You are on page 1of 80

Criminal Law Review- Midterm Consolidated Cases II.

Criminal liability of each accused-appellant; As a
Principal; As an Accomplice

there is no doubt that Petrus is liable as principal of
PEOPLE v PETRUS YAU AND SUSANA YAU y the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Susana, on the other
SUMOGBA; G.R. No. 208170; August 20, 2014 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
participated in the decision to commit the criminal act.
I. The elements of Kidnapping For Ransom under
Article 267 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements required, in
are as follows: accordance with Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person
may be considered an accomplice, namely;
(a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the
victim of his liberty; (1) that there be a community of design; that is,
knowing the criminal design of the principal
(b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and by direct participation, he concurs with the
latter in his purpose;
(c) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom
for the release of the victim. (2) that he cooperates in the execution by
previous or simultaneous act, with the
All of the foregoing elements were duly established intention of supplying material or moral aid in
by the testimonial and documentary evidences for the the execution of the crime in an efficacious
prosecution in the case at bench. First, Petrus is a private way; and
individual. Second, Petrus kidnapped Alastair by using
sleeping substance which rendered the latter unconscious (3) that there be a relation between the acts done
while inside a taxicab driven by the said accused-appellant. by the principal and those attributed to the
Third, Petrus took and detained Alastair inside the house person charged as accomplice.
owned by him and Susana Yau in Bacoor, Cavite, where said
victim was handcuffed and chained, and hence, deprived of In the case at bench, Susana knew of the criminal design of
his liberty. Fourth, Alastair was taken against his will. And her husband, Petrus, but she kept quiet and never reported
fifth, Petrus made demands for the delivery of a ransom in the incident to the police authorities. Instead, she stayed
the amount of US$600,000.00 for the release of the victim. with Petrus inside the house and gave food to the victim or

accompanied her husband when he brought food to the FACTS:
victim. Susana not only countenanced Petrus’ illegal act, but
also supplied him with material and moral aid. It has been 1. Petrus and Susana were charged with the crime of
held that being present and giving moral support when a Kidnapping For Ransom of private complainant
crime is being committed make a person responsible as an Alastair Onglingswam, who was put into sleep while
accomplice in the crime committed. As keenly observed by riding a taxi (White Toyota taxi cab with plate
the RTC, the act of giving food by Susana to the victim was number PVD-115) bound to San Juan, Manila.
not essential and indispensable for the perpetration of the Subsequently, Chau (Alastair girlfriend) received an
crime of kidnapping for ransom but merely an expression of email from the purported kidnapper demanding
sympathy or feeling of support to her husband. Moreover, US$2,000.00;
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 2. During twenty-two (22) days of captivity, he was
offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather allowed to communicate with his family almost daily
than that of a principal. to prove that he was still alive and was served with
meals almost five times a day either by Petrus or the
III. Penalty other accused Susan Yau;

With respect to the penalty, the Court finds that the RTC was 3. The police were able to chance upon the said vehicle.
correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua they followed it, then flagged it down and
without eligibility of parole against Petrus as approached the driver. The driver was asked to scroll
principal in the charge of kidnapping for ransom in view of down his window and was told that the vehicle was
R.A. No. 9346, prohibiting the death penalty. Also, the Court being used to victimize foreign nationals. Appellant
finds that the penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day did not offer to make any comment. Hence, this
of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years prompted the officers to ask for his name and since
and ten (10) months of reclusion temporal, as he answered that he was Petrus Yau, a British
maximum, meted out against Susana, an national, they asked him for his driver’s license and
accomplice, to be proper. car registration but appellant was not able to
produce any. Since he could not produce any driver’s
The entire amount of the civil liabilities should be license and car registration, they were supposed to
apportioned among all those who cooperated in the bring him to the police station for investigation,
commission of the crime according to the degrees of their however, when shown a picture of private
liability, respective responsibilities and actual participation. complainant and asked if he knew him, he answered
Accordingly, Petrus should shoulder a greater share in the that the man is being kept in his house. He was
total amount of damages than Susana who was adjudged immediately informed that he was being placed
only as an accomplice. (People v. Montesclaros) under arrest for kidnapping private complainant

Alastair Onglingswam after being informed of his Doctrine: The commission of a felony under Art. 3 of the
constitutional rights. rescue operations of the victim Revised Penal Code requires that an act a punishable act or
proceeded thereafter; omission must be committed, and that it must be committed
with deceit and/or fault.
4. When the police proceeded inside the house they
found a man sitting on the floor chained and
The appellant is appealing to the court regarding his
handcuffed. The man later identified himself as participation in the killing of a certain Loly Penacerrada. He
Alastair Onglingswam; claims that he did not participate in the killing based on the
claim that he was not present in the said act.
5. RTC finds them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and The antecedent facts are as follows:
rejected the twin defenses of alibi and frame-up At around 9:00 p.m. of February 21, 1981, Bartolome
submitted by Petrus and Susana because the same Paja, barangay captain of Brgy. Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo,
were unsubstantiated by clear and convincing was awakened by two of the accused. Paja learns that
evidence Fausta killed their landlord, Lloyd Penacerrada, and
would like to surrender to authorities. Knife used in
killing was seen, and blood was found smeared on
6. The CA affirmed the conviction of Petrus and
Fausta’s dress.
Susana, Hence this assignment of errors.
-Paja immediately ordered a nephew to take spouses
to the police at the Municipal Hall in Poblacon, Ajay,
where the couple informed the police on duty of the
ISSUES -Several patrolmen, along with Paja and Augusto
proceeded to the residence at Sitio Nabitasan where
the killing incident allegedly occurred, and found the
 The focus of this case is the degree of responsibility
body of the deceased, clad in underwear, sprawled
of each accused-appellant for the crime of face down inside the bedroom.
kidnapping for ransom. -Group stayed for an hour in which the scene was
inspected, and a rough sketch of the area was made.
-The next day, a patrolman, accompanied by a
photographer, went back to the scene for further
investigations. Fausta was brought back to the police
Case no. 2 station.
People of the Philippines v. Gonzales -The autopsy of the deceased was performed at 11:20
183 SSCRA 309, March 19, 1990 a.m. Report shows the following:
-Sixteen wounds: five fatal as they
penetrated the internal organs

-Multiple puncture, stab, incision, -Testified on July 27, 1982; at 5 pm on Feb.
and lacerated wounds 21, 1981, he left his work at Brgy. Central,
-The day after the autopsy, Augusto appeared before and walked home, taking a short-cut.
the sub-station and voluntarily surrendered to Police -While passing at the vicinity of the
Corporal Sazon for detention and protective custody Gonzales spouses’ home at around 8:00 pm,
for having been involved in the killing of the he heard cries for help. Curiosity prompted
deceased. Augusto requests to be taken to where him to approach the place where the shouts
Fausta was already detained. were from.
Based on the investigations conducted, an -15-20 m away from the scene, he hid
information for murder dated August 26, 1981, was filed by himself behind a clump of banana trees, and
the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo against the spouses. However, saw all the accused ganging upon the
they pleaded ‘not guilty.’ Before the trial, however, a certain deceased near a threshing platform. He said
Jose Huntoria presented himself to the wife of the deceased. he clearly recognized all the accused as the
Huntoria claims to be a witness of the killing, and on October place was awash in moonlight.
6, 1981, volunteers as a witness for the prosecution. A -After stabbing and hacking the victim, the
reinvestigation of the case was called, in which several more accused lifted his body and carried it to the
were filed as accused, including the appellant. All the house. Huntoria then left home. Upon
accused except for Lenida pleaded not guilty reaching his house, he related what he saw
At the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Jesus to his wife and mother before going to sleep.
Rojas, the physician who conducted the autopsy on the body, -Eight months after the incident, bothered
Paja, the patrolmen and constabulary members who joined by his conscience and the fact that his father
in the investigation, the widow, and Huntoria. was a tenant of the deceased, he thought of
Dr. Rojas testified that he performed the autopsy at helping the widow. Out of his own volition,
around 11:20 a.m. on Feb. 1981 after the deceased was taken he travelled to the widow’s house, and
to the municipal hall. He found 4 puncture wounds, 7 stab related to her what he saw
wounds, 4 incisions, and1 laceration; five of these were fatal Except Fausta who admitted killing the deceased as
wounds. Rojas admitted one of two possibilities:- he was trying to rape her, the rest denied participation in the
-Only one weapon might have caused all the crime. The appellant claimed that he was asleep in his house
wounds- which was one kilometer away from the scene of the crime,
-Multiple instruments were used due to the and he knew of the crime only when his grandchildren went
number and different characteristics to his house that night
The trial court disregarded the version of the
The substance of the prosecution’s case rested on defense; it believed the prosecution’s version.
Huntoria’s alleged eyewitness account of On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellant
theincident, which was as follows: contended that the trial court erred in convicting him on the
basis of the testimony of the lone witness, and in not
appreciating his defense of alibi. The Court found no merit in

has paragraph 2 of the same article. of which the prosecution’s (that is. He first claimed that he recognized the people involved. the prosecution’s evidence could not establish intent nor fault. felonies in Art. The case is now brought upon certification Revised PenalCode. para. The -Act is performed or omission incurred by deceit or sketch made was troubling. 1 of the temporal/death. 1. as it did not effectively indicate fault the extent of the blood stains in the scenes of crime. not have caused a grave wound (especially given the -Rojas’ statement showed two possibilities for the statement of the physician). coupled with the which will be discussed later. This may have been the killing. With him. Based on the definition of committed the felony of murder. who claimed that Gonzales surrendered to implying that he does not know what the appellant did.” This implies that he may two points: not have recognized anyone at all. and given that there is no evidence that the plausible. it argument solely rests. He claims that he feared for his life. weakens the arguments against the appellant. On the lone Huntoria’s claims in his testimony did not exactly match witness:- with those from his cross-examination. Court’s analysis of the evidence: -An act or omission -Investigation conducted left much to be desired. he “only saw flashes. He came out eight months after the killing. by the Court of Appeals. under the evidence presented.the errors. This -The lone witness could not properly establish any would have added a lot of weight to any one of the versions acts or omissions done by the appellant. under Whether or not the client. However. needs to be examined further. prosecution’s failure to prove the presence of conspiracy -Huntoria’s testimony. It this. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. in the cross. could be safe from the victim’s kin. and establishes the criminal liability of the appellant as a upgraded the penalty to that of murder —reclusion principal for direct participation under Art. Huntoria’s credibility as a witness is tarnished by examination. nor was . thus -Sazon. how many people actually took part in the killing). the fact that there were five stab Augusto never mentioned to him the participation of other wounds and six accused would imply tha one of them may persons in the killing. Worsening this is -There is nothing in the findings or the evidence that that the appellate court found the sentence erroneous. Furthermore. hence the appeal -Furthermore. failed to state clearly the reason for the surrender. Sazon also admitted that -Furthermore. 17. -Act or omission must be punishable Centeno gave the date of commission as March 21. Fausta’s admission that she was the only killer is appellant. there were only five fatal wounds. the essential elements of felonies may not even be may even be possible that Augusto surrendered just so he present. but there was On the criminal liability of the appellant: no proof that he was being threatened. and rejected defense of alibi. He stated that he of the incident does not know who hacked or stabbed the victim. appellant caused any of the wounds. 1981. Recall that the HELD: elements of felonies include: NO. there is nothing in the findings or ISSUE: evidence that inculpates him by inducement.

