar as the furnishing of the mimeograph machine and clothes is No. GR NO. not merely to advance his political aspirations. he had friends among the render Hernandez or any Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit leaders of the Communist Party. Article 136. war or otherwise. who passed not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or said machine and clothes on to others. The appellant was a politician and a labor leader and it About March 15. which would indicate that he had advocated action or the use of force in ISSUE: Does his or anyone’s membership in the communist party per se securing the ends of Communism. No. As a theorist the Communist is not yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal field subject to punishment. 1945. With the cause of Communism. We have not found. evidence is wanting to show that he ever attended their meetings. It is doubtful whether his desire to foster the labor union of of PKP Community Party of the Philippines which was actively engaged in which he was the head was impelled by an actual desire to advance the an armed rebellion against the government of the Philippines. 1955 commit rebellion. In the very nature of things. they are not yet indoctrinated in the need of an actual war with or against Capitalism. it appears that he acted merely as an intermediary. its activity refers to the strengthening of the unity and cooperation between labor elements and preparing them for FACTS: struggle. as connection with the CLO and other trade unions. is clear proof of his non- the reins of Government itself. the CLO. confederating and cooperating with each other. or advancing the cause thereof. L-4445 February 28. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. party of HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon). looting plunder. While the CLO of which he is the founder and active president.R. were impelled and well as with the thirty-one (31) defendants charged in the criminal cases of fostered by the desire to secure the labor vote to support his political the Court of First Instance of Manila. Unless action is actually advocated or participation in the conspiracy to engage in or to foster the rebellion or the intended or contemplated. nor has any particular act on his part been pointed to Us. advocates action. enumerated in 13 attacks on government forces or civilians by HUKS. Only when the Communist advocates action and actual uprising. vs. the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an But the very act or conduct of his in refusing to go underground. in spite of uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted authority and seize the apparent desire of the chief of the rebellion.: propagation of improvement of conditions of labor through his organization. they committed the crime of rebellion causing murder. or collaborated and conspired with said leaders in planning HELD: and encouraging the acts of rebellion. True it is. . J.. MAY 30 1964 The most important activity of appellant Hernandez appears to be the Labrador. Amado Hernandez and other appellants were is not unreasonable to suspect that his labor activities especially in accused of conspiring. belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate the seizing of the reins of Government by it. It does not appear that he himself converted into an advocacy of action. The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and principle is concerned. mere furnished funds or material help of his own to the members of the rebellion advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist or to the forces of the rebellion in the field. rebellion under the provisions of Article 136 of the RPC? but this notwithstanding. merely holding uprising. Insofar as the appellant's alleged activities as a Communist are concerned. They were accused of being members ambitions. plaintiff-appellee. the Communist is a mere theorist. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection has communistic tendencies. and especially the heads of the rebellion. immediate and positive.

digger. for allegedly PACULDO. Andres Afos. Servillano Afos. while the operations for the liberation of the province of Abra were in progress. Benjamin Abella. to their knowledge. and Father Filipino Velasco as an alleged conspirator. and abuse of authority were filed against Borjal. as to the hatching of the alleged conspiracy to kill Borjal. . In addition to Balmaceda was contradicted by Bayken. Arsenio Borjal returned to La Paz with We have carefully examined the evidence on this important issue. The accused roundly denied it. Severo Afos as grave digger. The trial lasted 19 days up to April 10. 1944. Paz. the jury found Borjal guilty on Balmaceda claimed that the accused-appellants decided to kill Borjal in the all accounts and imposed upon him instruction from his superiors. Benjamin Adriatico. And this Two years thereafter. Felix Murphy. duly sentenced to death. And on early evening of April 18. shortly after the accused had denied Borjal. 1943. Col. Policarpio being so. when he moved to Bangued because of an attempt upon whether or not this message. another prosecution witness. failed to transmit the Volckmann message to Beronilla. 1945. the charge of criminal conspiracy to do away with Borjal must be Paculdo as Clerk of the jury. Mariano Ajel. Col. Arnold. pursuant no satisfactory proof that Beronilla did actually receive the radiogram to his instructions. H. R. Beronilla ordered the execution of made about ten o'clock in the morning. April 18. and continued to serve as Mayor during the Japanese occupation. for some reason that can not now be ascertained. Ilocos Sur. defendants-appellants conspiring and confederating in the execution of Arsenio Borjal. Jesus Labuguen. Jacinto Adriatico as executioner. Beronilla on that date. Beronilla. 1945. 1945. Juanito Casel. Arnold. FILIPINO VELASCO. Manuel Beronilla as military mayor. aiding the enemy. FACTS: Arsenio Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz. because the accused had no need to conspire against a man who prosecutors. Felix Alverne and Juan Balmaceda as rejected. since then "it may . 1945. and JACINTO ADRIATICO. and Pedro Turqueza as members of the jury. Santiago Casel. Abra. RULING: Sometime in March. on the morning of April 18. MANUEL BERONILLA. Filemon Labuguen. Philippine Army. appellant Manuel Esteban. until March 10. charges of espionage. Our conclusion is that Lt. was. originally sent to Arnold's quarters in San his life by unknown persons. together with the package of regimental commander of the 15th Infantry. at the outbreak of ISSUE: war. placed Borjal under custody and asked the residents of Exhibit H or any copy thereof. POLICARPIO indicted in the Court of First Instance of Abra for murder. while Bayken testified that the agreement was the night of the same day. after review thereof by Arnold (Exhibit 8-8-a). On December 18. Delfin Labuguen. operating as a records of Borjal's trial that was admittedly returned to and received by guerrilla unit in the province of Abra. Jacinto Adriatico acted as executioner and Antonio Palope as grave Borjal's petition to be allowed to hear mass. Abra. La Paz to file complaints against him. In no time. and find his family in order to escape the bombing of Bangued. were decided that the concurrence of personal hatred and collaboration with the enemy as motives for a liquidation does not operate to exclude the case from the benefits of the Amnesty claimed by appellants. was relayed by the latter to appellant Beronilla in La Beronilla was appointed Military Mayor of La Paz by Lt.

(causing soldiers and civilians to be tortured. such by statute. is exempt from criminal liability under PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. appellee. Revised Penal Code. after finding that the late Arsenio Borjal had really there. as. actus non facit reum. y and hidden American officers to be captured by the Japanese) expressly MORADAS. Since there is no modifying circumstance 4. Catolico. appellant. No. 2004 his affirmative defense that the victim's death was caused by his gun accidentally going off. personal violence upon the person of VINCENT JOROJORO. except in certain crimes made circumstance of voluntary surrender. vs. The accused PO3 Ferdinand Fallorina y Fernando. be accompanied by a criminal intent. RULING: The appellant was burdened to prove. with intent to kill. thereby inflicting upon him serious reason that the accused decided to kill Arsenio Borjal" and mortal wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his death. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code which reads – vs. by then and there.. Whether or not the appellant is exempt from criminal liability.not be held that the manslaughter stemmed from purely personal motives" FACTS: Actually. the conduct of the appellants does not dispose that these appellants were impelled by malice. assault and employ committed treasonable acts. the act must. the appellant should be sentenced to causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. shooting declared that "the Court is convinced that it was not for political or personal him with a gun. by means of treachery and taking advantage of superior strength. The trial court rendered judgment convicting the appellant of murder. in the commission of the crime. the bullet hitting the victim without his fault or intention of causing it. Actus non facit reum nisi mens si rea. conformably to Article 63 of the causing it. is equivalent to criminal intent. Article 12. did then and The lower Court. G. hitting him on the head. the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. nisi mens rea-a crime is not committed if the minds of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said offended party. Any person who. 137347 March 4.R. a minor. 18 Phil. while performing a lawful act with due care. The maxim is. hence. unlawfully and feloniously attack. The following are exempt from criminal liability: … Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. in law. JR. qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of public position. 507). eleven (11) years of age. wilfully. or by such ISSUE: negligence or indifference to duty or to consequence. (U. with clear and convincing evidence. The trial court did not appreciate in favor of the appellant the mitigating To constitute a crime. For the accused to be guilty of a . PO3 FERDINAND FALLORINA Y FERNANDO. S. The basis for the exemption is the complete absence of intent and negligence on the part of the accused.

" If the consequences are plainly and the escape of the accused. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of the execution." can be considered present because the Biscayne car of Ong was comes about through some act of our will. lies beyond the bounds of used to trail the victim's car and to facilitate the commission of the crimes. Parañaque. Philippines. did then and there wilfully. province of Rizal. Ong scene in all its stages. causing commission of the crime. in the municipality of (c) Nighttime. unlawfully and with treachery and known premeditation and for the purpose of killing one Henry Chua and thereafter Kidanapping with Murder as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal extorting money from his family through the use of a ransom note. (2) with due care. with the use of treachery. (e) Use of uperior strenght. being then private individuals." and were at the People VS. conformably to Article 63 of the Revised "Conspiracy. accomplishment of the crime. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime (nocturnidad) cannot force detained him (Henry Chua) and killed him in the following manner." humanly foreseeable consequences. in an automobile. That on or about April 23 to April 24. the above named accused. and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. due to the deliberate selection of an isolated place (Barrio a lawful act. in relation to Article 267 kidnapped and carried away said Henry Chua. the appellant should be sentenced to suffer the Ong humiliation and shame. foreseeable. treachery should be considered against all Intro: persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime. They cannot escape the consequences of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought of. the penalty for murder is Accused Ong was given the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and one analogous to passion and obfuscation" because Chua previously reclusion perpetua to death. to be absorbed in treachery because in this crimes. The four participated in the planning and execution of the crimes.felony. Honorable court. penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus.33 purposely sought by the accused to facilitate immunity in the commission of the crime. and later after The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed in having taken him to an uninhabited place in Caloocan City. because the The appellant committed murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal accused meditated. accused were present throughout in the execution of this crime. while nighttime was negligence. connivance and unity of purpose and intention among the Penal Code. Caloocan City) for killing and burying the victim accident. inclusive. (f) Cruelty." treachery arose from the . conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another. initially by means of friendly gestures and later through the use of force. 34 An accident The aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the commission of is an occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will. Since there is no modifying circumstance in the threatened Ong for non-payment of debt arising from gambling. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. it will be a case of negligence. The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place (despoblado) The elements of this exempting circumstance are (1) a person is performing is also present. (3) he causes an injury to another by mere Makatipo Novaliches. and tenaciously persisted in the Code qualified by treachery. planned." All contrary to law with the following generic aggravating circumstances: (a) Evident premeditations. Code. Evident premeditation attended the commission of the crimes. Brief Facts: (b) Grave abuse of confidence. 1971. and within the jurisdiction of this (d) Use of an motor vehicle . it must be committed either with criminal intent or with fault or defenseless position of Chua when he was killed. and although it the crimes.

and ransom note for the payment by his family of the sum of $50. the prosecution fails to prove this aggravating Brief Issue: Circumstance The only issue in this case. he was again gagged and tied up by the accused. accused-appellant. vs. is whether or not the accused II. assured him that if he would write and sign a determination.00 (US). the prosecution (1) it is specially sought by the offender. GEORGE consequently a marked degree of malice and perversity. this aggravating circumstance into consideration. [G. Rationale: The crime is aggravated because by deliberately increasing the suffering of the victim the offender denotes sadism and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. must prove the following elements: (2) the offender takes advantage of it. No. which directly caused his death.000. (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by insuring the offender's immunity from identification or capture.R. 2001] In the case at bar. he would not be killed and would be released upon receipt of the ransom (c) a lapse of time between the determination and the execution note. . several times with an ice-pick. therefore. For cruelty to be appreciated against the accused. Cruelty Ambrosio voluntarily participated in the commission of the crime. inflicting the act upon him (Henry Chua) mortal wounds on his vital organs. is not sufficient for taking aggravating circumstances as alleged in the complaint. July 11. In the case at bar. Nighttime I Evident Premeditation. wit: The accused after gagging and tying up Henry Chua and repeatedly (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to that threatening him with death. CORTES y ORTEGA. for his pleasure and satisfaction. no appreciable time intervening between the infliction of one (1) wound and that of another to show that he *in this case the court took little discussions on the application of the following had wanted to prolong the suffering of his victim. and thereafter sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of stabbed in the abdominal region. Night-time becomes an aggravating circumstance only when: In the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. or (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. plaintiff-appellee. The mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death. it must be shown that the accused. caused the victim to suffer slowly Case #41 and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. 137050.

In the case at bar. treachery 2 Accused admitted that he stabbed Edlyn. In the case at bar. for the murder of Edlyn S. Gamboa. or showed manifest disrespect for her 4 The prosecution alleged that the aggravating circumstances of evident womanhood. premeditation. mistaken identity and the alternative mitigating circumstance of intoxication. or to conceal his identity. cruelty. 6 the trial court after considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances attendant found the existence of the aggravating Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty. so that it cannot be appreciated separately as another aggravating circumstance. disrespect to sex. Ordinarily. sex and intoxication attended the commission of the crime charged. 3 He entered a plea of guilty In virtue of his plea of guilty. plea of guilty. depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. and intoxication were present in the commission of the crime. a 16 year old girl Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. be considered as it was not shown that accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim. the accused mistook the victim for a man 5 The accused. on the other guilty that was offset by one of the aggravating circumstances. nighttime. cruelty. Hence. if it is not habitual or circumstances and appreciated only the mitigating circumstance of plea of subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime. 1 an Information for murder (violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal IV Abuse of Superior Strength Code) against accused On George Cortes y Ortega. the trial court V Disregard of Sex proceeded to satisfy itself of the voluntariness of the plea by propounding questions to the accused to find out if he understood his plea and the legal As to the aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex. that person must show proof of not being a habitual drinker and not Whether the trial court erred in finding that the aggravating taking the alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to circumstances of evident premeditation. when it is habitual or intentional. abuse of commit the crime superior strength. this hand. qualified the offense to murder. on the other hand. no evidence suggests that accused purposely sought the FACTS: cover of darkness to perpetrate the crime. the same could not consequence thereof. raised the attendance of the mitigating VI Intoxication circumstances of voluntary surrender. intoxication may be considered either aggravating or mitigating. . abuse of superior strength. A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the ISSUES: crime. Here. it is considered an aggravating review circumstance. nighttime. At the same time. sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason.

despite of no electricity CASE No. Ulanday. both Nerissa Tagala and Consuelo Arevalo. not habitual. then 16-year old victim Nerissa Tagala and her grandmother. Dr. or when the robbery shall brought to the kitchen. Ulanday’s testimony does not support the contention of accused-appellant that the victim voluntarily submitted to Appellant and his companions entered the house through the kitchen and sexual advances of Regala. Nerissa saw accused- perpetua to death. who was a stranger. that both Nerissa and Consuelo positively identified On the night of September 11. The judgment convicting Armando perpetrators of the crime charged. 2000 line-up inside the police station. still hogtied and was raped again by the accused. 130508 April 5. which he was still wearing at the time of the police G. at Barangay Bangon in Aroroy. under paragraph 1 thereof: (1) The penalty of reclusion were taken from the aparador. The penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. Armando raped Nerissa in bed while The crime of robbery with rape was committed in 1995 when RA 7659 was her grandmother was hogtied on the floor. were sleeping. in accordance with Article 63 in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. she was crime of homicide shall have been committed.R. was a 16-year old barrio lass. 42 at the commission of the crime. when for any reason of or on occasion of the robbery. testified herself that the complaining witness “either” voluntarily submitted to a sexual act or was forced into HELD: one. and thus. went to the room of the victims and poked at 8-inch gun on them. they remembered him wearing an People vs Regala earring of his left ear. Dr. have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. Later. not exposed to the ways of the world and was Counselo Arevalo. cannot FACTS: detract from the fact. the accused-appellant. As correctly pointed out by the appellee. No. because he used a flashlight and took off the mask he was wearing. Conchita Regala y Abriol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery . separately testified that they saw the face of Regala. as amended by Republic Act No. one after the other. and hogtied both of them. two other companions entered the former’s house. aparador being opened where two rings. the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant criminal case at the Regional Trial Court in Masbate. Thereafter. the victim Masbate. Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. 1995. not death. After raping her in bed. and money now provides. He questioned the should not be considered as aggravating. The penalty of reclusion perpetua sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence in identifying him as one of the imposed by the trial court is proper. He was convicted in the lower court but accused-appellant appealed his In this case. The Solicitor General agrees with the accused that the only aggravating ISSUE: circumstance present was treachery which qualified the killing to murder (a) Whether additional rape committed in a crime of robbery be considered and that there were two mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and as an aggravating circumstance? intoxication. when appellant Armando Regala and his not shown to have any ill-motive to falsely implicate accused-appellant. 6759 HELD: On cross-examination. And based on medico-legal. The trial court held that contradiction referred to a minor detail. she saw her grandmother’s already in force. a health officer of Aroroy. Hence. the appellant counting the money taken from the aparador. two wrist watches.

when a group of men as civil indemnity. 1. but can be perceived distinctly therefrom. took advantage of nighttime in committing the felonies charged for they had evidently chosen to execute their victims under cover of darkness. and Federico the following day. sufficient Doctrine/s and/or Rulings: We affirm the trial courts judgment convicting time had lapsed for the accused to meditate and reflect on the consequences Castillo. Antonio and Federico were taken to a rail track DOCTRINE: where their hands were tied. Antonio and Federico held their hands up while Virgilio and Pedrito could ran away. However. where the victim is entitled to an additional award of P50. Was the RTC correct in imposing the death penalty? Exception to the rule of absorbing Nighttime in Treachery – in as much as 2. (3) the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal.000. at the ISSUE: dead of night. Evident Premeditation – from the time the accused abducted the victims up [G.00 store and were on their way to each of their homes. They were then further taken to a pier in North Rule of aggravating circumstances with regards to penalty – the presence of Harbor where they were met by more armed men. since the treachery People vs Castillo rests upon an independent factual basis. To sustain a conviction for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. armed with bolos stopped them and introduced themselves as policemen.R. The police. 132895. the circumstance of nighttime is not absorbed in treachery. appellants. when the neighborhood was asleep. suffices to fix the penalty for murder at the the following day. Was the appreciation of the aggravating circumstances proper? the treachery consisted in the fact that the victims' hands were tied at the time they were beaten. Antonio. Virgilio and Pedrito had just left a detains another or in any other manner deprives the victim of his liberty. appellee. vs. we acquit her co-accused Padayhag.[8] the prosecution must establish FACTS: the following: (1) the offender is a private individual. 2004] to the time one of the latter lost consciousness and the other died. Antonio was still alive thus was rushed to Nighttime – from the facts and evidence of record in this case. found Antonio extreme punishment of death. (2) he kidnaps or At around 10:00pm. Federico. 1966 with them. March 10. appellants the hospital while Federico was already dead. of their act.with Rape. No. ELIZABETH to which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not apply. and (4) in the commission of . The group of men beat one generic aggravating circumstance. June 30. CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG. apart from the qualifying Antonio and Federico until Antonio lost consciousness at around 1:00am of circumstance of treachery. PEOPLE vs BERDIDA saying that the four are accused of killing someone and that they should go GR No. A special case therefore is present PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. together with Antonio's sister. L-20183.

The award of exemplary damages must be deleted in the . Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Ransom is money. and (2) unity in execution of an unlawful objective. Whether or not her employer failed to pay her salary is joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy. with Castillos plan. Gonzales[36] we held: Castillos reliance on her low educational level is similarly unavailing.[27] Castillo asserts that the victims parents did not pay her wages when she Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors: (1) singularity of worked as a maid of the victims family. [25] This becomes even more imperative in cases where the penalty Castillos pecuniary liability must be modified to conform with imposed is death. a payment that releases from Padayhag realized that Castillo had deceived her: captivity. is All these circumstances illustrate the absence of any hint of conspiracy. mitigating or aggravating capable of two or more explanations. established Castillos guilt for this crime beyond reasonable doubt. Both appellants testified that Padayhag met Castillo only because Castillo told Padayhag Castillos claim of injustice cannot justify in any way her demand for that Padayhags boyfriend was sick. It was precisely on the pretext that they ransom. also find that the prosecution failed to prove Padayhags guilt beyond reasonable doubt. irrelevant. She faults the trial court for refusing to consider this. one of which is consistent with the circumstance innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt. which impelled concur. redemption of a captured person or persons. Performance of an act that contributes to the goal of another is not her to take Rocky. To hold an accused by simulating public authority. female or a public officer. her educational level and her ignorance of the law.[44] the penalty of death is imposed upon proof that the kidnapping was committed to extort ransom We reiterate the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire from the victim or any other person. We still ransom. The trial court was therefore correct in disregarding Castillos claim that Rockys Padayhags act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her complicity parents committed injustice on her.[9] commission of the crime without any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter through. enough. then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to Appellant Padayhags Liability support a conviction.[10] She claims that it was this intent.[26] Indeed. even if she had a right to demand payment of her unpaid wages.[28] any person to retaliate through the commission of another crime. In People v. a plan Padayhag did not even know. price or consideration paid or demanded for were to visit Padayhags boyfriend that the two met. The penalty for kidnapping for ransom is the singular and indivisible penalty of In the absence of conspiracy. The act must be motivated by the same unlawful intent. (b) it is committed concert with Castillo to commit the same criminal act. The two must injustice. the money she actually demanded and eventually received. We find that the prosecution has case for review on any question including those not raised by the parties.the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days. if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are death. When they met. (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted on guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy. No amount of perceived injustice can serve as justification for unless proved to have been motivated by a common design.[11] Thus. or (d) the person kidnapped or unbroken chain of events that directly and definitely links the accused to the detained is a minor. Neither Castillo is mistaken. The same cannot be said of Padayhag. conspiracy must be proven as Appellant Castillos Liability clearly as the commission of the crime itself. jurisprudence. This bars the application of any alternative. However. there must be a sufficient and the victim or threats to kill are made. Our review of the evidence on record Penalty and Damages shows that the prosecution failed to prove Padayhags guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Crime and its Punishment which kidnapping or serious detention lasted for more than three (3) days thereby depriving him of his liberty. III. in Paraaque. a five years old child (sic). Metro Manila. the attack on THE FACTS OF THE CASE. Philippines. hence. in Criminal Case No. as testified to by the prosecution II. and seriously detain HORACIO CEBRERO IV @ Rocky.000 in line with current jurisprudence. [45] The pain and anguish they experienced justifies the award of moral People vs Tan. slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. Self defense Brief Facts: Before us on automatic review is the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque. without risk arising from the defense I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN MISAPPRECIATING (SIC) which the offended party might make. September 28. and which was committed for the The killing was attended by treachery. Magdalino Olos was treacherous. 1999 damages. The purpose of extorting ransom from the parents of the victim. 1995. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE UNCOUNSELLED CONFESSION OF EVANGELINE PADAYHAG.absence of any aggravating circumstance. which tend directly and especially to insure its execution. he failed to discharge this burden. she even heard Jose Tan telling and pleading with his brother to stop his attack and stabbing of the victim. Mr. for even if the latter is weak. confederating. Padayhag and Imelda Wenceslao with responsibility for the killing. However. the crime was murder. According DEATH PENALTY IN THE CASE AT BAR. defense. employing Issues: means. 132324. Cebrero testified that their family suffered serious anxiety at the possibility of not seeing Rocky again. the burden of proof is shifted to Region. and mutually helping one another. did then and there willfully. finding appellants Elizabeth Castillo them to prove that the killing was justified and that they incurred no (Castillo) and Evangeline Padayhag (Padayhag) guilty of Qualified criminal liability therefor. he must prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. unlawfully and feloniously kidnap. Thus. carry away. Culpability of Jose Tan The prosecution was not able to establish conspiracy in the killing of the IV. G. WAS CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT RANSOM IN THIS CASE. that the means employed to prevent it were reasonable. Appellant Jose Tan is guilty only as an accomplice. National Capital Judicial When the accused invoke self-defense. and ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG.R. together. thus. However. No. it could not be disbelieved after their open admission of The Information[3] charging Castillo. to the damage essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. conspiring that there was lack of sufficient provocation o his part. 95-86. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE witnesses and as indicated by the wounds inflicted on him. Branch 260. without the and prejudice of the victim himself and his parents. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE victim. because he was caught off guard and was therefore unable to defend himself. The most therefore . said accused of the victim. the crime of kidnapping. reads: In the present case. we reduce the trial courts award of moral damages to Doctrines: P100. They must rely on the strength of their own Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention[2] and sentencing them to death. methods or forms in the execution thereof. In the case at bar. it is incumbent upon Appellant Norly Tan to prove self- That on or about March 1.[7] to the widow Ofelio Olos.