It is improbable sometime after they separated. As her defense. Par. he would still visit his relatives who were left living in their Although alibi is a weak defense.S. As such. Mental element (Mens rea) - DOCTRINE: Deliberate intent (Dolo) . married in 1897. 568 (Old Penal Code: reckless CASE No. he reason of a mistake of fact the intention to commit the crime would have been justified in killing the intrude.1900. On July 12. DELOS REYES G. varies with the nature of the situation in which he is to 2. enough to handle what could have been a perceived enemy. vs. 1902 U. perform. the diligence with which the law . it may be ISSUE: sufficient for an acquittal. After some time. in cases like this house almost every day until a few days before the trial of where the participation of the appellant is not clear. based on Philippine customs and traditions. where the consequences of a and stated that one of the reasons why he mistake are necessarily so serious. they Julian Gonzales and Accused Tomasa Delos Reyes were would do everything to get the landlords to their favor. aging parents are usually her husband was dead when she married Martinez. Gonzales testified that after he left their house. Thus. – YES Appellant acquitted RULING: Acquittal for bigamy was proper. she testified that she honestly believed that as under our family culture. 4 imprudence) U. 3 is in pdf format) convicted under Art. 1981. Was acquittal of the accused for the crime of bigamy proper? Decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. 504 – September 16. the length of time reasonable given the requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct circumstances. In light of the evidence on record. 1. Delos Reyes remarried to Ramon Martinez. accused should be (case No. the two separated. however. In a matter so important to the good order of He admitted to being a tenant of the deceased. -Under our socioeconomic set-up. society as that in question. with Posing as a witness would have been a convenient way to do Gonzales living elsewhere while Delos Reyes stayed at their this. 3.. 488) Doctrine/Topic: Art. He is not exactly a disinterested/neutral witness. filed for a case of bigamy against his wife. Gonzales Finally. especially as he ceased to be employed as early as May home where Gonzales’ mother also lived. it may this case. nothing less than the testified was because the victim was his highest degree of diligence will satisfy the standard landlord. No. Ah Chong (15 Phil. Art XI does not exist. That sheltered and insulated from possible harm. vs. be considered.S. the mother of Gonzales for the accused to bring their aging father when they were informed her that her son was dead and she believed this to clearly in better shape than he was. the appellant to offer his services as they were more or less As witness. prescribed by the law. it is unlikely for the appellant to be in the scene of the crime.Mistake of fact There can be no conviction under the Penal Code where by Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be. a tenant owes the FACTS: source of his livelihood from his landlord.R. and it was unlikely for be true. However.

i. the act is presumed to have If the victim was really a robber. the law presumes aggression. whom the same court.The following are exempt from criminal liability: and called out twice. was his the accused insane when the alleged crime was committed. that every person is of sound mind and that all acts are The act done by Ah Chong was merely an act done due to voluntary. that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal FACTS: condition of a person. he shall be acquitted but the court shall order his ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong may be held criminally confinement in a hospital or asylum for treatment until he responsible for murder in the case at bar. fearing that the intruder was a robber which the law defines as a felony (delito). 12. was suddenly awakened by some ART. Man is prevent or repel the unlawful aggression essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to 3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the choose between good and evil. The Court acquits Ah Chong. This presumption. The moral and legal presumption under our law is Honest Mistake of Fact. Man. He sat up in bed liability. When he commits a felonious person defending himself or criminal act (delito doloso). but rather in a verdict People v Estrada . which he shall not be the edge of the chair and he thought that the blow had been permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of inflicted by the person who had forced the door open. roommate. “Who is there?” He heard no answer 1. Circumstances which exempt from criminal trying to force open the door of the room. would have been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such In the absence of evidence to the contrary. The defendant. therefore. there would have been unlawful intent. the defendant struck out has acted during a lucid interval. he supposed to be a burglar. Seizing a common kitchen knife An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he which he kept under his pillow. however. An imbecile or an insane person. who had which exempts the actor from criminal liability. intelligence and room of Ah Chong. with freedom. Under the 1) Unlawful agression on the part of the victim classical theory on which our penal code is mainly based. forcing his way into the been done voluntarily. the defendant. should be adjudged or held aggression. received for the night. An acquittal of the accused does not result in his outright release. pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act room. may be released without danger. there would have been a necessity on the part of accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears Ah Chong to defend himself and/or his home and the knife unimpaired.” He was struck just above the knee by established for persons thus afflicted. the 2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to basis of criminal liability is human free will. If the court therefore finds wildly at the intruder who. it afterwards turned out. The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is Requisites (Honest Mistake of Fact): criminally liable for a felony committed by him. On the night. Ah Chong.. and one of these is insanity “Officers’ quarters. the court shall or a thief. The roommate eventually died. was employed as a cook at overthrown by other factors.of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that in order for Doctrines and Decision: the act to be justified. may be The defendant. I will kill you. the requisites must be present. leaped to his feet and called out: “If you enter the order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums room. unless the latter and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being has acted during a lucid interval.e.

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

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

That could not have been the intention of the Facts: lawmaker because the term "penalty" in the subject provision On or about the 30th day of December. possession of firearm as a qualifying circumstance if the seemingly because of the accused's manifest arrogant firearm so illegally possessed is used in the commission of defiance and contempt of the law in using an unlicensed homicide or murder. 1866 is to respect and preserve homicide or or murder. The essential point is that the firearm is used in the commission of homicide or murder. Under an information murder as a distinct offense penalized under the Revised charging homicide or murder. while the of an unlicensed firearm as an victim was unarmed. unlicensed firearm cannot be used to Its clear language yields no intention of the lawmaker to increase the penalty for the second repeal or modify. in the is obviously meant to be the penalty for illegal possession of municipality of Dauis..e.reclusion temporal in its unlicensed firearm. 1992. the crime. unlicensed firearm is used in killing a person. but never. to consider such use merely as a qualifying circumstance and not as an offense. or to convert the offense of illegal maximum period to reclusion perpetua -. in such a way that if an unlicensed death. Indeed. unlicensed character or condition of either of these crimes. the fact Penal Code and to increase the penalty for illegal possession that the death weapon was an of firearm where such a firearm is used in killing a person. is obliterated as such and reduced as a mere aggravating circumstance in illegal possession of firearm whenever the In short. revolver. No. with intent to kill and without any justifiable explicitly stated in Tac-an: motive. province of Bohol. suddenly attacked the victim without . Articles 248 and 249 of the offense of homicide or murder to Revised Penal Code. the There is no law which renders the use accused being then armed with a . as crimes mala in se under the Revised Penal Code. at the same time. there is nothing in P. with treachery and abuse of superior strength. with the use of an unlicensed death.D. a legislative intent to decriminalize homicide purpose of the provision is to increase the penalty prescribed or murder if either crime is committed with the use of an in the first paragraph of Section 1 -. would only serve the instrument used in destroying to aggravate the offense of illegal possession of firearm and human life or committing some other would not anymore be separately punished. Code. To charge the lawmaker with that weapon to kill another. 1866 that manifests. as the case may be. is not included in the inventory words of the subject provision are palpably clear to exclude of aggravating circumstances set out any suggestion that either of the crimes of homicide and in Article 14 of the Revised Penal murder. Philippines.D. pro tanto. the firearm and not the penalty for homicide or murder. to intent is to impute an absurdity that would defeat the clear absolve the accused from any criminal liability for the death intent to preserve the law on homicide and murder and of the victim.The unequivocal intent of the second paragraph of Section 1 aggravating circumstance in homicide of P. No. impose a higher penalty for illegal possession of firearm if Neither is the second paragraph of Section 1 meant to punish such firearm is used in the commission of homicide or homicide or murder with death if either crime is committed murder. The only even vaguely.38 cal. i. We accused.

murder under Article 248 of the Revised Buenaflor. Capellan told the driver to go faster. a Diosdado Iroy y Nesnea as the victim. Pinto Jr. Penal Code and illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form under P. viz. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the deceased. without first ================================= obtaining the necessary permit or license to possess the said firearm from competent authorities which firearm was Search warrant was issued for inspecting the house and carried by the said accused outside of his residence and was premises of Francisco Bello on the ground that the police had used by him in committing the crime of Murder with probable cause that Bello illegally possessed a garand rifle. searching the premises.Acting in concert and causing serious injuries which resulted to his death. Felix Cappellan. hitting the latter on his head CONSPIRACY . thompson submachinegun and two automatic pistols Accused-appellant Daniel Quijada now appeals from the 1 of 3 teams were walking on the Mariawa road toward the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol premises. and imposing upon him the On the jeep which passed by the deployed policemen were penalty of reclusion perpetua for the first crime and an Fr. ================================= Pt. unlawfully and MOTIVE . People v.D. did then and there willfully. Night time. assault and shoot Diosdado Iroy y Nesnea ABERATTIO ICTUS .In the performance ================================= of a Public Duty Although Bello and his parents. the accused having harbored a Premeditation. convicting him of the two offenses separately charged in two heard gunshots and saw flashes of light from the direction of informations. the police pursued the mission of two separate crimes. No. ammunition of a garand rifle. for the second crime. Zenaida Stilianopolous Tiongson. Unlawful Aggression. and one day. Shots were fired at the jeep. Issue: Whether or not the RTC is correct in convicting the accused After the shooting incident. and with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE . . uppers. I control a firearm (hand gun) with ammunition. II JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE . the police searched the area and found a Japanese Springfield rifle. Mrs. as minimum. indeterminate penalty ranging from seventeen years. fearing months. Mr. grudge against the victim a week prior to the incident of Taking Advantage of Public Position murder. Fr.Needed to prove Circumstantial Evidence feloniously attack. as maximum.Evident evident premeditation. custody and the latter the opportunity to defend himself. Anduiza.Mistake in the Identity with the use of the said firearm. when one PC Romero heard rumbling of a jeep. That ================================= the accused carried and had in his possession. and Mrs. his team member running towards the same. four her six children and the driver returning from mass. to twenty years and one that there might be "people with bad intentions" or hold- day. 1866.. were not around.

However. sustained the balcony facing the copra kiln ("agonan") with his back a gunshot wound at the back. shirt of one of the captives he saw a man with a bolo in his Cal. they "chanced upon a house" wherein Bello and his group were staying. knelt down and asked the man public position present as Aggravating Circumstances? with a long firearm why he killed Rosalio. above his head. where Rosalio's body was. by means of a Cal. Inocencia went near the pili tree (2) Is there evident premeditation. who was (2) one for the murder of Richard Tiongson. near the pili tree which was around eight meters from where Bello was. Just then a man. While he and Buenaflor were patrolling the area. Then there was another burst of gunfire.38 caliber that Rosalio fought back. Inocencia did not notice pistol and 380 bullets for an automatic pistol. As the man was menacingly near him. with intent to kill. cause or motive. ISSUES pointed a gun at Inocencia and her husband and told them to ================================= lay flat on the floor. gradually fell to the floor with his hands hospital but he died suffering a hemorrage. They captured four of with treachery and evident premeditation. at around midnight. whom ================================= Inocencia identified as Buenaflor. Inocencia was about to rush to Bello. 30 owned respectively by said accused. also holding (4) Bello died because of "shock secondary to massive a gun. identified as Pinto. live ammunition for a . From the kitchen. treachery. hand running towards him. III ================================= Team 3 was instrued by a "superior officer" "to remain and maintain peace and order in (the) vicinity including Buenaflor and Pinto were charged: without any justifiable Mariawa". Inocencia rushed to the door from where (3) another for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa she saw a man holding a long firearm.ammunition of a carbine. The man answered (3) Is the defense of unlawful aggression tenable? .23y/o. whom she later Tiongson. Pinto shot the man later identified as Rosalio Andes (1) shoot one Rosalio Andes. 9y/o. Richard was operated at the towards the pili tree. he told Inocencia of the RPC tenable? that Rosalio was dead. came up the house. crouching near the stairs hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds. Bello's bodyguards and tied them to a pili tree with the torn 45 Thompson Sub-Machine Gun and a US Carbin Inland. inflicting upon him when he was at a distance of around three meters gunshot wounds causing upon said Rosalio Andes serious and mortal wounds which led to his instantaneous death. any weapon near Rosalio's body Thereafter. (1) Is the defense of fulfillment of a duty under Article 11(5) When Francisco Andes went up the house. Inocencia's husband was about to offer Bello a cup of coffee when she heard a successive burst of gunfire. night time. Bello. and another man. the Chief of Police declared the search terminated and the entire searching party left for ================================= headquarters Pt.