in its maximum period. After robbing the victim. stoning was neither a direct participation nor indispensable to the killing of Whether Jose Tan can be considered as an accomplice in this case. No. thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death. when doubt exists whether an accused acted as principal or accomplice. 1996. did then and there. Municipality of Ocampo. Philippines. Norlito Tan was arrested on April 1.e. that in this case. biting her nipples. August 5. However. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the offended party in such amount as may be Abarri and Andales each poked a knife at Gan's neck and forcibly brought proven in court. the trial court should have lowered his penalty by two degrees. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the . Irenea. G. Norlito Tan and Jose Tan as an accomplice. 17 Principals mayor medium. with treachery and evident premeditation. They both all the other appellants participated in removing her clothes. The other appellants followed them and watched while Abarri divested the victim of her valuables. assault. unlawfully and feloniously attack. Camarines with the use of a "balisong" tore the upper portion of the victim's blouse and Sur. the court should favor the lesser or milder identity (People vs. prision correccional maximum to prision Art. Considering that he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. 1995 than that of the principal. to death. 1993. in Barangay Gatbo. Abarri The penalty of Appellant Jose Tan as an accomplice is one degree lower G. as the agreement itself may be inferred from the conduct of the parties disclosing a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. lasciviousness can be inferred from their behaviors. Jose Tan was arrested in Ocampo. On the 6th day of September. Abarri On December 14. the imposable Doctrine/ Ruling: penalty on Norlito Tan is reclusion perpetua. because he was only sixteen years old Art. as held by the Supreme Court.R. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. conspiring. the accused Jose Tans act of case. pawing her and pleaded not guilty. Case # 47 People v.that said accused could be liable for is merely that of an accomplice. her to the vacant lot. No. confederating together and mutually helping one The common intent of robbing the victim and committing the acts of another. he is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. stone and stab with a deadly weapon one Magdaleno Rudy Olos alias Modesto Olos. Province of Camarines Sur. with intent to kill. the victim. 90185 March 1. Proof of the Facts: agreement need not rest on direct evidence. Likewise. which in murder cases is reclusion temporal. 44410. Subsequently. who. Issue: not being a principal cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous and simultaneous acts. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was proven.R. i. Also. 1995. 8 Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony when the crime was committed. wilfully. by his stoning the victim Modesto Whether or not self defense can be used as a justifying circumstance in this Olos and hitting him on the neck. 1988).

When she was completely naked. he alone is guilty of robbery with rape. In the process. Barangay Captain Anita Alejo was informed by a resident that somebody was opening the store of On October 14. her hands. raped her twice. Andales left.00. huwag kang latter's pants." Likewise.00. as to make the utterance a command legs. the accused private parts constitute lewd designs. the tie on her mouth loosened and she was behind with the victim. started touching her private parts. sisigaw. Kalookan City on her way home. When she asked the two what Ronnie Andales stopped her and each poked a knife at her neck. of the same day. Responding to her cries. Before a remark can produce such an effect. we do not regard the remarks made by Cawaling to Andales as sufficient to make him a principal by inducement or a co- conspirator. " tore the upper portion of Gan's blouse. Abarri admitted to forcibly bringing Gan to a lot strewn with garbage and covered with tall grass. the same must be of a nature and uttered in such a manner as to become the Andales then dragged Gan to a dark spot and after loosening the tie on her determining cause of the crime. After satisfying his lust. the acts of lasciviousness committed by her watch valued P2. Abarri answered that Gan instructed them to get the grabbed Gan's bag and warned: "Kung gusto mong mabuhay. Once inside the vacant lot. There is not even a showing that Cawaling had able to shout for help. The other accused then started tearing the ." Gan was dragged by the two and brought inside a fenced.acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. in the case of Andales.000. containing P250. Alejo turned over the two to the Conrado Estrada and Joselito Pajalago were former employees of Gan. She noticed that along 4th Avenue. neighbors came and untied any moral influence over Andales. which included the key for her store at Carmen Planas Street in Binondo. Before leaving. from a superior to a subordinate.. hands and feet.00 and wallet him culminated in the raping of the victim when he was left alone with her. (referring to Andales) bahala ka na. Abarri then they were doing there.000. necklace valued at P5. In the case at bench.M.M. Consequently. Cawaling told Andales: "Nognog. Cawaling was then leaving the place Gan waited for about 20 minutes before she started to roll over to the with Abarri. with the use of a "balisong. The torn blouse was used to of appellants in striping naked and hogtying the victim and touching her tie her mouth. Alejo saw Abarri and Estrada. Ernesto Abarri and the door of the store had been partly opened. Manila. Abarri opened Gan's handbag and took a bunch of keys. while Gregoria Gan was walking Gan. vacant Upon further questioning. We find that the acts rest of the blouse and pulling down her pants. Nothing in the records show that the other accused had knowledge or were aware of the rape committed by Andales. Abarri. Repairing at the place. vacant lot and binding her arms and legs. it appears that the decision of Andales to rape the victim had been made before Cawaling uttered the remarks. appellants left except Andales. at around 7:30 P. makatas pa 'yan. at around 8:30 P. Clemente Cawaling. He also got However. sampung taon na rin na hindi nakakatikim 'yan. Alejo brought them to the barangay hall for investigation. custody of the police detachment in Binondo. 1988. After robbing Gan. Estrada and Pajalago while Andales purposely stayed middle of the lot. Facts: Meanwhile.

48 plurality of acts performed during a period of time. murder. i. As stated in the Order dated crime that does not exist in the statute books. said identities of the aliens. However. namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion. 1990 purpose or aim Intro: a delito continuado consists of several crimes but in reality there is only one Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. The information was then amended reproducing verbatim the allegation of the original information. a fine not exceeding P20. . depending upon the modifying offended party.Supplementing Special Laws CONTINUING CRIME . 1990. and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done). unless she was furnished with the names and even in the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. the Government.For delito continuado to exist there should be a Case No. and unity of criminal intent or purpose. under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him. the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. Issue: #49 Santiago v Garchitorena Are the accused guilty of robbery with rape? ART 10 RPC . in other words. if construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution.e. However. and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the At the hearing of the motion for a bill of particulars. causing undue injury to one temporal in its maximum period to death. Thus. which means that two or 186 SCRA 217 more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same G. 1988. in the corresponding period. unity of penal provision Enrile vs. No.000 and prision mayor.The police brought Abarri and Andales to the crime scene. reclusion the law to enjoy such privilege under EO 324. would be unfavorable to the movant. Petitioner was charged with performing a single criminal act — that of her depending upon the modifying circumstances present. the same must be November 12. Salazar violated. the following penalties would FACTS: be imposable upon the movant. therefore. The police proceeded to Gan's house Issue: where the latter positively identified the two as among those persons who Whether or not under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code rebellion may robbed her. provision. the public prosecutors period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10. and (2) for the crime of murder. According to petitioner. on or about circumstances present. Gan was no longer there when they arrived. If murder crime in the mind of the perpetrator. she could not properly plead and prepare for trial. done on a single day. 1992 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division): dismissed as it is just a mere flight of rhetoric.. the spouses Rebecco and individual whose stay was legalized. manifested that they would file only one amended information embodying The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner is charged with a the legalization of stay of the 32 aliens. except that instead of the word "aliens" in the Facts: original information each amended information states the name of the A warrant was issued charging Senator Enrile. circumstances. were not complexed with rebellion. in the absence of aggravating October 17. but never exceeding approving the application for legalization of 32 aliens not qualified under 12 years of prision mayor.R. 92163 – 64 instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal June 5. properly be complexed with a common offense. Erlinda Panlilio.

Likewise. Hence. G. Criminal Case No. ( which disqualifies the respondent from voting for having been “declared by final judgment guilty of any crime against property. Program. On accused through counsel. In this respect. . DIRECTOR OF PRISONS. L-28519 February 17. 11 of Malabon. he will be eligible for appointment only to positions which are clerical or manual in RULING: nature and involving no money or property responsibility. also. in which case. the prosecution is categorical that there will not be 1938.e. On 1940. 1988. After hearing. The crime of evasion of service of sentence is an example of the latter kind of crime . Case # 52 and some in another. and responding directly to the concerns of the Rizal and was seated as the municipal president from 1934 to 1937. L-47941 December 7. the public prosecutors manifested at the hearing the motion for a bill of particulars that the Government suffered a single harm or injury. 1968 Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to Ruling: There are crimes which are called transitory or continuing offenses consolidate the 32 Amended Informations into one information charging because some acts material and essential to the crime occur in one province only one offense under the original case number. the rule is settled that the court of either province where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took place has Cristobal v. 1940 yet by reason of the very nature of the offense committed. the prosecution has conceded removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction. Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. that the latter is disqualified. categorically that the accusation against Miriam Defensor Santiago consists of one violation of the law represented by the approval of the applications FACTS: The CFI of Rizal found respondent Santos guilty of estafa. unless the latter provide the contrary. The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time. the violation of the law is deemed to be continuing. vs. the Code shall be supplementary to special laws. The strong ISSUE: Whether or not the pardon not only blots out the probability even exists that the approval of the application or the crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction? legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen.R. Cristobal filed a petition for the exclusion of the name of Santos legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a from the list of voters in precinct no. Labrador — jurisdiction to try the case. of 32 foreign nationals for availment (sic) of the Alien Legalization however. No.” The ISSUE: respondent applied to the President for an absolute pardon and granted the Is the consolidation of cases proper for violation of EO 324? / Was there petition restoring the respondent to his full civil and political rights. the court denied the petition for exclusion and declared that the pardon extended in favor of respondent has Applying the concept of delito continuado had the effect of excluding him from the disqualification created by the Election Code. he continued to be a registered elector in the city of Malabon. G.when the prisoner in his ABSOLUTE PARDON attempt to evade the service of the sentence imposed upon him by the courts . RICARDO PARULAN. Commonwealth Act No 357 or the Election Code was approved 32 accusations but only one . . crimes which although all the elements thereof for its consummation may have occurred in a single place. except only one offense committed? that with respect to the right to hold public office or employment. 16698 is MODIFIED in the sense that the Office of the respondent.. on or about October 17.R. petitioner. i. YES. There are. Rizal on the ground supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws. DOCTRINE: Absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed but On the matter of the Bill of Particulars. 54. No.

However. despite her resistance. he is deemed to continue committing the crime. set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force. under section 6[c] thereof. necessarily prove each of the component offenses with the same precision for. When the penalty of death. The presence of mitigating circumstance of voluntary sentence. Consequently. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has Searching inquiry incase of plea of guilty in a crime having a penalty of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case against Parulan? death. Where the law provides a single An information for kidnapping with rape was filed against appellant by on penalty for two or more component offenses. At dawn of the following day. He was then transferred to Fort consequences of his plea are ascertained. It may not be validly said that after the convict shall have escaped from the place of his confinement the crime is fully Mitigating Circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty in single and consummated. He was eventually recaptured in Manila. the escapee is in the continuous act of automatic review to the Supreme Court does not bar the referring of the committing a crime — evading the service of his sentence. There is thus no hard and FACTS: Petitioner Parulan was confined in the state penitentiary at fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a "searching inquiry. Bonifacio in Makati. 2004.: the former. Doctrine(s): Special complex crime. while still serving his sentence. RENATO TALUSAN y was thereafter under appellant’s control and custody for eight days during PANGANIBAN which he abused her by inserting his finger inside her vagina on a daily basis before breakfast. the act of the escaped prisoner is a continuous or series of that would be necessary if they were made the subject of separate acts. the Revised Rules of Court may be invoked in support of this conclusion. Rule 113 of single and indivisible. case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate disposition. 179187 July 14. at any place where he may be found. Rizal. for. appellant guilty. special complex crime. complaints. In October 1964. her stepfather BBB went to search for CARPIO MORALES.R. 2004. while AAA was on her way to school. and may be plea of guilty has no effect or disregarded incase the penalty imposable is arrested without warrant. this right of arrest without a warrant is founded on the forwarded to the Supreme Court on automatic review. G. he escaped. the voluntary intent of the accused and his full comprehension of the was commuted to 20 years by the President. was apprehended. AAA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. J. In a special complex crime. however. but in fact appellant brought AAA to a house in Imus. As a recourse. appellant. 2009 AAA having failed to return home. the prosecution must .and thus defeat the purpose of the law. January 23." As long as Muntinlupa. such principle that at the time of the arrest. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. A neighbor then informed him that he saw appellant with AAA while the latter was on her way to school. however long it may be. one of the instances when a person may be perpetua or life imprisonment. reclusion for. the case is automatically Undoubtedly. he was prosecuted for the crime of evasion of service of sentence and was found Facts: In January 14. Jollibee. perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed. he filed a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas kidnapped AAA by deceiving the latter that they would would go to corpus directed against respondent Director of Prisons. serving a sentence of life imprisonment which. who was with AAA. moves from one place to another. the resulting crime is called a the basis of the report submitted by the medico legal. Cavite. Automatic Review in case the penalty imposed is death. in this case. reclusion arrested without warrant is where he has escaped from confinement. No. as long as he continues to evade the service of his indivisible penalty.

or Conduct Prejudicial to as it did. It requires public bodies and institutions THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. reclusion perpetua or life years of confinement at hard labor is penal in nature. the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. insofar as those that are not provided in the Articles of Major General Carlos Garcia of the AFP was charged in a Court Martial for War and the Manual for Courts-Martial. AFP (RET. appellant. with the assistance of his counsel de oficio.—Offenses which are or in years and two (2) months of preventive confinement. 2012 Constitution. petitioner was charged with and convicted of Conduct questions and just as repeated answers showing that appellant understood Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman (96th Article of War) and his plea and its consequences. Good Order and Military Discipline. failure to disclose all his existing assets in his Sworn Statement of Assets Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code: Art. GARCIA. This Code shall be supplementary to service. forfeited all pay and allowances due and confined at hard labor at such laws. which is two (2) guilty where the penalty imposed is death. After six (6) subject to the provisions of this Code. such place the reviewing authority may direct for a period of two (2) years. and despite repeated case. The General Court Martial is a court within the strictest sense of the word and acts as a criminal court. imprisonment? absent any provision as to the application of a criminal concept in the implementation and execution of the General Court Martial's decision. both of which are not defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Violation of the 97th Article of War. In the present inquiry into the voluntariness of appellant’s plea. Therefore.). situated should be treated alike.Upon arraignment. 3 Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code in the Articles of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 G. The corresponding Issue: Whether or not a searching inquiry is required in case of plea of penalty imposed by the General Court Martial. responsibilities imposed. Offenses not and Liabilities and Net Worth for the years 2002 and 2003. According to a long line of decisions. specifically Article 29 should be applied. The lower court thereupon conducted a searching defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code. 2 A special law is defined as a penal law which punishes acts not entered a plea of guilty. certain provisions of the Revised Facts: Penal Code. equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. On that premise. No. can be supplementary. 198554 July 30. Garcia was found the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to guilty of the charged offenses and was dishonorably discharged from the the provisions of this Code.R. the trial court still ordered the prosecution to. both as to rights conferred and vs. present evidence. Petitioner. 10. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary Doctrines: discrimination. whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state’s duly- 1 A court-martial case is a criminal case and the General Court constituted authorities Martial is a “court” akin to any other courts. unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. .

When he was confronted. Petitioner. Ruling: Yes. Inc.Issue: WON the period of preventive confinement of Garcia shall be  The settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the charge.000. theft is qualified when it is. Ferdinand Cruz as a Marketing among others. Inc. deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it. to wit: Manager of Porta-Phone Rentals.000.00. steal and carry away the amount of PhP15. He went to his office. Spetember 03. the penalty for confinement should be credited to the sentence confirmed by the Office of Qualified Theft is two degrees higher than that specified in the President. the time within which the petitioner was under preventive  Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. Qualified theft.. changed the case to Qualified Theft. Applying the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. had access to the funds of the corporation and with grave abuse of confidence. he is credited to the sentence imposed by the court martial.R. The company sent a demand letter which he answered stating that he already remitted the amount to the accounting supervisor which the latter denied. He was asked by the supervisor to sign the official receipt because he was the one who closed the deal. 2008 reimbursements. He refused to turn over the amount despite demands made by the officers of the company which prompted the company to file ARTICLE the a case of Estafa/Falsification of Documents. He delivered the communication equipment and received the PhP15. . The prosecution those respectively specified in the next preceding article. FACTS: Ferdinand Cruz was a Marketing Manager of Porta-Phone Rentals.. No.The crime of theft shall be the said amount from Hemisphere-Leo Burnett and issued a receipt but punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than failed to turn over the amount to Porta-Phone Rentals. He then failed to deliver the cash to his office.00 payment and issued a receipt even though he not authorized to receive cash payments and issued receipts. which he failed to do claiming that the company has paid his G. Ferdinand Cruz in his defense alleged that he issued an acknowledgment receipt to Hemisphere and remitted the amount to the accounting supervisor. The period of confinement of six years shall be credited in his Article 309. if committed x x x with grave abuse of confidence x x x. Information filed before the RTC of Makati. a corporation engaged in the lease of cellular phones. v. 310. Ferdinand admitted that he deposited the FERDINAND A. 176504. obtained a pad of official receipts from the collection officer’s table. committed with grave abuse of confidence. According to the  Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. and the witnesses for the prosecution testified that he received ART. . favor and deducted from the two (2) years to which the accused was sentenced. Respondnet. CRUZ. He entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment. THE PEOPLE OF THE amount to his personal bank account. He was instructed to remit the amount PHILIPPINES.

The truth is. On the contrary. ART. 2 The elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) there was ISSUE: a taking of personal property. things. (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner. as maximum.12 Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. to wit: 3 Whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied. The RTC revived and reinstated the conviction of Ferdinand. The settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the charge. investigation on the charge of qualified theft was not accorded him. he voluntarily pleaded to the charge and actively participated in the trial of the case 3 The RTC imposed on petitioner the indeterminate penalty of 10 Years and 1 Day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 Years. 310. Ferdinand was able to answer the initial charge Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. he is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to The prosecution established. beyond the shadow of doubt that question any irregularity that surrounds it. He filed a Motion for New Trial on the grounds of allegations and evidence were proffered by the complainant in the (1) absence of a preliminary investigation for the crime of qualified theft qualified theft.The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively HELD: specified in the next preceding article. Upon the original indictment of estafa/falsification of private documents. . the prosecutor deemed it thing stolen is more than P12.00 but does not exceed . Paragraph 1 of Article 309 provides that if the value of the of evidence presented by the complainant. the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision. committed with grave abuse of doubt. (4) the taking 1 Whether Ferdinand was denied of due process when he was was done with intent to gain. (2) the property belongs to another. there is no need for Ferdinand to be given the and (2) newly discovered evidence – the testimony of a former employee of opportunity to submit counter-affidavits anew. if committed x x x with grave abuse of confidence x x x. 1 Ferdinand was not denied of due process. Based on the same complaint affidavit and the same sets 309. In the instant case. and (5) the taking was accomplished indicted for qualified theft even as he was initially investigated for without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon estafa/falsification of private documents. theft is 2 Whether Ferdinand’s guilt was not established beyond reasonable qualified when it is. appeal.000. Since the same QUALIFIED THEFT. Ferdinand took and kept the fifteen thousand peso-collection from Ferdinand did not present evidence that arraignment was forced the company’s client. Qualified Theft is two degrees higher than that specified in Article affidavits. upon him.The RTC found Ferdinand guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of proper to charge Ferdinand with qualified theft. 8 It is not correct for Ferdinand to claim that preliminary Months and 1 Day of reclusion temporal. Qualified theft. among others. as he had already Hemisphere testifying on Ferdinand’s signing of an acknowledgment answered said allegations when he submitted counter-affidavits for receipt. the penalty for of estafa/falsification of private documents through his counter. confidence.