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

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

Santos • Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts. 4 (2) with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty HELD: YES. and of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. petition is hereby GRANTED. Jorge Pangasian. the penalty lower by one or two Petitioner contends that. cannot be held liable for any crime . Thereafter. o Ex: The impossibility of killing a person already dead • RTC: convicted Intod of attempted murder based on the • Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous testimony of the witness circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime – this case ISSUE: W/N Intod is guilty attempted murder since it is an o Ex: man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another impossible crime under Art. 4(2). they had a meeting where with Aniceto Dumalagan who told Mandaya that he wanted 1. the motive. the consequence resulting from the intended act does Palangpangan's house and fired at Palangpangan's bedroom not amount to a crime but there was no one in the room. the decision of • United States: where the offense sought to be committed respondent Court of Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of is factually impossible or accomplishment . 1979 10:00 pm: All of them armed arrived at 4. 11 no. Palangpangan's absence from her degress than that prescribed by law shall be imposed.The SC also held that the crime committed by appellants is together with the accessory penalties provided by the law. there is intention to perform the physical act Otherwise. Such being the case. he would also be killed. even if Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's completed. Intod vs. — Criminal reckless imprudence. legally impossible of accomplishment - suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor. 5 of the RPC. Stating that "a deloberate intent to di an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of • Art. 3. room on the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible. desire and expectation is to perform an act in Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between violation of the law them and that Mandaya should accompany them. were it not for the present as the "offenders acted in the performance of a duty inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account or in the lawful exercise of a right".attempt to Attempted Murder is hereby MODIFIED. applying Art 69 od the RPC. 2. Responsibility shall be incurred: xxx xxx xxx There is. Only one requisite was offense against persons or property. would not amount to a crime house and asked him to go with them to the house of • Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances Bernardina Palangpangan. 1979: Sulpicio Intod. Court of Appeals • The Revised Penal Code. recognizes in the offender his formidability to punish FACTS: criminal tendencies in Art. 4(2) • February 4. 2. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. the killing being intentional and to pay the costs and not accidental. however. not merely criminal negligence. sentences him to commit a crime. By any person performing an act which would be an falling under Art. inspired by the Positivist School. an incomplete justifying circumstance. there is a performance of the intended physical act • February 4.

Petitioner. • Corazon narrated that Primo had to hold his penis with his right hand. aray ko! him once in the upper right portion of his chest. MODIFIED. All these facts belie the absence • Crysthel made a categorical statement denying penetration but her vocabulary is yet as underdeveloped of petitioner’s intent to kill the victim. guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE and the conduct of the malefactors before. Pamintuan. Costs de oficio. inter alia. thus showing that he had yet to attain an FACTS: erection to be able to penetrate his victim 1. The victim was brought to the Ospital ng Makati for between the accused and the victim. During trial. as an essential element of Issue: Whether or not the CA is correct in affirming the homicide at whatever stage. at the time of. who all positively identified the G. or sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years immediately after the killing of the victim. De la Peña: labia majora must be entered for front of the house and asked for help. she did not feel any intense pain but just felt "not happy" 2. Joseph Velasco (Velasco) and Iluminado ESCAMILLA V. the victim saw his nephew in • People v. the means used. . the nature. Manila. who was standing in front of his store. No. shot the later four times. Around 2am of 01 August 1999. The doctor said that the • Primo's kneeling position rendered an unbridled victim would have died if the latter were not brought observation impossible immediately to the hospital. Thus. 30 about what Primo did to her. 129433. he shot the victim in the chest. While running. may be before or simultaneous conviction of frustrated homicide? with the infliction of injuries. a brawl ensued at the • the possibility of Primo's penis having breached Crysthel's comer of Estrada and Arellano Streets. Mendol was vagina is belied by the child's own assertion that she resisted about to ride his tricycle at this intersection while facing Primo's advances by putting her legs close together and that Arellano Street. maximum. Using a gun. and Ruling: NO. FACTS: 4. petitioner continued to shoot at him three more times. 2000] location and number of wounds sustained by the victim. 13.R. the prosecution presented the testimonies of Case # 12 Mendol. The victim was rape to be consummated immediately brought to the hospital. No. CA: affirmed the conviction DOCTRINE: The intent to kill. PEOPLE Garcelazo(Garcelazo).R. HOMICIDE RTC: found petitioner guilty of frustrated homicide. she only shouted "Ayo'ko.l1 four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium as minimum. 5. 188551 February 27. • no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact 3. treatment and survived because of timely medical attention. hitting ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko. Corazon P. 2013 petitioner as the shooter of Mendol. People vs Campuhan [G. March 30. The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of. albeit unsuccessfully. meters away from Mendol. mother charging petitioner with frustrated homicide. to fourteen (14) years ten (10) months and Petitioner’s intent to kill was simultaneous with the infliction twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium as of injuries. 1996 4 pm: Ma. Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila Fled an Information • April 25.

their house to prepare Milo chocolate drinks for her 2 defendants-appellants. alias BONGING. Caloocan.. CRISANTO INOFERIO Y ALINDAO After falling from the gun shot. of 7/10/67). While walking extreme penalty of death with his 2 companions. went to the ground floor of MANCING (appeal withdrawn res. • Physical examination yielded negative results as Crysthel ‘s hymen was intact • Campuhan: Crysthel was in a playing mood and wanted to FACTS: After closing his shop for the day. to chase the weak and unconvincing and. G. A . sentenced him to the proceeds of his sale for the day are placed. They called the barangay insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond officials who detained. He pushed Corazon aside who she tried an alibi. helper of 1974 Conrado Plata Jr. a cousin and an uncle the accused because the evidence for the prosecution is itself who were living within their compound. while another man snatched the paper bag from him. is inherently a weak defense.45 caliber pistol as pointed at Ching while he was ina mo. defendants. Ching was able to walk to alias SANTE. Ching. No. in the nature of pulled up his pants. to tilt the scale of justice in favor of thus prompting Vicente. There she met Primo Campuhan. therefore. the freezer located at the second floor. the evidence presented by an accused in support of that • Then she heard Crysthel cry. "Ayo'ko. the gun was shot resulting to a gun wound on PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. from the men holding him.of 4-year old Crysthel Pamintuan. children. subject to automatic review accosted them. she cursed "P . For. When Ching tried to call Labantino’s name for help. reasonable doubt. brother of Corazon. taken in the light of all his penis with his right hand the evidence on record. et al. L-21860 February 28. He should be acquitted and boxed him several times. initially ISSUE: W/N it was a consummated statutory rape unaware of the commotion. vs. He evaded her blows and upon the ground that although his defense. ayo'ko!" so she defense must be scrutinized with the same care that evidence went upstairs and saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or supporting other defenses deserves. He brought with him a paper bag where all the • RTC: guilty of statutory rape. When an accused puts "jogging pants" and panty were already removed. it may be sufficient to acquit him.R. and MARCIANO YUSAY alias . Campuhan who was apprehended.t . Corazon then ran out and shouted for help sufficient as in this case. while Galvez finally freed himself VIOLETO VILLACORTE. the court should not at once have a short pants were down to his knees and his hands holding mental prejudice against him. who was then busy filling small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in RULING: Although inherently weak and easily fabricated. Chinese ride on his back when she suddenly pulled him down causing merchant Benito Ching left his store in the public market of both of them to fall down on the floor. The men eventually fled too. by and large. 4 men • Thus. it should be considered to block his path. plaintiff-appellee. Labantino fled. Two of the men held Ching and Galvez while Labantino continued to walk in front of them. anak ko iyan!" in the case of appellant Inoferio. Libantino and Galvez.. her brother. while his up the defense of alibi. as • Horrified.

The concerted action of the yet ascertained. Villacorte malefactors committed an offense in furtherance of a common objective pursued in concert. perforce. however. that the malefactors committed shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. solidarity liable. admitted to the crime and identified his companions as Liability of conspirators. it being sufficient died a day after. nature and number of crimes they commit in furtherance of Proof of conspiracy. A time-honored rule in "Roque". Consequently. the corpus of our jurisprudence is that once conspiracy is proved. conspiracy is proved Galvez and Labantino both identified Villacorte as one of the if there is convincing evidence to sustain a finding that the men who accosted them. He to previous agreement to commit a crime. corresponding penalty for each offense. Generally. "it is not essential that there be proof as peradventure that the accused acted in concert from the . The evidence on record proves beyond establish conspiracy. to Ruling. all of the conspirators who acted in furtherance of Consequently. each ISSUE: Whether or not Inoferio’s weak alibi could warrant a of them is guilty of three murders and shall suffer the conviction. His common-law wife brought him to the hospital. Since in Only Inoferio pursued this appeal. each first met Villacorte and Handig while in Police custody for of the conspirators is liable for all of the crimes committed in the investigation. AMADEO was charged with three distinct crimes of murder in a single PERALTA." Hence. rebellion and sedition. This rule of filed against Villacorte. conspiracy is not a crime appears to be no legal reason why conspirators may not be except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore sentenced to multiple death penalties corresponding to the as in treason. and another accused to thirteen (13) separate death come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony penalties for the 13 killings he perpetrated. An accused who THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. and for the and found Villacorte and Inoferio guilty. Guerrero was consequences of such criminal enterprise they must be held discharged and used as a state witness. Alfredo collective criminal liability emanates from the ensnaring Handig (“Fred”) and an alias “Sante” whose identity was not nature of conspiracy. conspirators commit three separate and distinct crimes of murder in effecting their common design and purpose. Upon interrogation. ET AL. Imposition of multiple penalties where conspirators commit more than one offense. the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy presupposes the a conspiracy existence of a preconceived plan or agreement. if the played cara y cruz together. Inoferio testified that he conspiracy.home. The trial court acquitted Handig patent display of their evil partnership. He claims that he knew Guerrero as they furtherance of the conspiracy. then. an information for robbery with homicide was the common design are liable as co-principals. information was sentenced to two death penalties for two Doctrine: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons murders. "Sante" and "Fred". Roque Guerrero (“Roque’). Legality and practicality of imposing multiple death penalties upon conspirators. The information was eventually amended to conspirators in consummating their common purpose is a implicate Crisanto Inoferio. Therefore there and decide to commit it.

while the inmates of the To prove conspiracy. The invading “OXO” clubbed and stabbed to death Jose the crime would be committed just the same. two elements must Eugenio Barbosa and Santos Cruz. investigation. destroyed the lock of criminal design of the principal and cooperates knowingly or their door and then rampaged from one brigade to another. while the rest of the prisoners were ordered to return to their respective quarters. the criminal design of the principal by direct participation.– riot erupted in Bldg. the prosecution must establish the penitentiary were preparing to attend Sunday mass. knowing before they could be brought to the hospital. accused. that is. Santos Cruz. Carriego. that a following three requisites: fight between two rival members of the "Sigue-Sigue" and 1 that two or more persons came to an agreement. as co-conspirators they are CASTRO. EDWIN DE VERA yGARCIA. of one is the act of all. . Elements. another Accomplice. he concurs with the latter in his Issue: Whether or not the commission of the purpose–. establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Afterwards. Larita and Luna did not participate in the actual y GALAMGAM. an inmate of 4-B. nonetheless. they killed their last victim. namely.moment they bolted their common brigade. Requisites of Conspiracy: Facts: On February 16. 4. slaughter of Carriego. RODERICK GARCIA Parumog. KENNETH FLORENDO and ELMER killing of Carriego. it is not Conspiracy . crime. they forcibly opened the door of 4-C and killed two more inmates. not on mere surmises principals. Barbosa and Santos Cruz — each is guilty of three separate and distinct crimes of murder. Mere All those who in one way or another help and cooperate in presence does not amount to conspiracy– criminal the consummation of a felony previously planned are co.It is axiomatic that the prosecution must participation in all the details of the execution of the crime. conspiracy must be founded on facts. causing a big commotion. To hold a person liable as an accomplice. plaintiff-appellee. intentionally therewith by an act which. It is not indispensable that a co- conspirator should take a direct part in every act and should Doctrines: know the part which the others have to perform. The three victims be present: sustained injuries which swiftly resulted in their death — 1 the “community of criminal design. all of the six accused are guilty of the or conjectures. equally guilty and collectively liable for in conspiracy the act appellant. and murders was attended with conspiracy? 2 the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. Hence. EDWIN DE VERA yGARCIA. even if not rendered. as the inmates of brigade 4-A. 1958. and however. up until the time PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony. The fight was. mostly The Court has held that an accomplice is “one who knows the "OXO" members and sympathizers. While it is true that vs. quelled. Moments later. "OXO" gangs occurred in the plaza where the prisoners were 2 that the agreement concerned the commission of a assembled. and those involved were led away for 3 that the execution of the felony [was] decided upon.– Defined.

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

and attempted FACTS felonies. on the acted in self-defense when Gregorio challenged him to a fight other hand. Regie Labiaga admitted that he accomplishment of the crime is some cause was present during the shooting incident and claimed that he independent of the will of the perpetrator. the reason for the non. confederating and helping one . Judy and Gregorio an attempted felony. Criminal conspiracy must be founded on attention. REGIE the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the LABAIGA. the shotgun fired without him accident other than the offender’s own knowing whether somebody was hit. there must be evidence showing The accused were charged with Murder with the Use of that the wound would have been fatal were it not for Unlicensed Firearm. 2013 defenseless. The information stated that “the timely medical intervention. v. Mere presence does not amount to caused the victim’s death without timely medical conspiracy. If the evidence fails to accused.” 2 YES. Appellee. no other act was convince the court that the wound sustained would have imputed to him.”.R. Regie Labiaga shot Gregorio  “In Serrano v. and to render the victim G. Demapanag alleged that spontaneous desistance. 202867. we distinguished a frustrated Conde outside the latter’s house.” she was 14 km away from the crime scene which was corroborated by her brother. execution of the crime. due to gunshot wound”. The existence of treachery is not solely determined by the type of weapon used. 2 In a frustrated felony. Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength. Conde cried for help which felony from an attempted felony in this manner: prompted his daughters Judy and Glenelyn to rush towards 1 In a frustrated felony. there is only one generic aggravating  “A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was not circumstance. People. the accused should be convicted of attempted facts. the offender merely were rushed to the hospital wherein Gregorio was treated commences the commission of a felony directly and fully recovered Judy was declared dead on arrival due to by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of “cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to Cardiac Tamponade execution. then treachery may be properly appreciated against the accused. No. Regie Labiaga shot Judy and told the other accused performed all the acts of execution which should Balatong Barcenas and Cristy Demapanag that “she is produce the felony as a consequence. According to the Prosecution. Hence. not on mere surmises or conjectures murder and not frustrated murder. Appellant. not two.” ARTICLE – PRINCIPLE OF LAW Article 6 Consummated. and they left the vicinity.  “In frustrated murder. He alleged that when he tried to for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or wrest the gun from Gregorio. conspiring. the reason while armed with a shotgun. the fact that he was inside the car. According to the defense. afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist the attack. whereas in already dead. July 15. frustrated. If it appears that PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. in an attempted felony. the offender has him.

Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the Since Gregorio’s gunshot wound was not mortal. First. prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. There was also no Case No. the following requisites ISSUES: Whether Regie Labiaga is guilty of frustrated or attempted must occur: murder. par. but on his property rights when the victims angrily ordered the continuance of the fencing. x x x thereby performing all the acts of execution which would April 20. who examined Gregorio after the shooting incident. armed with unlicensed firearm. did then and there G. Edwin Figura. However. circumstance under Art. HELD: In the instant case. as amended). . In this case. there was an aggression. L-33466-67 willfully. assault and shoot Gregorio Conde with said unlicensed firearm. 1983 produce the crime of Murder as a consequence. unlawfully and feloniously attack. Code. it does not appear that the wound Second. that is by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Gregorio Conde which prevented his death. Nos. Revised Penal not frustrated murder. the SC held that appellant should be convicted of attempted murder and person defending himself (Art. Narvaez not present as the killing was disproportionate to the attack. CA-Cebu affirmed the conviction. 1. the corresponding penalty for attempted murder shall be two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated murder under Article 248.another. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to sustained by Gregorio Conde was mortal. the second element is People vs. 11. Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Third.R. but in order for it to be appreciated. Unlawful aggression. by Dr. 11. by means of treachery and with evident premeditation. 18 provocation at all since the appellant was asleep before the commission of the crime. not on the person of appellant.” Intro: The RTC acquitted Demapanag due to insufficiency of evidence while Regie Labiaga was convicted of murder and Defense of one's person or rights is treated as a justifying frustrated murder. par. that is. This was admitted prevent or repel it. with deliberate 121 SCRA 389 intent and decided purpose to kill. but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

does not constitute aggression warranting self- and Rubia with his shotgun. upon a person. sudden. "There can be no self-defense. go and immediate threat to one’s life."32 defense of his person and property but the CFI ruled that Narvaez was guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. In case of threat. 36 If there was any Penal Code. Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia as the physical assault.R. would have been sufficient to repel the (1) unlawful aggression. and therefore he should be rib. It is present only when the one attacked faces real but Fleischer responded with "No. 1968. whether complete regard that the location and presence of several wounds on . Flores failed to discharge his burden."30 "Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual On August 22. Article #/Doctrine: To successfully claim self-defense. No. and to pay for moral damages. quadrant of the abdomen. specifically: on the medial Whether or not the act of killing of the accused is in defense portion of the left shoulder. on the tip of the left buttocks to the tip of the sacral bone or hip bone. Under Article 11 of the Revised hemorrhage due to laceration of the liver. "It has been held in this aggression. the means employed to prevent or repel it. which already caused the latter provided that the following circumstances concur: to fall on the ground. and on the right flank Flores vs People G. Defendant claims he killed in defense. unexpected or found fence being made." 31"Aggression. (2) reasonable necessity of attack allegedly initiated by the latter. his person or rights does not incur any criminal liability first shot on Jesus’ shoulder. any person who acts in defense of his truth to Flores’ claim that he merely acted in self-defense. on the left hypogastric region through the upper right exempt from criminal liability. It presupposes actual. 2013 towards the umbilicus. the latter died of massive intra-abdominal elements of self-defense. who performed the autopsy accused must satisfactorily prove the concurrence of the on the victim. He tried to stop the group from imminent danger––not merely threatening and intimidating destroying his house and asked if they could talk things over action. Records show that Jesus suffered four (4) gunshot wounds in Issue: the different parts of his body. number of gunshot wounds sustained by the victim. the According to Dr. February 27. proceed. unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self- Facts: defense. the nature and number of the gunshot wounds inflicted upon Jesus further negate the claim of self-defense by the accused. or incomplete." and shot Fleisher continuous. it must be offensive from getting into his house and rice mill. and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the But Flores continued shooting Jesus. to indemnify the heirs. Ruben Escueta. gadamit. positively showing the wrongful intent to cause taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and injury. or at least a threat to inflict real imminent two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez injury. Indeed. between the clavicle and the first of his person and of his rights. 181354." Defendant lost his "equilibrium. the Court finds it difficult to believe that Flores acted to defend The most important among all the elements is unlawful himself to preserve his own life. if not ahead. The defendant was and strong. Considering the person defending himself. In this case.

Suddenly. who began talking to each other near the terrace. hitting him on the in San Roque. and Duran. the arrival of his parents from Sta."37 father talking to each other from a distance of about six (6) Facts: On August 15.R. he heard several gunshots prompting him to duck under the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. March 29. of their children. however. plaintiff-appellee. Flores continued shooting even as Jesus was Mesa. were already lying flat on the ground. Right after the shooting. Duran focused his attention back to the table. Anyone who acts in defense of is person or rights. accident.8 drinking at 8:30 o’clock in the evening. joined his visitors only at around 11:00 o’clock after he and Issue: WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN.the body of the victim provide physical evidence that was on his way back to the house when he saw Flores and his eloquently refutes allegations of self-defense. Rosa. They started hurt to have lost his father. 1989.6 1. notice the victim carrying a gun following do not incur any criminal liability: with him. Ronnie de right shoulder. at any ARTICLE 11. where they tried to DIVISION. Flores shot his father. table. Gerry had a short conversation Third. Laguna. Thereafter. 109614-15. He . 1996] at the two. certain visitors. Ronnie ARTICLE de Mesa and Noli de Mesa went home. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of with his father.defendants-appellants. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – The time during the occasion. Unlawful aggression. Duran did not. Laguna. Duran. By then.5 Duran immediately helped board Jesus in an owner-type jeep to be brought to a hospital. Alaminos. ADRONICO GREGORIO and RICARDO bloodied body of Jesus lying on the ground. Gerry testified that he felt drinking at the terrace of the house of Jesus. anxiously waiting for First. Reasonable necessity of the means were then attending to his problem regarding a vehicular employed to prevent or repel it. on the eve of the barangay fiesta meters. Laguna. Jesus. No. Rosa. When they arrived. Marvin Avenido. GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE settle a problem regarding a vehicular accident involving one CREDIT TO PETITIONER’S CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE. who later joined their visitors at the terrace. provided Gerry narrated that he was going in and out of their house the following circumstances concur: before the shooting incident took place. His parents Second. Noli de Mesa. After glancing [G. Gerry was outside their house when he saw Flores across the street in the company of some members of the CAFGU. Suddenly. 7 the person defending himself. The drinking at the terrace was ongoing when Flores arrived with an M-16 armalite rifle. he looked around and saw the vs. was no longer in sight. 4 Duran testified that Jesus stood up from his seat and met Flores who was heading towards the terrace. Jesus was brought to the hospital by his wife and children. FIRST his wife arrived from Sta. Flores GREGORIO.

Complying therewith. Negros Occidental. principle has always been that when an accused invokes the Carlos Catorse handed over his samurai. appellant has to justify his taking of a life by the Tunggak stood up and also in a very loud voice ordered the exacting standards of the law. 1986. Adronico to deposit with him any weapon in their possession . Carlos was in this act of pacifying the matter Lo to defend themselves it certainly defies the reason why between the father and son when suddenly appellant Ricardo they had to inflict 16 stab wounds and 6 respectively. Adronico then hacked Persons attending the wake were requested by appellant him again. Marcelo Lo tried to help his uncle Jovito but together with his fifteen year old son Romeo Catorse arrived Ricardo. In response. Carlos Catorse shoulder. Although wake of the latters grandson. conviction is inescapable. with the same samurai used against Carlos hacked at the house of appellant Adronico Gregorio at Sitio Bug-as. ran out of the house. John Villarosa and justifying circumstance of self-defense. reprimanded Tunggak (son of Adronico) on the weakness of the prosecution. 1986. For self-defense to prosper. otherwise. Having admitted the from peeping at the cards of other players. killing. And game of pusoy was still in progress. and (3) that there was lack of sufficient several times. The stealthily stabbed Carlos from behind with a samurai (the location. for his part. provocation on the part of the person defending himself. their respective knives. to attend the using a bolo hacked Marcelo on the nape. Adronico immediately followed and Barangay Sta. shifted to him to prove the elements of that claim. Adronico ordered his son employed to prevent or repel such aggression were downstairs and right there and then scolded and boxed him reasonable. Carlos Catorse approached and begged Adronico from further hurting his son so as not to put him to shame before If the appellants stabbed Carlos Catorse and Marcelo the crowd. The nature and extent of the wounds inflicted different parts of his body: Right after Carlos fell to the on a victim negate an accused claim of self-defense. While Adronico was severely beating Tunggak. Around 1:00 oclock in the morning of May 8. (2) that the means Overhearing the incident. while the having admitted the killing. son of Carlos Catorse. FACTS Jovito Nicavera also tried to get out of the house but Adronico hacked him instead with a bolo hitting his left Around 8:00 PM of May 7. wounded. the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be unlawful aggression by the victim. repeatedly hacked the victim with a bolo. ground. Romeo Catorse. Marcelo was able to run out of the house but Adronico ran after and overtook him. According to the court the guiding jurisprudential for safekeeping so as to avoid trouble. to Adronico . him on his forearm. in a that he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not very loud voice. game stopped). Adronico. appellant Ricardo. number and gravity of the wounds inflicted on the same samurai deposited by Carlos to Adronico) and victims belie the appellants contention that they acted in thereafter hacked and stabbed him several times more in self-defense. Murcia. Cruz. the burden of proof is Remolito Calalas.