the identity of appellant is not in question. the accused cannot be held liable for kidnapping. 5 months and 11 days to 18 years. Two degrees higher than prision mayor minimum and medium is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and knew. In this case. and there is some doubt on whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has committed it. motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.000. Indeed. the appellant may be medium periods. P22. No.00. material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive. motive becomes years. If the evidence does not adequately prove this element. 5 months and 11 days. However. The minimum penalty imposed by the RTC is correct. 2 months and 20 days. the elements of kidnapping are as follows: Actual detention or "locking up" is the primary element of kidnapping. principles. the maximum period imposed by RTC should be increased to 16 Motive is not an element of the crime. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance in the commission of the offense. ARNULFO ASTORGA G. 110097. jurisprudence): The prosecution failed to prove one essential element of kidnapping — the fact of detention or the deprivation of liberty. the minimum shall be prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period or within the range of 10 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. In this case. There being no actual detention or confinement. In the present case. 22 December 1997 Kidnapping or Coercion? Introduction (Provisions involved. the prosecution merely proved that appellant forcibly dragged the victim toward a place only he 1 That the offender is a private individual. . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. the amount stolen was P15.00. convicted only of grave coercion. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Furthermore. Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. He himself admitted having taken Yvonne to Maco Central Elementary School. the maximum No Motive to "Kidnap" period of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of 16 years.000.

or 3 That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to Rather. When appellant Lockup is included in the broader term of "detention. right or wrong. but also to Binuangan. consequently. authority of a law or in the exercise of any lawful right. much less. There is no actual confinement or 3 That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal. he took away her right to go home to to the placing of a person in an enclosure which he cannot leave. up. Appellant's forcible dragging of Yvonne to a place only he knew cannot be 1 That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than said to be an actual confinement or restriction on the person of Yvonne. in other words. 2 That it committed simulating public authority. control over the will of the offended party." It is clear that the appellant and the victim were constantly on the move. either by material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and. shows the absence of "locking up. Likewise. which is the primary element of kidnapping. the Revised Penal Code was originally approved and enacted in Spanish. the felony committed in this case is grave coercion under Article kill him are made. that he actually detained her. Appellant's apparent intention was to take Yvonne against her 4 That in the commission of the offense. and (c) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no The Spanish version of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code uses the right to do so or. (b) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence. as provided in Section 15 of the Revised Administrative Code. or in any other A review of the events as narrated by the prosecution witnesses ineluctably manner deprives the latter of his liberty. any of the following will towards the direction of Tagum. The evidence does not show that circumstances is present: appellant wanted to detain Yvonne. Grave coercion or coaccion grave has three elements: (a) that any person is prevented by another from doing something not 4 That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor." which refers not only forcibly dragged and slapped Yvonne. or There was no "lockup. Consequently." Accordingly. or 286 of the same code. restraint of the victim. that the restraint is not made under terms "lockup" (encerrar) rather than "kidnap" (secuestrar or raptar). be it female. prohibited by law. or compelled to do something against his or her will. appellant cannot be convicted of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. five (5) days. Brief facts: . Appellant presented no justification for preventing Yvonne from any other deprivation of liberty which does not necessarily involve locking going home. or a public officer. 2 That he kidnaps or detains another. the Spanish text is controlling in cases of conflict with the English version.

While there was a brown out, accused or "Boy" Astorga told Yvonne Traya,
who was only eight (8) years old at that time and who stays with her
grandparents and so with her parents at Sitio Binuangan, Maco, to go with Brief issues:
him to buy candy and immediately grabbed and held Yvonne’s hand as the
latter did not answer, placed his hand on her shoulder, covered her mouth,
and went and walked inside the compound of Maco Elementary School, and
later, there being no person around the gate, accused brought her out to the Whether the accused’s motive to kidnap Yvonne Traya is relevant to convict
highway and walked towards the direction of Tagum which is the opposite him for the crime of kidnapping. No, motive is not relevant.
direction towards her grandparent's house at Binuangan, hence Yvonne cried
and protested that she must go home but the accused did not heed her plea.

Whether Yvonne Traya was not detained, locked-up or deprived of her
liberty so as not to convict the accused for the crime of kidnapping but only
While the accused and Yvonne were walking in the situation as described, for grave coercion. Yes!
somewhere near the Luponlupon bridge, they met some group of
youngsters-men and the said group was suspicious about the man who was
bringing a child, thus the said group decided to follow them. Accused
hurriedly walked fast with Yvonne, and to prevent from being overtaken, he
carried the victim and ran but they were chased and were overtaken.

Edwin Fabila declared that Jonathan, one of his companions with others in
chasing, asked the accused where they were bound and he answered Section 6 of RA 9344 clearly and explicitly provides:
towards Binuangan but the group noticed something suspicious because
Section 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility - A child 15 years of
their destination was already towards Tagum which is an opposite direction age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
to Binuangan. from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt
from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless
Jonathan, one of those who chased, knew Yvonne’s family and he got from
he/she acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected
the accused Yvonne who showed some resistance, and the group brought the to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act
accused and Yvonne to Yvonne’s home at Binuangan.

ORTEGA vs PEOPLEGR No. 151085August 20, 2008

FACTS: G.R. No. 117407 | April 15, 1997
The petitioner, Joemar Ortega, who was then 14 years old, was charged with the crime of PADILLA, J.
for allegedly raping AAA, who was about 8 years old. That the rape happened in 3
occasions. The RTC ruled that the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt in the crime of rape and is sentenced to reclusion temporal. The CA affirmed DOCTRINE / RULING:
the ruling of the trial court. During the pendency of the case in the SC, RA 9344 Juvenile Alibi; It has been held time and again that for alibi to prosper as a defense
Justice and Welfare Act was enacted that establishes a comprehensive system to manage the accused must show that he was so far away that he could not have been
children in conflict with the law. At the case at bar, because the petitioner was a minor physically present at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity at the
under 15 years of age at the commission of the crime, he can be relieved from criminal time of its commission (People vs. Tasurra, 192 SCRA 266). In this case,
liability. however, it is not so situated, for according to him he was at the plant of the
Republic Asahi Glass Corporation in Barangay Pinagbuhatan, Pasig, —
ISSUE: which is but a few kilometers from Barangay Sumilang of the same
Whether or not the petitioner can avail exempting circumstance provided by the newly municipality where the crime was committed.
enacted law on minors in conflict with law.
HELD Rape; Accused-appellant tries to discredit the victim’s testimony by
: Yes questioning her behavior after she was allegedly raped. The court ruled that
RATIO it is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone
: The petitioner can avail the exempting circumstance that will relieve him from criminal traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected under the
liability because the law enacted was favorable to the accused, and is therefore retroactive circumstances from mature people. The range of emotion shown by rape
in application. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act provides that a child under 15 years of victims is yet to be captured even by the calculus. It is thus unrealistic to
age in the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability, but is expect uniform reactions from rape victims.It should be borne in mind, in
subject to an intervention program. Exemption from criminal liability, however, does not this connection, that the victim was only a naive nine (9) year old child
include exemption from civil liability. Section 64 of the newly enacted law also provides when the crime was committed on her. She considered the accused as a
that cases of children under 15 years of age at the commission of the crime, shall friend, almost like a relative, as in fact she called him “Tito Loloy.”
immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate
local social welfare and development officer. The Court therefore held that As correctly observed by the Solicitor General: “(A)s regards the acts
the case against Joemar Ortega is hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner is hereby imputed to Estela, the delay of seven (7) days from the date of her
referred to the local social welfare and development officer of the locality for the knowledge of the rape incident on 4 April 1992 in reporting to the
appropriate intervention program authorities the rape of her daughter is excusable. At that time, she was not
yet certain of the steps she would take considering the delicate nature of the
problem they were facing” (citing People v. Danguilan, 218 SCRA 98;
People v. Joaquin, Jr., 225 SCRA 179). Besides, we have ruled that a delay
in prosecuting the rape is not indicative of fabricated charges.

Pardon; It is clear to the mind of this Court that the complainant has not
expressly pardoned the said accused. Besides, there are authorities holding
Case No. 65 that pardon must be granted not only by the parents of an offended minor
but also by the minor herself in order to be effective as an express pardon

under Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in the case of People vs. Whether or not the court erred in disregarding the defense of pardon and
Lacson, Jr., (C.A.) 55 O.G. 9460, we find the following words: ‘Neither alibi of the accused?
must we be understood as supporting the view that the parents alone can PANAGUITON, JR. v. DOJ
extend a valid pardon. Far from it, for we, too are of the belief that the
pardon by the parents, standing alone, is inefficacious.’ It was also held in Facts:
another case, that ‘The express pardon of a person guilty of attempted
In 1992, Rodrigo Cawili borrowed various sums of money from petitioner
abduction of a minor, granted by the latter’s parents, is not sufficient to
remove criminal responsibility, but must be accompanied by the express Panaguiton, Jr. On January 8, 1993, Cawili and Ramon C. Tongson
pardon of the girl herself.’ (U.S. vs. Luna, 1 Phil. 360). (Tongson) jointly issued in favor of Panaguiton, Jr. three (3) checks in
payment of the said loans. Upon presentment for payment on March 18,
1993, the checks were dishonored.
Complainant Estela Santos owns a house at No. 6 Dr. Garcia St., in On August 24, 1995, Panaguiton, Jr. filed a complaint against Cawili and
Barangay Sumilang, Pasig, she resides with her common-law husband and Tongson for violating Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Bilang 22 before the Quezon
their minor daughter, Maristel Cruz. Behind the said house, complainant City Prosecutor's Office. However, on March 15, 1999, Assistant City
also owns a three-door apartment building, one unit of which was rented Prosecutor Sampaga held that the case had already prescribed pursuant to
and occupied by accused Irvin Tadulan, his wife Adefa Tadulan and their Act No. 3326, as amended, which provides that violations penalized by B.P.
three children name Dianne, Angie and Bochoy who were aged 10, 9 and 5, Blg. 22 shall prescribe after four (4) years starting on the date the checks
respectively. In 1992 complainant’s daughter, Maristel Cruz was about nine were dishonored (March 18, 1993) Panaguiton, Jr. appealed to the DOJ but
(9) year old and was in grade school. She often played with the accused’s it dismissed the case on the same grounds of prescription.
children in the vicinity of their house and the apartment building.
The DOJ explained that Act No. 3326 applies to violations of special acts
That on or about the 2nd day of April, 1992 in the Municipality of Pasig, that do not provide for a prescriptive period for the offenses thereunder.
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Since B.P. Blg. 22, as a special act, does not provide for the prescription of
Court, armed with a knife, with lewd design and by means of force, threats the offense it defines and punishes, Act No. 3326 applies to it, and not Art.
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously 90 of the Revised Penal Code which governs the prescription of offenses
have sexual intercourse with one Maristel Cruz, a minor, nine (9) years old, penalized thereunder. The DOJ also cited the case of Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr.,
without her consent and against her will. wherein the SC ruled that the proceedings referred to in Act No. 3326, as
amended, are judicial proceedings, and not the one before the prosecutor's
Estela Santos immediately informed the wife of Irvin Tadulan that her office (administrative proceedings). Therefore, the filing of a complaint
husband has raped her daughter. She further informed Adefa Tadulan that
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City does not interrupt the
she would not take action against the latter’s husband if they would vacate
running of the prescriptive period for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Hence, this
the apartment unit right away. Adefa Tadulan later on met with Estela
Santos and told her that she had driven away Irvin Tadulan, but requested Petition for Review.
that she and her children be allowed to stay until Saturday, April 11, 1992.
Estela Santos thereafter noted, however, that Irvin Tadulan was still coming
home to the apartment unit every night despite the promise of his wife that Issues:
she herself would call the police should he ever come back to the place.
Whether or not the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 has already
ISSUE: prescribed per Act No. 3326