06 November 1989 offended or caused him injury. (Banzuela 31 Phil. No. (Ferrer. 56). jurisprudence): In imposing on the appellant the penalty of just one (1) year of prision correccional. but an act of revenge. L-60159. interval of time.Ricardo died during the trial. And for unlawful aggression to be present. xxx xxx xxx P/CPL. FAUSTO ANDAL v. principles. the respondent Court held (which the Supreme Court affirmed): The petitioner failed to prove the defense he had raised. it is essential that the attack upon defendant be simultaneous with the ISSUE killing. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES The harm caused by one person to another who G. there was no imminent and real danger to the life or limb of the petitioner when he shot the deceased. In the instant case. In order to justify self-defense. or preceded the latter without an appreciable Whether or not the appellant can validly invoke self. there must be a xxx xxx xxx real danger to life or personal safety. since the latter had already been disarmed. sometime after he suffered such offense or such injury. Adronico on the other hand interposed self-defense to exculpate himself from criminal liability. defense. does not constitute an act of self-defense. 564) Introduction (Provisions involved.R. As former Chief Justice Aquino Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code vests discretion states in his book on Criminal Law: to the court in lowering the penalty either by one or . 1 Phil. The primordial requisite of self-defense is unlawful aggression.

Was there an appreciable time lapse between the first Maximo Macaraig. two degrees whenever incomplete justifying When petitioner Fausto Andal and Quinio went back to the circumstance exists in a given case like the case at poblacion of Batangas City and parked their vehicle in front bar. (5) Pfc. Domingo Andal." (4) Deceased moved backward — 2 meters away from accused. Batangas City to check on one of his men. Brief facts: At about 0700pm on 25 September 1980. Pfc. "Why did you fire at me?" (2) He even turned his head towards his son and instructed him just to stay in the jeep. Casiano Quinio. while on patrol aboard a tricycle driven by Police Pfc. Quinio . went to the police station at the pier located at Sta.e. Burgos Street. The laudable patience of accused in not of the Philbanking Building at P. But still Macaraig that while WE condemn felonious violence WE challenged the petitioner and fired his gun at the petitioner. entitle accused denied the charge and Quinio told Macaraig that the to a two-degree reduction of the penalty prescribed petitioner did not utter defamatory words against him and by law. when deceased shot accused on his knee and Macaraig had failed to report to police headquarters for the time accused resorted to force by way of firing the two briefing but Macaraig replied that he did not have to report shots at the deceased? The facts unfolded indicate that there to police headquarters since he already had his orders and was. lower right knee.” gun: (1) He asked deceased. he was furious and demanded why the petitioner had and most important. City. then a corporal in the Batangas Integrated National Police. support efforts to maintain discipline in the service. This is what happened after accused had grabbed the told the petitioner: "You report. his obsession to inculcate embarrassed him in front of so many people. The petitioner was able to wrest the gun from Macaraig when they grappled for the possession of the gun and two (2) successive shots were fired at Macaraig by the petitioner which caused Macaraig’s death. Macaraig arrived and went straight to the petitioner as his length of service in the government (since 1957). Our attitude is a signal to the men in uniform asked him to forget the incident. hitting the latter in the middle aspect. because the said aggression. who was stationed there. supsup. Petitioner Fausto Brief issue: Andal. The petitioner discipline in his men. to OUR mind. Clara. (3) His son. ka. Batangas retaliating despite repeated insults by a subordinate. i. challenged deceased to a fight "Sportsman like.

. as such circumstance is to establish the primary element of unlawful aggression on invariably indicative of a conspiratorial agreement. 1990 strength cannot be appreciated in this case. J. He must rely on the strength of his existence of conspiracy was satisfactorily shown by the own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. Proof of a previous agreement to commit the crime is has committed an unlawful aggression against the person not absolutely essential to establish a conspiracy.even thought the trouble was over as he started to get his the part of the victim and. only if it is clearly REGALADO. it could not be immediately following the victim and jointly confronting him disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the thereafter reveal a concordance and unity of thought which killing." incontestable manner. the plea of self-defense tricycle. unless the victim victim. evidence. The coordinated acts of appellant and Altejos of For. since the in defense of himself. No. it is incumbent upon him to Conspiracy. The fact that appellant did not inflict the prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted mortal wound upon the deceased is of no moment. 25 and there being no other evidence to prove that the death of the victim was the result of meditation. shown that there was deliberate intent to take advantage of it. alias "INSIK. Superior strength may aggravate or qualify a crime. calculation or reflection. Thus. The circumstances that after the accused shot the victim in the forearm and. 89684 | September 18. accused invokes self-defense. In the present case. and by the lone alleged eyewitness for the defense. Altejos stabbed the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Under such considerations Case no.R. the presence of victim to death. The narrations of the sequence of events by the accused. evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing to murder. indicate closeness and coordination of their unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. Absence of any evidence to show that the accused purposely sought to use their superior strength to their DOCTRINE / RULING: advantage in this case. complete or incomplete. that is. therefore. GERARDO or aggravating the act must be proved in an evident and SAZON. They must be proved as conclusively as the acts constituting the offense. even if the prosecution evidence is weak. the burden of sufficient that the accused be shown to have acted in concert evidence having been shifted. a finding to that effect by the trial Self-Defense. must fail. There can action geared towards a common purpose. It is defending himself. Qualifying Circumstances. The circumstances qualifying PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. while he and the It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that for the victim were grappling for appellant’s gun. to kill the be no self-defense. for the same reason. resulted in the encounter. we hold that the defense failed pursuant to the same objective. Well-entrenched is the rule that where the court cannot be sustained. the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior G. are unconvincing primarily on account of their inherent inconsistency and conflict with each other.

Upon his approach.” appellant and his companions were engaged in stealing. Canoso and court never acquired jurisdiction over him and he can Ramos then scampered for safety as appellant and the neither be convicted nor exculpated herein. appellant and Altejos 2 Whether or not qualifying circumstances are arrived and appellant accosted and pointed a gun at Longno. repaired and appellant was taking the revolver to a policeman friend of his. I heard that you are not afraid of me. appellant and Altejos left their softdrinks half-consumed and followed Longno who eventually reached the bench near the public faucet where a ISSUE/S: group of guys were sitting and joined the group in their 1 Did the accused act in self-defense? conversation.”) Note: Apparently irked by the response. Wilfredo Longno. References in wounded Longno grappled for the gun. differs. “Andam ka pulled out his gun and shot Longno in the forearm. Maybe you want barangay hall for allegedly circulating the rumor that to be taught a lesson. On their way. “Just do it. Thereupon. appellant and his cousin. present? saying. however. appellant saw Longno FACTS: from a distance. “Brod. It was then that appellant angered appellant who. Longno 3 Is there a conspiracy between the accused and then faced appellant and said.” (“Watch out Inday for I will and Longno afterwards grappled for the gun. ALCONGA . Shortly thereafter. who was then his waist and was about to draw the same. “I stabbed Inday.The rule is that where a conspiracy is proven. after which both appellant and Altejos ran away. The act of one in killing the victim becomes the claims that Altejos for help to have a . Altejos kill you”) to which Longno retorted. therefore.22 caliber revolver act of all the accused.” were drinking softdrinks at the store of Gloria Aposaga when and so he and Altejos ran away. It was while the two this judgment to him are. Altejos? just shoot. appellant boxed Romualdez which Appellant claims that the deceased had a revolver tucked in caused the latter to fall. He. tiruha lang. Dullete. Cornelio Altejos. however.” (“Brod. in his native dialect said. He who inflicted the fatal wound is not required to sustain a admits having shot Longno but pleads self-defense. This apparently fingers which was later amputated. Upon confrontation. Longno allegedly said. present at the scene. Two days later. a showing as to Appellant’s version of the incident. Longno passed by. “Maano ka?” (“What are you going to do?”). chest. appellant fired the gun. the trial hitting Longno in the left forearm.” allegedly tried to separate appellant and Longno but he was brushed aside by the latter. obiter and with no were thus struggling that Altejos stabbed Longno in the binding effect on him. Insofar as Cornelio Altejos is concerned. therefore. approached and helped the fallen parried the gun but it fired hitting one of appellant’s left Romualdez and pushed appellant away. PEOPLE v. He conviction. run. Altejos then shouted to appellant. In the course of their struggle. Ernesto Romualdez was accosted by appellant near the “Insik. Appellant lang Inday kay patyon ta guid.

was the holder of (2) days later. Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code crimes against the person. since Barion was already Article 13. as a guard by profession. Third. or requires that there be sufficient provocation or threat forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and on the part of the offended party immediately preceding specially to insure its execution.” It would seem self-evident that Alconga could never have .the first wherein the part of the person defending himself. Issues: 1 Whether or not the Alconga’s plea of self defense can be sustained Article 11. Those injured and fleeing. A fleeing man is not dangerous to be committed with treachery (alevosia). Aggravating Circumstance. Sufficiency. Under such circumstances. BENJAMIN by Alconga. Anyone who 2 Whether or not Barion’s provocation is considered a acts in defense of his person or rights.1. a than Barion. it is noteworthy to mention that at expressed his rage at the latter for his cheating tactics. making good the threat uttered after the game. provided that the mitigating circumstance following circumstances concur: First. means arising from the defense which the offended party might “that it should be proportionate to the act committed make. the one from whom he flees. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the Section 4. Two Alconga. given that the aggression must be deemed to have ceased upon the flight of the deceased Article 14. bamboo stick. when all the requisites Alconga’s plea of self-defense (as a justifying necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal circumstance) during the second stage of the fight liability in the respective cases are not attendant. without risk to himself the act. upon which Alconga gained the upper hand by firing his revolver at Barion and eventually inflicting a mortal bolo blow.1. mentioned in the preceding chapter. A fight ensued afterwards. the former became outraged and adversary. Also.Facts: succeeded in showing that Barion’s aggression was As the deceased Barion and the defendant Alconga were proportionate to his killing his already defeated playing black jack. alias "BEN". cannot be sustained. The argument of self defense was raised THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. as defined by Justice Albert. Unlawful aggression. That the act during the first stage. methods. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to 1 NO. Lack of sufficient provocation on There were two (2) stages in the fight.16. 2 NO. slashing the latter’s cranium. ET AL. employing means. Mitigating Circumstance. more deadly weapons and has superior fighting ability Barion approached the defendant and swung his pingahan. and adequate to stir one to its commission. GONDAYAO. Ruling: Second. There can be no defense where there is no aggression. prevent or repel it. Justifying Circumstances. the deceased was the aggressor and the second wherein there is no more aggression.

into the The challenge to a fight must be accepted. This explains why and how he (Benjamin) (Benjamin). Regardless of the foregoing. by hurling uncomplimentary remarks at his the latter threw the stone away and picked up the dagger political opponents. he got it back to inflict the second have rendered him groggy. by this time. he . The reason for the back of Piol. did not act with treachery. that such once more. We cannot believe that he. at that when. Benjamin stabbed Piol twice from behind. Benjamin chose to because aggression which is incident in the fight is bound to stab Piol in such an awkward. much less squeezed his neck. accordingly. or anybody for that matter. he was again lying down on his back — according to the defense — with Benjamin on top of him. from on Piol's back. he held the dagger. whose impartiality Benjamin. Benjamin accepted the challenge resulting able to choose the place where he would put the dagger and from this act. It should be noted that. manner. in order to remarks led to an altercation with Piol. for this was merely an incident of for. directly or indirectly. Piol prepared himself to fight by drawing the idea that he had such a control of the situation as to be out his dagger. the incident. moreover. shows that with it. not on his back. Benjamin But. head. when Piol allegedly squeezed the neck of Benjamin. with his left hand. that Benjamin had provoked Again. would have done so under the circumstances. and the lacerated injuries thus stab wound. but. Instead of stabbing Piol on the stomach. but on his stomach with Benjamin on allegedly struck his face with a stone. in consequence of get the stone with which he claimed to have hit Piol on the which. an injury inflicted in this fashion Unlawful aggression must come. with him. likewise. The context of Benjamin's story does not convey sustained by him. It. and hit Piol managed to stab Piol on the back. Just why. being in the assaulted and neither can invoke the right to self-defense precarious condition he depicted himself. hitting him on the head. the defense has not even tried to explain. (Benjamin) thrust the dagger. that the dagger was still in his hand when Piol down. which he then held. ground. after disarming him. even before they fell from the and veracity are not contested — is that Piol was then lying "papag". in turn. causing therein another stab wound almost at rule is that each of the protagonists is at once assailant and right angle with his body. which was allegedly pressed against the the person who was subsequently attacked by the accused. according to by the testimony of the Chief of Police. Benjamin cannot be given the benefit of either complete or incomplete self- defense. one of whom was Piol. took another piece of stone. He would thus have Us believe that.No unlawful aggression when there is an agreement to fight. which could the opportune moment. stones were thrown at him. inconvenient and unbelievable arise from one or the other of the combatants. would have necessarily been much more slanting than the first. Although Piol was stabbed from behind. owing to the impact of said stone. however. by "rushing" to his encounter and grappling the time he would retrieve it. The fact of the matter — and this has been established unworthy of credence. This would have been impossible. and that he top of him. like the first. this is not all. Considering. he put the dagger in a convenient place from which. and that. Benjamin first released the dagger. unless Piol could not have struck Benjamin on the face with a stone. instead of being almost perpendicular to the RULING: Benjamin’s story is manifestly artificious and body.

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

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

but justified in killing her aggressor in the defense of her honor. And when she gave Amado part of the victim. employed to prevent or repel the attack. 62 Phil. 301. and (3) lack of Issue: Whether or not Jose Manansala was correctly sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending considered as a co-principal by the CFI? himself. thus material commensurability between the means of imperiled. aggression sufficient to put her in a state of legitimate  Reasonable Necessity of the Means defense. When the law requires is rational exemption from criminal liability. 1946  Illegal Aggression. what constitutes: Illegal Doctrine: aggression is equivalent to assault or at least The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an unlawful threatened assault of immediate and imminent kind. 384. consent. and under the Held: Yes.. prevent or repel the attack. 504). should be afforded attack and defense. rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. than her very necessity of the means employed does not imply existence. Codigo Penal. (2) reasonable necessity of the means. nay kills the offender.. It was the deceased who drew his gun towards the Case #32. the said chapel was lighted with electric lights. if not more. that moves or Luague and Alcansare. the instinct. since such killing cannot equivalence. and (3) lack of sufficient PEOPLE VS. February 21. what constitutes: Reasonable esteemed as a right as precious. (2) reasonable necessity of the means. there was and there could be no lawful self-defense. JAURIGUE provocation on the part of the person defending himself C. the accused sufficiently proved the elements for circumstances. inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot but be Employed. inflicting upon him a mortal . Issue: Whether or not the accused satisfied the elements of including her own father and the barrio lieutenant and lawful self-defense? other dignitaries of the organization. Capina a thrust at his neck. No. Not having enough time to think rationally how to People of the Philippines vs Jose Encomienda deal with the situation. hand. People vs. the imminent means left for her to protect her honor from so great an danger to which the person attacked is exposed and outrage (1 Viada. Revised Penal Code/ Legitimate Self. He interposed the lawful self. there were already several people inside the chapel. Provocation came from the deceased (not the accused) Defense. and defense as per Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. When the deceased sat by the side of the appellant on the same bench. and it is evident that a woman who. August 18. wounds. in the consideration of which will enter be considered a crime from the moment it became the only as principal factors the emergency. the accused’s act of hacking the left GR No L-26750. elements: (1) unlawful aggression on part of the as he ordered the accused to vacate land and drew his gun victim. accused. near the door of the barrio chapel and placed Facts: Accused was charged with the crime of murder his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh without her aggravated by recidivism. impels the defense. employed to when he did not like the response of the former. p. and the proportionateness As long as there is actual danger of being raped. Elements are: (1) unlawful aggression on possibility of her being raped. a woman is thereof does not depend upon the harm done. more than the reason.A. 5th ed. 1972 arm of deceased is justified due to immediate danger to his life as the former was about to grab gun from his free left Article 11.

. Issue: The law prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for the Whether or not the accused Constante can invoke self crime of homicide. the Vicente. PEOPLE vs. The said accused was evidently excessive. 4103 of the Philippine Legislature. enumerated in 13 attacks on government forces or civilians by HUKS. Amado Hernandez and other and convicted of the crime of Homicide. etc. namely. Amado Capina sat beside the appellant and with the Labrador. 1945. known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or and offensive conduct. were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of means employed by her in the defense of her honor Ilocos Sur for the crime of homicide. Facts: The Sotelo brothers. appellants were accused of conspiring. to defend himself. as well as with the thirty-one legitimate defense of her honor and that she should be (31) defendants charged in the criminal cases of the Court of completely absolved of all criminal responsibility. confederating and Issue: Whether or not appellant Jaurige acted in the cooperating with each other. The selfdefense invoked by the accused was incomplete. L-6025. placed his hand on the upperpart of her right thigh. With the party of December 13. prision correccional in its medium degree. the penalty to be imposed in the instant case is that of prision correccional. looting plunder. he is responsible for provoking the attack. completely exempt from criminal liability. Appellant Avelina Jaurigue was subsequently tried About March 15.: greatest of impudence. they committed the crime of rebellion causing murder. First Instance of Manila. she cannot be legally declared wound upon him which he died in a few minutes afterwards. 1930 HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon). Article 13 of the RPC: Incomplete Self Defense pillage. and under the facts and conspired to attack Ignacio Cambaliza and inflicted a mortal circumstances of the case. for. and pursuant to the provisions of Ruling: section 1 of Act No. Dominador. Constante. and if it should be reduced by two defense? degrees. They were accused of being members of PKP Community Party of the Philippines which People vs Sotelo was actively engaged in an armed rebellion against the 55 PHIL 403 government of the Philippines. and . HERNANDEZ Facts: Inside the chapel of the 7th day Adventist GR NO. conscious of insurrection her personal dignity and honor. herein defendant although the appellant was unlawfully attacked by the and appellant should be sentenced to an indeterminate deceased and compelled to employ reasonable means to penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its medium degree. MAY 30 1964 Church. On observing this highly improper Article 136. pulled out a fan knife and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck’ FACTS: Amado Capina died from the wound a few minutes later.wound and causing his death a few moments later. Avelina Jaurigue. J.

but this notwithstanding. its activity refers to the strengthening of the unity and cooperation between labor elements and preparing G. L-4445 February 28. was a politician and a labor leader and it is not unreasonable vs. As a theorist the Communist is not yet material help of his own to the members of the rebellion or actually considered as engaging in the criminal field subject to the forces of the rebellion in the field. True it is. through his organization. which would indicate that he conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy had advocated action or the use of force in securing the ends of action. It is doubtful whether his desire to foster conspiracy to commit rebellion under the provisions of the labor union of which he was the head was impelled by an Article 136 of the RPC? actual desire to advance the cause of Communism. is clear proof of his non-participation in the The most important activity of appellant Hernandez appears conspiracy to engage in or to foster the rebellion or the to be the propagation of improvement of conditions of labor uprising. or advancing the cause thereof. nor has any particular act and principle is not to be considered as a criminal act of on his part been pointed to Us. the Communist is a mere theorist. were impelled and . concerned. the CLO. 1955 them for struggle. The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory are concerned. who passed said machine and clothes on to Communist does not yet advocate the seizing of the reins of others.ISSUE: Does his or anyone’s membership in the communist fostered by the desire to secure the labor vote to support his party per se render Hernandez or any Communist guilty of political ambitions. they are not yet indoctrinated in the need THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. in spite of the apparent desire of the chief of the rebellion. the actual rebellion. We have not found. The appellant appellee. Unless action is actually advocated or as the furnishing of the mimeograph machine and clothes is intended or contemplated. underground. Insofar of Government itself. HELD: Insofar as the appellant's alleged activities as a Communist No. war or otherwise. FILIPINO VELASCO. No. and especially the heads of the advocates action. has communistic tendencies. to punishment. mere advocacy of a of Communism. it appears that he acted merely as an merely holding belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a intermediary.R. with the CLO and other trade unions. immediate and positive. Only when the Communist advocates action and actual uprising. not merely to advance his political aspirations. does he become guilty But the very act or conduct of his in refusing to go of conspiracy to commit rebellion. While the CLO of which he is the founder and active president. to suspect that his labor activities especially in connection MANUEL BERONILLA. or collaborated forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working and conspired with said leaders in planning and encouraging class to overthrow constituted authority and seize the reins the acts of rebellion. plaintiff- of an actual war with or against Capitalism. In the very nature of things. It does not appear that he himself furnished funds or Government by it. evidence is wanting to agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an agreement show that he ever attended their meetings. he had friends among the leaders theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist of the Communist Party.

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

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

4. causing Ong humiliation and Intro: shame. (d) Use of an motor vehicle . All contrary to law with the following generic aggravating "Conspiracy. due to the consequences." If the consequences are plainly foreseeable. planned. connivance and unity of purpose and intention circumstances: among the accused were present throughout in the execution (a) Evident premeditations. Accused Ong was given the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and one analogous to passion and obfuscation" People VS. Caloocan City) for killing and burying the victim will be a case of negligence. the penalty for escape of the accused. (e) Use of uperior strenght." treachery arose from the defenseless without any fault or intention of causing it. purposely sought by the accused to facilitate immunity in the and although it comes about through some act of our will. The aggravating circumstance of lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable uninhabited place (despoblado) is also present. commission of the crime. Since there is no modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime. The basis for the exemption is the complete absence of intent (f) Cruelty. (3) he nighttime (nocturnidad) cannot be absorbed in treachery causes an injury to another by mere accident. causes an injury by mere accident (c) Nighttime. with due care. murder is reclusion perpetua to death. without fault or intention of causing it. while performing a lawful act (b) Grave abuse of confidence. the Evident premeditation attended the commission of the appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty crimes. (2) with due care. and of reclusion perpetua. while nighttime was an occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will." and the Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. For the accused to Kidanapping with Murder as defined under Article 248 of be guilty of a felony. The aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the The appellant committed murder under Article 248 of the commission of the crimes. it deliberate selection of an isolated place (Barrio Makatipo Novaliches. The aggravating circumstance of person is performing a lawful act." can be considered present Revised Penal Code qualified by treachery. Ong because Chua previously threatened Ong for non-payment of debt arising from gambling. and negligence on the part of the accused. . because the accused meditated. it must be committed either with the Revised Penal Code.33 The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength The elements of this exempting circumstance are (1) a is absorbed in treachery. conformably to Article 63 of the tenaciously persisted in the accomplishment of the crime. because the Biscayne car of Ong was used to trail the victim's car and to facilitate the commission of the crimes. 34 An accident is position of Chua when he was killed. in relation to Article 267 criminal intent or with fault or negligence. and (4) because in this crimes. Revised Penal Code. Any person who.

[G. accused-appellant. being then private individuals. the above named accused. did then and there wilfully. he would not be killed and would be released upon receipt of the ransom (a) the time when the accused determined to commit note. The four participated in the planning and The only issue in this case. and the crime. in an automobile. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of the execution. Thus. kidnapped and complaint. That on or about April 23 to April 24. Philippines.000. 1971. No. municipality of Parañaque. therefore." and were at the scene in all its accused Ambrosio voluntarily participated in the stages. repeatedly threatening him with death. to wit: The accused after gagging and tying up Henry Chua and In the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. thereafter stabbed in the abdominal region. 2001] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court.of this crime. several times with an ice-pick.00 (US). Chua) and killed him in the following manner." Brief Facts: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. to that determination. in the vs. is whether or not the execution of the crimes. initially by means of friendly gestures and later through the use of force. with the use of force detained him (Henry Evident Premeditation. conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another. GEORGE CORTES y ORTEGA. July 11. province of Rizal. and later after having taken him to an uninhabited place in Caloocan City. he was again gagged and tied up by the accused. inclusive.R. which directly caused his death. plaintiff-appellee. assured him that if the prosecution must prove the following elements: he would write and sign a ransom note for the payment by his family of the sum of $50. inflicting upon him (Henry Chua) mortal (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung wounds on his vital organs. unlawfully and with *in this case the court took little discussions on the application treachery and known premeditation and for the purpose of killing one Henry Chua and thereafter extorting money from of the following aggravating circumstances as alleged in the his family through the use of a ransom note. Case #41 treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime. acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought of. carried away said Henry Chua. and Brief Issue: . They cannot escape the consequences of any of their commission of the crime. 137050.