ET AL. Desierto. HON. the counting of the prescriptive period commenced from the date of aggregate period of nine (9) years had elapsed from the time he filed his discovery of the offense in 1992 after an exhaustive investigation by the complaint-affidavit up to the time the DOJ issued the assailed resolution. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT Amending said law. NO. especially those who do not sleep on their rights and Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. DESIERTO. et al. increased the (PCGG) vs. from the period for the offenses with which respondents in OMB-0-96-0968 were discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its charged should be computed from the discovery of the commission thereof investigation and punishment. Desierto (2001) actively pursue their causes. . and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are Ruling: dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. Notwithstanding whether or not the proceeding is a judicial proceeding or RULING: Respondent Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in an administrative proceeding. ANIANO A. and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lim. and if the same not be known at the time. a special law. Jr. Sandiganbayan. we agree with the COMMITTEE that the prescriptive violation of the law. which provides that the public officials concerned connived or conspired with the "beneficiaries prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the of the loans. Violations of Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances). 195. went through the proper channels. 3326 is the law applicable to February 1986 Edsa Revolution that ousted President Ferdinand E. Marcos.A. where the Court held that it was well-nigh impossible for The applicable law in the computation of the prescriptive period is Section the State. an Thus. Sandiganbayan. No. 349 SCRA 767. Moreover. overwhelm and not from the day of such commission. No. as ruled in the cases of Ingco v. prescriptive period from ten to fifteen years. Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans. January 19. Desierto. no preliminary investigation against the accused. supra. supra. should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply because of circumstances beyond their control. Batas Pambansa Blg. 3326. Act No. In cases involving violations of R. However. No.A. interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. to have known the violations of R.A. Note 14. G. Desierto. as alleged. Note 16). vs. Respondents members of the PNB Board of Directors and Officers of NOCOSII are charged with violation of R. The issue of prescription has long been laid to rest in the 3019. as amended (Act Establishing Prescriptive Periods for 3019 at the time the questioned transactions were made because. Prescriptive period for Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA No. Section 4. 3019. Although Panaguiton. Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for Committee on Behest Loans v. 140232. Domingo Interport Resources Corporation.R. within the prescribed periods. the Court ruled that the v. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. offenses under special laws which do not provide for their own prescriptive we ruled that the government as the aggrieved party could not have known periods. the aggrieved party. as amended) aforementioned Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Thus. 2 of Act No. Panaguiton. No. person would have dared to question the legality of those transactions. Jr. 2001.’s filing of the complaint dismissing the subject complaint on the ground of prescription. Sanrio of the violations at the time the questioned transactions were made (PCGG Company Limited v.-Presidential Ad Hoc Aggrieved parties. 3019 committed prior to the As correctly stated by the DOJ.

petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman the criminal complaint against respondents on April 5. ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of Records show that the act complained of was discovered in 1992. or prescribed. as it provides an Diaz-Salcedo to resolve the case based on the available evidence. (NOCOSII) and Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the extinguished. prompting Graft Investigator Officer (GIO) I Melinda S. 13 creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding vs Committee on Behest Loans (Committee) which was tasked to inventory all behest loans. The SC argued that for novation to apply there must be an Committee classified the loans obtained by NOCOSII from PNB as behest original contract to speak of.The assertion by the Ombudsman that the phrase 'if the same not be known' The respondents failed to submit any responsive pleading before the in Section 2 of Act No. Ombudsman Desierto approved the recommendation. transactions. 3326 does not mean 'lack of knowledge' but that the Ombudsman. Thus. recognized by the Revised Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability. No. Petitioner filed a Motion for As to when the period of prescription was interrupted. No. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 1992. In this case. 3326. 158131 FACTS: On October 8. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM G. the second paragraph Reconsideration but it was denied by GIO Diaz-Salcedo. interrupted 'when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. 2007 expanded the functions of the Committee to include the inventory and review of all non-performing loans. respondents and for prescription of the offense. Among the accounts referred to the Committee's Technical Working Group RULING (TWG) were the loan transactions between Northern Cotabato Sugar The Supreme Court ruled that SENCOR’s criminal liability was not Industries. which was of Section 2. within three (3) years from the time of discovery. whether behest or non-behest. Petitioner alleges that respondents The Court observed that although novation is not one of the means violated the following provisions of Section 3 (e) and (g) of R.R. as amended. 3019. determine the parties involved and recommend whatever DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE appropriate actions to be pursued thereby and Memorandum Order No. Act No. it . The discretion in ruling that the offense leveled against respondents has complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman on April 5. crime 'is not reasonably knowable' is unacceptable. GIO Diaz-Salcedo recommended the dismissal of the case on in a clear and unambiguous language and thus provides no room for the ground of insufficiency of evidence or lack of probable cause against the interpretation but only application. the filing of the complaint was well within the prescriptive period of 15 years. substituting the person of the debtor. In a interpretation that defeats or negates the intent of the law. Based on the Sworn Statement of PCGG consultant Orlando Salvador. 61 August 8. 1995. the novation does not apply because of NOCOSII's insufficient capital and inadequate collaterals after it because there was no original contract that can be replaced by a new had examined and studied all the documents relative to the said loan contract changing the object or principal condition of the original contract. President Fidel V. 1995. Inc. provides that prescription is approved by Ombudsman Desierto. or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. which is written Resolution.A.

7 and 11 of RA 3019. its breach would not give rise to penal responsibility. 3326 mandated by its charter. in his official capacity as the Ombudsman. MARCELO. the filing of the criminal information in court by the state in lieu of the Tagaytay City property. vs.HON. an information technology Sec. when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit. In December 2001. Petitioner filed with the Pasay City Prosecutors Office a . 165510-33. July 28. as respondents.may prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature complaint against Martels and their five co-accused for SENCORs non- of the original basic transaction. the role of novation may only be to either prevent the rise of BENJAMIN ("KOKOY") T. thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. In the case People v. computer-related services. The of the respondents crime being an offense against the state. or other similar disguise is resorted to. ROMUALDEZ. RA 1161. criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the SIMEON V. assign to petitioner a parcel of land in Tagaytay City. G. But after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and ISSUE instituted action in court. Thus. Petitioner prosecutors because up to that time the original trust filed with the Pasay City Prosecutors Office another complaint against relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary respondent Martels for SENCORs non-remittance of contributions. Sec. 3326. 2 of Act No. only the latter can renounce it. creditor-debtor situation. petitioner withdrew its complaint but reserved its right to revive the same in the event that no settlement is arrived The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to at. To pay this amount. to provide financial benefits to private because such Act is not a special law within the ambit of Article 10 of the sector employees. It may be observed in this regard that novation is Part I. respondent Jose V. whether or not it was such that and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT. 70 not one of the means recognized by the Penal Code whereby criminal liability can be extinguished. provided the novation takes place before payment of contributions. Petitioner accepted the We held: offer subject to the condition that respondent Martels will settle their obligation either by way of dacion en pago or through cash settlement within a reasonable time. petitioner. 2006 Intro/Doctrine/Ruling: FACTS respondent Martels are directors of SENCOR. firm. Nery. hence. Nos. Case No. Martel wrote petitioner offering. Petitioner is a government-owned and controlled corporation Article 91 of the RPC cannot be applied suppletorily to Act No. original basic transaction. the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the Whether or not the concept of novation serves to abate the criminal liability criminal liability. respondent Martels offered to the filing of the Information with the trial court. as distinguished from the civil.R.

petitioners cases in the Sandiganbayan to take declared invalid the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG over the 24 offenses ascribed to Romualdez. when the Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case Nos. interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. for offenses allegedly committed by the petitioner from 1962 up to March 15. Section 11 of RA No. the same shall prescribe in 15 The defect cannot be cured by conducting another years. 13406-13429 on March 3. the prescriptive period shall be proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. for offenses allegedly committed by the petitioner during the Here. Sandiganbayan. in 1989 is judicially settled. Section 2 of Act No. 3326 provides that the prescription shall begin to 2004 by requiring the petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit. But prior to the amendment of Section 11 of R. which is the date of the complaint filed by the former Chavez in 1987 with the PCGG and by the PCGG with the Sandiganbayan Solicitor General Francisco I. Section 2 of Act No. petitioner assailed the validity of the 1 Yes. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. and if the offenses subject therein have already prescribed. no proceedings exist that could have merited the suspension of the prescriptive periods. in its resolve to deal with the merits of the case to remove the possibility of any misunderstanding as to the course which it wishes . In Romualdez v. 3326. and shall begin to run again if the 2 No. Therefore. 3019 provides that all offenses punishable informations filed with the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. did not consider the absence of the acted without jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion in conducting a accused from the Philippines as a hindrance to the running of the preliminary investigation of cases not falling within its competence. from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Court. 3326 did not provide that the absence of the accused However. 1987. 1982. 1982 until 1985. thus: only ten (10) years. Thus. Blg. preliminary investigation. 13429 considering that the same were subscribed and filed by the PCGG. there is no such proceeding instituted against the petitioner to from the Philippines prevents the running of the prescriptive period. proceedings. the informations were filed by an unauthorized party. On the other hand. Chavez against the petitioner with the PCGG. 13406- therein shall prescribe in 15 years. petitioner averred that PCGG legislature. reference is made to Act No. warrant the tolling of the prescriptive periods of the offenses charged the only inference that can be gathered from the foregoing is that the against him. 1982. same be not known at the time. RPC. In the prescriptive period for offenses punishable under the said statute was granting petitioners plea. An invalid information is no information at all and cannot be the basis for criminal As to when these two periods begin to run. 3 No. In contemplation of the law. In Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan. this Court held. 3326. in enacting Act No. This prescriptive period. the alleged run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law.P. this Court rules that the prescriptive period of the offenses herein began to run from the discovery thereof or on Indeed. Thus. Under Section 2 of Act No. The running of the prescriptive period shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. 3326 which governs the computation of prescription of offenses defined by and penalized under special laws. Thus. 195 which was approved on March 16. Clearly. period from March 16. the same shall prescribe in 10 years.A. the nullity of the proceedings initiated by then Solicitor General May 8. 3019 by B. No.