Rationale: The crime is aggravated because by deliberately Disregard of Sex increasing the suffering of the victim the offender denotes sadism and consequently a marked As to the aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex. (c) a lapse of time between the determination and the (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by insuring the execution sufficient to allow the accused to reflect offender's immunity from identification or capture. The mere fact of inflicting various the victim. II. Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty. it cannot be appreciated separately as another aggravating caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he circumstance. the accused mistook the victim for a prolong the suffering of his victim. for his pleasure and satisfaction. it must be Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. Here. is not sufficient for taking man this aggravating circumstance into consideration. the degree of malice and perversity. Cruelty Abuse of Superior Strength For cruelty to be appreciated against the accused. Intoxication III Nighttime Ordinarily. if it is (2) the offender takes advantage of it. depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. no appreciable time intervening between the infliction of one (1) wound and that of another to show that he had wanted to In the case at bar. or not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the . the prosecution fails to prove this purposely sought the cover of darkness to perpetrate the aggravating Circumstance crime. (1) it is specially sought by the offender. same could not be considered as it was not shown that accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of In the case at bar. or to conceal his identity. so that shown that the accused. intoxication may be considered either Night-time becomes an aggravating circumstance only when: aggravating or mitigating. upon the consequences of the act In the case at bar. murder. treachery qualified the offense to inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. no evidence suggests that accused In the case at bar. womanhood. or showed manifest disrespect for her successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death.

a 16 year old girl 2 Accused admitted that he stabbed Edlyn. 4 The prosecution alleged that the aggravating circumstances not habitual. HELD: 3 He entered a plea of guilty In virtue of his plea of guilty. contemplated crime. when it is habitual guilty. sex and intoxication Revised Penal Code) against accused On George Cortes y attended the commission of the crime charged. plea of . present in the commission of the crime. not of evident premeditation. for the murder of Edlyn S. mistaken identity and the alternative mitigating or intentional. 1 an Information for murder (violation of Article 248 of the nighttime. on the other hand. cruelty. nighttime. this review and not taking the alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime ISSUES: FACTS: Whether the trial court erred in finding that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation. on the other hand. The penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. qualified the killing to murder and that there were two mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and intoxication. it is considered an aggravating circumstance. as amended by Republic Act No. raised the attendance of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender. circumstance of intoxication. A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must 6 the trial court after considering the aggravating and present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic mitigating circumstances attendant found the existence of beverage prior to the commission of the crime. sufficient to the aggravating circumstances and appreciated only the produce the effect of obfuscating reason. disrespect to sex. in accordance with Article 63 in relation to Article 248 superior strength. 6759 5 The accused. cruelty. and intoxication were of the Revised Penal Code. abuse of death. Gamboa. At the same time. the trial court proceeded to satisfy itself of the voluntariness of The Solicitor General agrees with the accused that the the plea by propounding questions to the accused to find out only aggravating circumstance present was treachery which if he understood his plea and the legal consequence thereof. abuse of superior strength. Ortega. Hence. mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty that was offset by that person must show proof of not being a habitual drinker one of the aggravating circumstances.

Nerissa saw accused-appellant counting the money taken from the aparador. G. when appellant Armando Regala and his two other companions The trial court held that contradiction referred to a minor entered the former’s house. now provides. Masbate. appellant that the victim voluntarily submitted to sexual and money were taken from the aparador. The judgment convicting Armando Regala y Abriol (a) Whether additional rape committed in a crime of robbery guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with be considered as an aggravating circumstance? Rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court ISSUE: is proper. bed. she was brought to the The crime of robbery with rape was committed in 1995 when kitchen. He questioned the sufficiency of the prosecution’s the crime of homicide shall have been committed. Dr. both Nerissa Tagala and Consuelo People vs Regala Arevalo. 42 On cross-examination. the victim was a 16- kitchen and went to the room of the victims and poked at 8. Ulanday’s was hogtied on the floor. were sleeping. they remembered him wearing an earring On the night of September 11. 130508 April 5. the additional rape committed by herein sexual act or was forced into one. testified herself that the complaining witness “either” voluntarily submitted to a In this case. 1995.R. detail. Conchita intentional mutilation or arson. accused-appellant should not be considered as aggravating. Ulanday. RA 7659 was already in force. and thus. a health officer of Aroroy. Masbate. separately testified that they saw the face of Regala. at Barangay Bangon in of his left ear. she saw her grandmother’s testimony does not support the contention of accused- aparador being opened where two rings. who was a stranger. HELD: . Thereafter. because he used a flashlight and took off the mask he was FACTS: wearing. still hogtied and was raped again by the accused. and hogtied both of was not shown to have any ill-motive to falsely implicate them. which he was still wearing at the time of the Aroroy. where the victim is entitled to an additional award of P50. Dr. one after the other. then 16-year old victim Nerissa Tagala and police line-up inside the police station. her grandmother. Armando raped Nerissa in bed while her grandmother accused-appellant. Hence. that both Nerissa and Consuelo positively identified the accused-appellant. two wrist watches. After raping her in advances of Regala. or when evidence in identifying him as one of the perpetrators of the the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or crime charged. CASE No. under He was convicted in the lower court but accused-appellant paragraph 1 thereof: (1) The penalty of reclusion perpetua to appealed his criminal case at the Regional Trial Court in death. when for any reason of or on occasion of the robbery. cannot detract from the fact. Counselo Arevalo. Later. No.000. Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. And based on medico-legal. As Appellant and his companions entered the house through the correctly pointed out by the appellee. not exposed to the ways of the world and inch gun on them.00 as civil indemnity. year old barrio lass. 2000 despite of no electricity at the commission of the crime.

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

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

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

the court should favor the lesser case. when doubt exists whether an accused acted Whether Jose Tan can be considered as an accomplice in this as principal or accomplice. Province of Camarines Sur. attack on Magdalino Olos was treacherous. acts. not being a principal cooperated in Camarines Sur.which the offended party might make. or milder identity (People vs. therefore that said accused could be liable for is merely that On December 14. as held by the circumstance in this case. However.R. unlawfully and Culpability of Jose Tan feloniously attack. 1995 cases is reclusion temporal. Facts: . Norlito Tan and Jose Tan as an accomplice. G. Philippines. evidence. killing of the victim. August 5. 8 Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony mitigating circumstance of minority. Also. by the wounds inflicted on him. conduct of the parties disclosing a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.R. wilfully. They both pleaded not guilty. the trial court should have lowered his penalty by two degrees. to the even heard Jose Tan telling and pleading with his brother to damage and prejudice of the heirs of the offended party in stop his attack and stabbing of the victim. The penalty of Appellant Jose Tan as an accomplice is one Case # 47 People v. Abarri degree lower than that of the principal. in Barangay Gatbo.e. 1996. in its maximum period. 1995. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was proven. Jose Tan was arrested in Ocampo. she different parts of his body which caused his death. Doctrine/ Ruling: i. with treachery and evident premeditation. confederating together and mutually helping one another. Subsequently. the On the 6th day of September. thus. Irenea. he is entitled to the benefits of the agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide Indeterminate Sentence Law. 90185 March 1. In the case at bar. because he was only Art. of an accomplice. 44410. the accused Jose Tans Issue: act of stoning was neither a direct participation nor Whether or not self defense can be used as a justifying indispensable to the killing of the victim. who. According to the widow Ofelio Olos. No. did then and there. to commit it. to death. assault. Likewise. as the agreement itself may be inferred from the the imposable penalty on Norlito Tan is reclusion perpetua. caught off guard and was therefore unable to defend himself. The most such amount as may be proven in court. because he was Municipality of Ocampo. by his stoning the victim Modesto Olos and hitting him on the neck. 1993. Supreme Court. stone and stab with a deadly The prosecution was not able to establish conspiracy in the weapon one Magdaleno Rudy Olos alias Modesto Olos. Considering that he is entitled to the privileged Art. with as testified to by the prosecution witnesses and as indicated intent to kill. Appellant Jose Tan is guilty only thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on the as an accomplice. No. conspiring. which in murder G. Norlito Tan was arrested on the execution of the offense by previous and simultaneous April 1. prision correccional maximum to prision A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an mayor medium. 1988). that in this case. 17 Principals sixteen years old when the crime was committed.

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

namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion. a time. No. even in the the two what they were doing there. If murder were not complexed with rebellion. the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated However. of the same day. Abarri admitted to forcibly bringing Gan to a vacant lot and binding her arms and legs. 92163 – 64 June 5. Barangay temporal in its maximum period to death.Responding to her cries. and (2) for the crime of murder. in the intent or purpose. in other words. Thus. petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner is charged with a crime that does not exist in the statute books. the same must be dismissed as it is just a mere Are the accused guilty of robbery with rape? flight of rhetoric. questioning. Issue: therefore. Salazar rebellion may properly be complexed with a common 186 SCRA 217 offense. 1990. Alejo brought provision. reclusion Meanwhile. circumstances present. 1990 #49 Santiago v Garchitorena Intro: Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at ART 10 RPC . and Gregorio Honasan with The police brought Abarri and Andales to the crime scene. under Article 48 door of the store had been partly opened. would be unfavorable to the movant. the extreme penalty place. Abarri answered that absence of a single aggravating circumstance. depending upon the modifying hands. 48 Whether or not under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code Enrile vs. if construed in conformity with the theory of the them to the barangay hall for investigation.Supplementing Special Laws bar. Repairing at the absence of aggravating circumstances. Alejo saw Abarri and Estrada. Issue: Case No. G. Alejo turned over Facts: the two to the custody of the police detachment in Binondo. However.R.For delito continuado to exist there could be done). Gan was no longer there when they arrived. Upon further prosecution. the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio. in the somebody was opening the store of Gan. murder. which means that two or more violations . unity of penal provision violated. and unity of criminal fine not exceeding P20. said Gan instructed them to get the latter's pants. at around 8:30 P. neighbors came and untied her corresponding period. When she asked said penalty would have to be meted out to him. The identified the two as among those persons who robbed her. and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this CONTINUING CRIME . The murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed police proceeded to Gan's house where the latter positively coup attempt from November 29 to December 10.M. depending upon Captain Anita Alejo was informed by a resident that the modifying circumstances present. A warrant was issued charging Senator Enrile. She noticed that the could not be imposed upon him.000 and prision mayor. but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor. the following penalties would be imposable should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of upon the movant.

. unless she was furnished with the Applying the concept of delito continuado names and identities of the aliens. 1988. . i. At the hearing of the motion for a bill of particulars. and responding directly to the instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same concerns of the accused through counsel. causing undue injury to one offended party. the prosecution has conceded categorically that the accusation against Miriam #50 People vs. legal principles developed from the Government. 1988. the public prosecutors manifested at the hearing whose stay was legalized. 1 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure represented by the approval of the applications of 32 foreign provides. nationals for availment (sic) of the Alien Legalization unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. done on a single day. the Code aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege shall be supplementary to special laws. Dela Torre Defensor Santiago consists of one violation of the law Rule 122 Sec. the prosecution is criminal purpose or aim categorical that there will not be 32 accusations but only one . . On the matter of the Bill of Particulars. According to petitioner. i. unless the latter under EO 324.e. ISSUE: Is the consolidation of cases proper for violation of EO FACTS: 324? / Was there only one offense committed? Petitioner was charged with performing a single criminal act RULING: — that of her approving the application for legalization of 32 YES. ( a delito continuado consists of several crimes but in reality there is only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator.e. on or about the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity October 17. In this respect. except that instead approval of the application or the legalization of the stay of of the word "aliens" in the original information each the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen.. the public prosecutors manifested that they would file only one Criminal Case No. The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time. any party on appeal from a judgment or final order.. 16698 is MODIFIED in the sense that the amended information embodying the legalization of stay of Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the the 32 aliens. The strong probability even exists that the the allegation of the original information. the motion for a bill of particulars that the Government suffered a single harm or injury. on or about The information was then amended reproducing verbatim October 17.of the same penal provisions are united in one and same Program. Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. As stated in the Order dated November 12. Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32 Amended 1992 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division): Informations into one information charging only one offense under the original case number. amended information states the name of the individual Likewise. she could not properly plead and prepare for trial. provide the contrary. to crimes punished under special laws. Hence.

Labrador imposed upon the accused for this runs afoul of the right of G.R. Rizal and was seated as the municipal Primarily. he continued to be a registered elector in the jurisprudence. from successively retrying the respondent applied to the President for an absolute pardon defendant in the hope of securing a conviction. he will be eligible The Court also states: "Whatever error may have been for appointment only to positions which are clerical or committed by the lower court was merely an error of manual in nature and involving no money or property judgment and not of jurisdiction. This is the kind of error that can no longer be rectified on appeal by the prosecution no On 1940. mitigating the gravity of the offense. Firme (157 SCRA 518) clarified the ABSOLUTE PARDON Kepner Doctrine stating that "an appeal of the prosecution DOCTRINE: Absolute pardon not only blots out the from a judgment of acquittal (or for the purpose of crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from increasing the penalty imposed upon the convict) would the conviction." Heirs of Tito Rillorta vs. Rizal on the ground that the latter is disqualified. there are allegations of error jeopardy? committed by a lower court which we ought not to look into to uphold the right of the accused. 1940 the accused against double jeopardy. It the respondent from voting for having been “declared by also serves the additional purpose of precluding the State. to hold public office or employment. place him in double jeopardy" FACTS: The CFI of Rizal found respondent Santos guilty of The ban on double jeopardy is deeply rooted in estafa. from retrying the civil and political rights. Leones (GR Nos. 128514 & 143856-61). intrinsic validity of the decision. Cristobal filed a petition for the exclusion of the matter how obvious the error may be. . It did not affect the responsibility. 11 of Facts: Wilfredo dela Torre was charged and convicted of 2 Malabon. And finally." name of Santos from the list of voters in precinct no. city of Malabon. it prevents the State from using its criminal president from 1934 to 1937.People v. An appeal was made seeking to increase the penalty from reclusion perpetua to the supreme penalty of death. Such is the case in an Case # 52 appeal by the prosecution seeking to increase the penalty Cristobal v. Commonwealth Act processes as an instrument of harassment to wear out the No 357 or the Election Code was approved which disqualifies accused by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. the court denied the petition for exclusion and his daughter Mary Rose dela torre. The doctrine has several avowed purposes. No. On 1938. however. declared that the pardon extended in favor of respondent has The RTC rendered its judgment imposing the penalty of had the effect of excluding him from the disqualification reclusion perpetua. maintaining there were circumstances created by the Election Code. following conviction. counts of acts of lasciviousness and 4 counts of rape against After hearing.” The following an acquittal. except that with respect to the right defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty. final judgment guilty of any crime against property. it and granted the petition restoring the respondent to his full prevents the State. L-47941 December 7. it Issue: WON an increase in the penalty imposed by the lower unmistakably declared that "while it is true that this Court is court will violate the right of the accused against double the Court of last resort.

ISSUE: Whether or not the pardon not only blots out the of the arrest, the escapee is in the continuous act of
crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from committing a crime — evading the service of his sentence.
the conviction? ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila
has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case against Parulan?
FACTS: Petitioner Parulan was confined in the state
54. RICARDO PARULAN, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal, serving a sentence of life
OF PRISONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-28519 imprisonment which, however, was commuted to 20 years by
February 17, 1968 the President. He was then transferred to Fort Bonifacio in
Ruling: There are crimes which are called transitory or Makati. In October 1964, while still serving his sentence, he
continuing offenses because some acts material and essential escaped. He was eventually recaptured in Manila.
to the crime occur in one province and some in another, in Consequently, he was prosecuted for the crime of evasion of
which case, the rule is settled that the court of either service of sentence and was found guilty. As a recourse, he
province where any of the essential ingredients of the crime filed a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus
took place has — jurisdiction to try the case. There are, also, directed against respondent Director of Prisons.
crimes which although all the elements thereof for its
consummation may have occurred in a single place, yet by
reason of the very nature of the offense committed, the
violation of the law is deemed to be continuing. The crime of
evasion of service of sentence is an example of the latter kind
of crime - when the prisoner in his attempt to evade the TALUSAN y PANGANIBAN
service of the sentence imposed upon him by the courts and
thus defeat the purpose of the law, moves from one place to G.R. No. 179187 July 14, 2009
another; for, in this case, the act of the escaped prisoner is a
continuous or series of acts, set on foot by a single impulse CARPIO MORALES, J.:
and operated by an unintermittent force, however long it
may be. It may not be validly said that after the convict shall
have escaped from the place of his confinement the crime is
Doctrine(s): Special complex crime. Where the law
fully consummated, for, as long as he continues to evade the
provides a single penalty for two or more component
service of his sentence, he is deemed to continue committing
offenses, the resulting crime is called a special complex
the crime, and may be arrested without warrant, at any place
crime. In a special complex crime, the prosecution must
where he may be found. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
necessarily prove each of the component offenses with the
Court may be invoked in support of this conclusion, for,
same precision that would be necessary if they were made
under section 6[c] thereof, one of the instances when a
the subject of separate complaints.
person may be arrested without warrant is where he has
Mitigating Circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty
escaped from confinement. Undoubtedly, this right of arrest
in single and indivisible penalty. The presence of
without a warrant is founded on the principle that at the time
mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty has no

effect or disregarded incase the penalty imposable is single An information for kidnapping with rape was filed against
and indivisible. appellant by on the basis of the report submitted by the
Automatic Review in case the penalty imposed is medico legal.
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
When the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life Upon arraignment, appellant, with the assistance of his
imprisonment is imposed, the case is automatically
counsel de oficio, entered a plea of guilty. The lower court
forwarded to the Supreme Court on automatic review.
thereupon conducted a searching inquiry into the
However, such automatic review to the Supreme Court does
not bar the referring of the case to the Court of Appeals for voluntariness of appellant’s plea, and despite repeated
intermediate disposition. questions and just as repeated answers showing that
Searching inquiry incase of plea of guilty in a crime appellant understood his plea and its consequences, the trial
having a penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life court still ordered the prosecution to, as it did, present
imprisonment. There is thus no hard and fast rule as to evidence.
how a judge may conduct a "searching inquiry." As long as
the voluntary intent of the accused and his full Issue: Whether or not a searching inquiry is
comprehension of the consequences of his plea are required in case of plea of guilty where the penalty
ascertained. imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life

Facts: In January 14, 2004, while AAA was on her way to
school, appellant kidnapped AAA by deceiving the latter that G.R. No. 198554 July 30, 2012
they would would go to Jollibee, but in fact appellant MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, AFP (RET.),
brought AAA to a house in Imus, Cavite. AAA was thereafter Petitioner,
under appellant’s control and custody for eight days during vs.
which he abused her by inserting his finger inside her vagina THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
on a daily basis before breakfast, despite her resistance.
AAA having failed to return home, her stepfather BBB went 1 A court-martial case is a criminal case and the
to search for the former. A neighbor then informed him that General Court Martial is a “court” akin to any other
he saw appellant with AAA while the latter was on her way to courts. The General Court Martial is a court within
the strictest sense of the word and acts as a criminal
school. At dawn of the following day, January 23, 2004,
court. On that premise, certain provisions of the
appellant, who was with AAA, was apprehended.
Revised Penal Code, insofar as those that are not
provided in the Articles of War and the Manual for
Courts-Martial, can be supplementary. Under Article

10 of the Revised Penal Code: Art. 10. Offenses not arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the
subject to the provisions of this Code.—Offenses express terms of a statute or by its improper
which are or in the future may be punishable under execution through the state’s duly-constituted
special laws are not subject to the provisions of this authorities
Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such
laws, unless the latter should specially provide the Facts:
contrary. Major General Carlos Garcia of the AFP was charged in a
Court Martial for failure to disclose all his existing assets in
2 A special law is defined as a penal law which his Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth
punishes acts not defined and penalized by the for the years 2002 and 2003. After six (6) years and two (2)
Revised Penal Code. In the present case, petitioner months of preventive confinement, Garcia was found guilty
was charged with and convicted of Conduct of the charged offenses and was dishonorably discharged
Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman (96th Article from the service, forfeited all pay and allowances due and
of War) and Violation of the 97th Article of War, or confined at hard labor at such place the reviewing authority
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Military may direct for a period of two (2) years.
Discipline, both of which are not defined and Issue: WON the period of preventive confinement of Garcia
penalized under the Revised Penal Code. The shall be credited to the sentence imposed by the court
corresponding penalty imposed by the General Court martial.
Martial, which is two (2) years of confinement at Ruling: Yes. Applying the provisions of Article 29 of the
hard labor is penal in nature. Therefore, absent any Revised Penal Code, the time within which the petitioner was
provision as to the application of a criminal concept under preventive confinement should be credited to the
in the implementation and execution of the General sentence confirmed by the Office of the President. The period
Court Martial's decision, the provisions of the of confinement of six years shall be credited in his favor and
Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 29 should be deducted from the two (2) years to which the accused was
applied. sentenced.

3 Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code in the Articles
of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection FERDINAND A. CRUZ, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE
Clause of the 1987 Constitution. According to a long OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondnet.
line of decisions, equal protection simply requires G.R. No. 176504, Spetember 03, 2008
that all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and ARTICLE
responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies  Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, theft is
and institutions to treat similarly situated qualified when it is, among others, committed with
individuals in a similar manner. The purpose of the grave abuse of confidence, to wit:
equal protection clause is to secure every person
within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and

ART. 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of with grave abuse of confidence, steal and carry away the
theft shall be punished by the penalties next amount of PhP15,000.00. He entered a plea of not guilty
higher by two degrees than those during arraignment, and the witnesses for the prosecution
respectively specified in the next preceding testified that he received the said amount from Hemisphere-
article, if committed x x x with grave abuse Leo Burnett and issued a receipt but failed to turn over the
of confidence x x x. amount to Porta-Phone Rentals. The prosecution changed
the case to Qualified Theft.
 The settled rule is that when an accused pleads to Ferdinand Cruz in his defense alleged that he issued an
the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right acknowledgment receipt to Hemisphere and remitted the
to preliminary investigation and the right to amount to the accounting supervisor. He was asked by the
question any irregularity that surrounds it. supervisor to sign the official receipt because he was the one
who closed the deal.
 Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, the The RTC found Ferdinand guilty beyond reasonable doubt
penalty for Qualified Theft is two degrees for the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT. He filed a Motion for
higher than that specified in Article 309. New Trial on the grounds of (1) absence of a preliminary
investigation for the crime of qualified theft and (2) newly
FACTS: discovered evidence – the testimony of a former employee of
Ferdinand Cruz was a Marketing Manager of Porta-Phone Hemisphere testifying on Ferdinand’s signing of an
Rentals, Inc., a corporation engaged in the lease of cellular acknowledgment receipt. The RTC revived and reinstated the
phones. He went to his office, obtained a pad of official conviction of Ferdinand. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals
receipts from the collection officer’s table. He delivered the affirmed the RTC Decision.
communication equipment and received the PhP15,000.00
payment and issued a receipt even though he not authorized ISSUE:
to receive cash payments and issued receipts. He then failed 1 Whether Ferdinand was denied of due process when
to deliver the cash to his office. When he was confronted, he was indicted for qualified theft even as he was
Ferdinand admitted that he deposited the amount to his initially investigated for estafa/falsification of
personal bank account. He was instructed to remit the private documents.
amount which he failed to do claiming that the company has 2 Whether Ferdinand’s guilt was not established
paid his reimbursements.. The company sent a demand beyond reasonable doubt.
letter which he answered stating that he already remitted the 3 Whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be
amount to the accounting supervisor which the latter denied. applied.
He refused to turn over the amount despite demands made
by the officers of the company which prompted the company
to file the a case of Estafa/Falsification of Documents. HELD:
According to the Information filed before the RTC of Makati, 1 Ferdinand was not denied of due process. The
Ferdinand Cruz as a Marketing Manager of Porta-Phone settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the
Rentals, Inc. had access to the funds of the corporation and charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to

Ferdinand penalty of 10 Years and 1 Day of prision mayor as was able to answer the initial charge of minimum to 14 Years. Since the than that specified in Article 309.000. he voluntarily pleaded to the charge and actively The prosecution established. the maximum period of against the person or force upon things.The crime of theft shall years. the prosecutor deemed it proper