91 cannot apply suppletorily to Act No. Act No. It "presupposes RA No. which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. Issues: 1. that the absence of the petitioner from is an actual physical assault. unexpected or imminent danger . sudden.not merely threatening and Prescription For Violations Penalized By Special Acts and Municipal intimidating action. the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof." It is present "only when the one attacked faces real and Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin To Run. 3019 for failure to file his Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the period Self-Defense. 2013 Thus. Also. it must be offensive and strong. employing means. The Ombudsman and the PCGG argue that that the filing of the complaint with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in 1987 Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be and the filing of the information with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 successfully pleaded. not falling within the provisions of already prescribed? Article 246. does not define any acts which are punishable and provides penalties for them. Whether the offenses for which petitioner are being charged have Article 248. whether complete or incomplete. how manifested: the offender commits any of the crimes absent from the Philippines. and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person Assistant in the DFA. elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. 3326. 3019 and Act No.Any person who. without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. the Revised Penal Code. while it is true that Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code makes the 3019? Code suppletory to special laws. He claims that the court should dismiss the criminal resorting to self-defense. or at least a threat to inflict real imminent the Philippines from 1986 until 2000 also interrupted the aforesaid period injury. same in the negative. are immediate threat to one’s life. Art. July 3. should be applied. . Unlawful aggression interrupted the prescriptive period. Doctrines: Facts: Petitioner is being charged with violations of Section 7 of RA No. shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the 2 WON the filing of the complaint with the PCGG and Sandiganbayan following attendant circumstances: interrupted the running of the prescriptive period? 3 WON Article 91 of the RPC applies suppletorily to Act No. However. Murder. based on Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code." silent as to whether prescription should begin to run when the offender is Treachery. shall kill another. In case of threat. GR No 177763. 3326. 3326 cannot fall within the ambit of special law as contemplated and used in Article 10 of the RPC because it Case #72. He must prove all the elements of self-defense. upon a person. methods. Special law is defined as penal laws that punish acts not defined and People of the Philippines vs Vergara penalized by the Penal Code of the Philippines. which answers the against persons. or forms in the execution. 1967-1985 during his tenure as Ambassador Extraordinary and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such Plenipotentiary and for the period 1963-1966 during his tenure as Technical aggression. 3326 or the Act To Establish Periods of actual. that considering that both positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. such that it suspended the running of the prescriptive period of 10 or 15 years in RA . cases pending against him on the ground of prescription.

(2) the findings of the Trial Court pertaining to the imprudence the use of a motor vehicle. it is applicable to crimes through negligence in view of treachery. by the factual findings of the lower Court. Hence. and (3) a witness who testifies in a categorical. the same to be applied in its maximum period. misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of constitute a grave felony. resulting in the death of a person credibility of a witness is entitled to great respect since it had the attended the same article imposes upon the defendant the penalty of prision opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand. more grave or less grave felonies. a complex crime is committed. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. straightforward. settled are the guiding rules some of which are that (1) the Appellate court will not disturb Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any person who. rendered immobile and without any real opportunity to defend himself other than feebly raising his arm to ward off the attack. The victim was passing in peace when they approached him and on the bodies of the two female passengers and extensive damage to the initiated the act of killing causing the life of the victim in peril. less serious physical injuries victim. were he to be found guilty. 4 months and 1 day to 4 years) and maximum period (4 years. or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or severity of the wounds received by the victim indicated that he was persons to insure or afford impunity. Here. and. Victim was allegedly stabbed by the accused while the latter were the definition of felonies in Article 3 as “acts or omissions punishable by causing some disturbance in the street. The victim ISSUE: . treachery is present. would overlooked. or negligent act results in two or more frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible grave or less grave felonies. accused-appellant Vergara after exchanging words with the victim. can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not. Exchange of words lead to the law” committed either by means of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa). The number and armed men. Dayap was charged with the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide. When such reckless showing is absent herein. Less Serious Physical Injuries. In fact. threw his arm around the victim’s shoulder and proceeded to stab him. with the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. imprudent. unless there is a showing that it had reckless imprudence. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the single act constitutes two or witness. with the aid of was totally unaware of the evil that would befall him. had it been intentional. Dayap allegedly drove in a reckless manner a 10-wheeler cargo truck hitting the accused had no basis to interpose self-defense. Thus.1) With treachery. correccional in its medium period (2 years. present. Since Article 48 Facts: Accused Vergara and Inocencio were charged of murder qualified by speaks of felonies. commits any act which. Credibility of Witnesses: DAYAP VS SENDIONG When it comes to the matter of credibility of a witness. Elements are not all an automobile driven by Sendiong who was with two female passengers. therefore. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. automobile. Whether or not treachery is present? Yes. the unlawful aggression came from the accused and not the Such incident caused the death of Sendiong. correccional in its medium and maximum periods. the incident initiated by the accused and the retort of the victim was not likened penalty imposable upon petitioner. spontaneous and Where a reckless. taking advantage of superior strength. Whether or not the accused had basis to interpose self-defense? No. Issues: FACTS: 1. which period to prision correccional in its medium period. 2 months and 1 day to 6 years). Damage to Property. is prision by the former. and 2.

(2) he RTC did not have original jurisdiction over the criminal case. a two-year old minor. physical injuries and damage to property? RULING: NO.A. Lanao del Norte. or in any manner deprives the latter of his case and the proceedings before it were valid and legal. the MTC of Sibulan. .WON the RTC has jurisdiction to hear a criminal case involving complex They then agreed to conduct the pay off in the morning of April 7. Negros Oriental had properly taken cognizance of the kidnaps or detains another. (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal and (4) in the commission of the offense. When this case was filed on 29 December 2004. 7691 extended the jurisdiction of the first-level courts over criminal for Ransom under Article 267 ofthe RPC. 2001. It explicitly states "that in offenses involving damage to property through Ruling: Yes criminal negligence. offender is a private individual. R.000 in exchange for the boy. Elements. 7691. 174659 committed by simulating public authority. liberty. any of the following circumstances is present: People vs Mamantak (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days.A." It follows that criminal cases for reckless imprudence punishable Kidnapping. have custody of Christopher and asked forP30. or the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the Christopher. If the victim is a minor. (c) any serious physical injuries July 28. had disappeared from mcdonalds in purpose of extorting ransom. On February 25. Whether the two accused are guilty of violating the crime of Kidnapping No. jurisdiction to hear and try the same pertained to the MTC and the public officer who has a duty under the law to detain a person. as amended by RA No. not either of the parents of the victim or a therefore. the duration of his detention becomes Binondo when his mom and his sister were ordering from the counter. No. (b) it is GR no. and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties including those for civil liability.—The crime has the following elements: (1) the with prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods should fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC and not the RTC. 2008 are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor. female or a public Article 267 of the RPC official. Clearly. they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. Teresa received a call from a woman and claimed to inconsequential. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the Facts: victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. less serious Pitang’s Carinderia in Kapatagan. Section 32(2) of Batas Issue: Pambansa Bilang 129 had already been amended by R. 2001 at crimes such as reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Consequently. 7659? cases to include all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine.

The RTC further ruled that being the guard on FACTS: duty. 165732. party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission or under The RTC found respondents to be entitled to damages. It rejected Pajarillo's both causes. 1998.. together with his six minor children Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the (respondents) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. proffer proof negating liability in the instant case.. It gave no credence to Pajarillo's Provisions mentioned: Art.. a duly licensed firearm holder with corresponding permit to carry the same outside her residence.m. that Civil Code. the RTC decision was affirmed with modification as to the penalty in a Decision. Safeguard had perhaps exercised care in the selection of its employees. claim that he merely acted in self-defense. e. TANGCO 0-97-73806 and assigned to Branch 78. 0-97-73806. Evangeline's husband. It ruled that while it may be conceded that death.6 petitioners denied the material allegations in the Code.g. and (2) diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage committed by independent civil liabilities. Article 103 of bare claim that Evangeline was seen roaming around the area prior to the the RPC shooting incident since Pajarillo had not made such report to the head office and the police authorities. 2000. Branch 273. culpa contractual or obligations damages and attorney's fees. Meanwhile. arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code. Suddenly. 2177 of the Civil code. that Pajarillo had already been convicted went to Ecology Bank. respondents filed with RTC. approached security guard Pajarillo. The RTC of Quezon GR No. Katipunan Branch. i. and that he also failed to deposit per advise of the bank's cashier as she would sign a specimen card. On appeal to the CA.: January 19. docketed as Criminal Case No. and pulled out her firearm from her bag to deposit the same for safekeeping. Respondents reserved their right to file a separate civil action in the said criminal case. at about 2:50 p. the situation demanded that he should have exercised proper prudence and necessary care by asking Evangeline for him to ascertain the matter On November 3. who was stationed outside the bank. December 14. or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action complaint and alleged that Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pajarillo. and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil In their Answer. particularly of Pajarillo. 1997. moral and exemplary omission complained of as a felony. Evangeline Tangco (Evangeline) instead of shooting her instantly. that Safeguard's evidence simply showed that it criminal case of Homicide against Pajarillo. a complaint5 for damages against Pajarillo for negligently to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender. required its guards to attend trainings and seminars which is not the . to renew her time of Homicide in Criminal Case No. on January 14. Quezon City. there was no sufficient evidence to show that Lauro Tangco. a supervision of its employee. intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34. J. under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. SAFEGUARD SECURITY vs. 2176. Pajarillo shot Evangeline The RTC also found Safeguard as employer of Pajarillo to be jointly and with his service shotgun hitting her in the abdomen instantly causing her severally liable with Pajarillo.e. 2006 City subsequently convicted Pajarillo of Homicide in its Decision dated Austria Martinez. Evangeline. (1) civil shooting Evangeline and against Safeguard for failing to observe the liability ex delicto. such as those (a) not arising from an act or its security guard. Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender Evangeline's death was not due to Pajarillo's negligence as the latter acted subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended only in self-defense. Respondents prayed for actual. DOCTRINE: An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise Marikina City.

that since Pajarillo had been found guilty of Homicide in a final and executory judgment and is said to Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the be serving sentence in Muntinlupa.supervision contemplated under the law.g. culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the liability of Safeguard Article 31 of the Civil Code. and (2) independent civil ISSUE/S: liabilities. he must be adjudged civilly liable under Revised Penal Code. or institutes the civil action prior to Civil Code. However.'s civil liability in this case is only subsidiary under Art. for which he had already been found guilty of and of a family in the employment and supervision of employees is inapplicable serving sentence thereof. In finding that Safeguard is only subsidiarily liable. that this is also the civil liability that is deemed extinguished with the the same on January 14. for the guidance of their servants and employees. On July 16. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. criminal action is instituted. that Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the liability of an employer for An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate the civil liability of their employees is only subsidiary. such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony.e. and Security is subsidiary culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. i. reserves his applicable provisions are not Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the right to institute it separately. 103 of the Revised SECTION 1. from felonies under the Revised Penal Code. with the modification that Safeguard Security Agency. on quasi-delicts. 2004. that unlike in civil The CA found that the source of damages in the instant case must be the liability arising from quasi-delict. since it has also the duty to see to it that such regulations and instructions are faithfully established that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and complied with. in which case. Safeguard insists that the claim for damages by respondents is based the issuance of regulations and instructions designed for the protection of on culpa aquiliana under Article 217611 of the Civil Code. extinction of the penal liability with a pronouncement that the fact from which the civil action might proceed does not exist. 33. (1) civil liability ex delicto. the CA held that the unless the offended party waives the civil action. Inc. e. but the provisions on civil liability arising the criminal action. civil liabilities on the part of the offender.When a Penal Code. supervision of Pajarillo. . Institution of criminal and civil actions. conviction.. it should be exonerated from civil liability. because said liability arises from the offense charged and no Respondents reserved the right to file a separate civil action and in fact filed other. intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34.. 34. the CA The law at the time the complaint for damages was filed is Rule 111 of the issued its assailed Decision. not joint or solidary. as amended. and damages under Articles 32. Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under . thus must be governed by the Revised Penal Code and irrelevant in civil liabilities based on crimes or ex-delicto. under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. but liability is jointly and severally with Pajarillo. that supervision includes not only YES. its persons and property. the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. or (b) where the HELD: injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. and the provisions of Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code since the civil 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same liability recoverable in the criminal action is one solely dependent upon act or omission of the accused. to wit: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING. Petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the CA. the defense of diligence of a good father crime of homicide. the dispositive portion of which reads: 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. 1998.

which would aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by have caused their death had there been no timely and able medical law. and within the jurisdiction of this civil liability referred to in Par. No.3 the accusatory portion of which reads: charged also criminally. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence.R. WARLITO under Article 2176. and PASOT SALOLI. PASOT SALOLI. the extinction of Province of Davao del Sur. armed with assortedfirearms. . were charged with double murder and double frustrated acquitted. 178115 July 28. if he is actually murder in an Amended Information. that culpa seriously wounding Marissa Santander and Micel Santander. ERIC ENOC." covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character. in reiteration of Garcia. RICARDO SUMILHIG alias CARDING SUMILHIG. whereas helping one another. Consequently. Rule 111. confederating and to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. refers exclusively Honorable Court. In Elcano vs Hill. where it refers to "fault or negligence. 1998. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal FACTS: Appellants. Accused. a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that unlawfully and feloniously. The scope of Article 2176 is not limited to MONTEBON. RICARDO SUMILHIG alias CARDING for the injury caused by Pajarillo's act of shooting and killing Evangeline SUMILHIG. then and there willfully. whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. simultaneously strafe the house of Eugenio the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the Santander resulting to death of [Cresjoy] Santander and RollySantander and accused. liability of Pajarillo in the criminal case but one based on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict which is separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from crime. Plaintiff-Appellee. the awards made in the two cases vary. The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in the civil case is a quasi-delict not an act or omission punishable by law. (e) of Section 3. assuming That on or about October 31. Accused-Appellants. right to recover damages against Safeguard for their vicarious responsibility JOJO SUMILHIG. to recover damages on both scores. Philippines. to the damage and prejudice of the offended The civil action filed by respondents was not derived from the criminal parties. We here hold. The liability of Safeguard Security must be Solidary and not Subsidiary. the court ruled that: Article 2176. 2014 damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes.Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover G. did. conspiring. with intent to kill with the civil liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict only and not as treachery and evident premeditation. JOJO SUMILHIG. the above-named accused. Civil Code. provided that the offended party is not allowed. In other words. Warlito Montibon act. A reading of respondents' complaint shows that the latter are invoking their vs. assistance rendered to them. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or and Cio Limama. together with the accused Eric Enoc. but also acts which are voluntary and intentional. Briefly stated. inthe Municipality of Kiblawan. acts or omissions resulting from negligence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. ISSUE: Since the civil liability was founded on a quasi-delict and not from the WON: the crime committed is a complex crime crime of homicide.* and CIO LIMAMA.

but upon the Appellants Juan "Jojo" Sumilhig.00 as moral damages and P30. brother of Remigio Santander [in] February 1998.00 as exemplary damages.00 and the surviving victims Marissa Santander and Micel Ruling of the Court of Appeals Santander P50. the CA did not find any reason to disturb the findings of the insolvency. It is well to note. d. we see a. Frustrated Murder for the and double frustrated murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of shooting of Micel Santander and x x x are sentenced to suffer an death. the judgment of conviction of appellants Jojo Sumilhig. the accused Jojo suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.000.000.00 as civil indemnity. WHEREFORE. RTC. and x x x are sentenced to a less than glaring hint of vendetta. Short of admitting the crime. 2006. However. viz: are found guilty beyondreasonable doubt of: Assessing the evidence presented by both [P]rosecution and defense.000. respectively. Marissa and Micel. jointlyand severally. And as treachery was alleged in the Amended Information and sufficiently proven during trial. the heirs of imprisonment ofsix (6) years. Murder for the killing of Rolly Santander. eight (8) months surviving victims. and the prision mayoras minimum to fourteen (14) years. the RTC noted in its Decision the existence of motive on the part of Alias Carding Sumilhig and Pasot Saloli is affirmed butmodified as follows Jojo for committing the crime as well as Pasot’s incredulous claim of – ignorance on almost about everything.000. b. Jerry and Carlos Santander but also against their family. however. he harbored ill feelings not only against sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.Rulings: c.00 as moral and exemplary damages. the sums of P50. Thus. that the said court neither based the appellants’ conviction on the existence of such motive nor on Pasot’s weak defense of ignorance alone. four (4) Ruling of the Regional Trial Court months and [ten] (10) days of prision mayoras minimum to fourteen (14) years. All and P30. It further ordered them to indemnify. four (4) months and ten (10) days of Cresjoy and Rolly the sum of P100. appellants should be The appeal has no merit.00 and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporalas maximum. convicted instead of two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated Appellants’ conviction was based on murder. the CA their positive identification by the disposed ofthe case as follows: prosecution witnesses.000. True. in rendering its Decision9 dated July 28. it found merit in appellants’ argument that the crime committed could not have been a complex crime since the death and Ruling of the Supreme Court injuries complained of did not result from a single act but from several and distinct acts of shooting. eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of The RTC convicted the appellants ofthe complex crime of double murder reclusion temporalas maximum. As part of his defense. Thus a clear motive for killing the Santander family has been established giving credence to . and x x x are Sumilhig stated that because of this.000. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of On appeal. prosecution witnesses’ identification of appellants as the assailants. Frustrated Murder for the shooting of Marissa Santander and x x x are sentenced to suffer an imprisonment ofsix (6) years. Murder for killing Crisjoy Santander. Sumilhig narrated that his family was massacred by Jerry Santander. Alias Carding Sumilhig and Pasot Saloli.8 accused are ordered to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Crisjoy Santander and Rolly Santander the sum of P100.

he did not file any case against them. these claims [of] utter ignorance are belied by the the crime scene. suffice it to say that condition of the patient. We find [it] difficult to ascribe during and immediately after strafing the house of Eugenio evince their innocence to the accused when traces of ingenuity and craftiness unanimity in design. Both claimed they purpose and design. and community of interest. tell time.15 Despite his positive assertion that it was the Santanders that killed his There is no reason to doubt Jerry and Mario’s identification of the family. day. Third. every part of Mindanao. as could be gleaned from the testimony of the doctor himself that the healing period may vary depending on the age and physical Anent the respective alibis interposed by appellants. intent and execution. concerted action. "[t]ime-tested is the rulethat between the positive as Dr. It was only after he was appellants considering that (1) Jerry was just six meters away from arrested that he filed a complaint against Jerry and Carlos Santander. their acts before. The "overkill" by which the accused Pasot Saloli and Carding Sumilhig "[C]onspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement claimed total ignorance of almost anything only served to arouse concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. witnesses Jerry Masaglang and Remigio Santander. necessary to adduce evidence of a previous agreement to commit a month or year. they surreptitiously approached More importantly. write. There was conspiracy among the accused. Such prognostication admits certain to greater evidentiary weight. "[a]libi cannot prevail over the positive identification of a credible witness.16 (2) the moon was bright and Jerry was familiar with all the accused as most of them are his relatives.18 Besides. the former undisputedly [deserve] more credence and [are] entitled on general medical prognosis. Neither could [they] allegedly speak [or] understand crime.24 Treachery attended the characterize their testimonies. Here. them. Undoubtedly. they were all armed with firearms. Second. Even was small. or the day before and after that."20 What was certain was the positive identification made by Jerry Masaglang and Remegio Santander of all of the accused. education lurks a calculating mind. Behind the façade of ignorance and lack of firing at the same time and fled together. Notably Jojo Sumilhig was then 23 years old. commission of the crime. Both accused claimed they could not read."19 exception[s]. Saloli claimed he did not know what day [it] was or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such leadto a joint when he was testifying. Visayan.prosecution witnesses’ allegation that after the strafing Jojo Sumilhig All these observations however become insignificant in the face of the shouted"Nakabalos na ko!" The likelihood of his intention to wipe out the positive and spontaneous identification of the assailants/accused by credible said family became even more apparent. Quirapas appeared determined to rule out the possibility that he could assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the walk without crutches five months after his discharge.17 and. First. there is no proof of a previous agreement among the accused but there xxxx is a series of events that clearly established conspiracy among them.22"Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence. they ceased criminal responsibility."21 It is not incredulity. Fourth. when they were within close range of the intended evasiveness by which all three accused answered in obvious effort to avoid victims. . (3) Mario knows Jojoever since he His alibi likewise failed to meet the stringent requisites of the Rules."23 did not know the complainants or of the massacre that took place. which is of common knowledge to be widely spoken in almost deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. they simultaneously discharged their firearms. the same was based accused.

"25 The crime of Parricide is punishable by the indivisible penalties of reclusion perpetua to death. charged despite the prosecution's failure to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor."There is treachery whenthe offender commits any of the crimes against the Parricide .is the relationship of the offender person.R. mother. placed the [victims] x x x in such and with evident premeditation. without the slightest forewarning thereof. tend directly and specially to insure the execution. methods orforms in the execution thereof which to the victim. manner The crime committed is two counts of and form in the execution thereof which tender directly and specially to murder and two counts of frustrated insure its commission without danger to the person of said accused. With one mitigating circumstance. This is considering that the victims were unaware that they would be attacked by appellants with a hailof bullets from their FACTS: firearms fired at close range. Accused-Appellant. mother. "[t]he suddenness of the attack.other than the fact of killing . pointed to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the brutal killing of his father. J. married. namely.23 All the elements are present in this case. The said accused. ISSUE: or his spouse. or any of his ascendants. while inside x x x. unlawfully and feloniously. or child. Treachery is evident in this case as the suddenness and unexpectedness of voluntary surrender. his own son. or child. ADRIAN The RTC promulgated its Decision on June 24. . employing means. 246. the victim. Indeed. the RTC adjudged that the prosecution was still DOCTRINE: able to establish sufficient circumstantial evidence which. whether legitimate or illegitimate. Parricide. did then and there willfully. v. shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the Whether the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. suddenly and unexpectedly stabbed several times the victim. employing means. 2010 finding accused- GUTING Y TOMAS. without risk to himself was killed by accused-appellant. 2015 LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. that is. and armed with a bladed weapon. and (3) the deceased is the father. September 09. having conceived and deliberated to a position that they could not have defended themselvesfrom the aggression kill his own father Jose Guting y Ibarra. whether legitimate or illegitimate. defense of their persons. result of which attack was that said victim received multiple stab wounds on his body which directly caused his instantaneous death. No. The key element in . 205412. Art. 67 years old. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed. Plaintiff-Appellee. taken Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code defines Parricide as follows: collectively. the murder. appellant guilty of Parricide based on his verbal admission that he killed his G.Any person who shall kill his father. (2) the deceased is killed by the accused. the imposition of the the assault deprived the victims of an opportunity to resist it or offer any lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellant was proper. Even assuming that accused-appellant's admission was inadmissible in evidence. Jose. and no aggravating circumstance. Jose. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES."26 their residential house. father. arising from [any] defense which the offended party might make. or the legitimate spouse of the accused. or descendants. or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant.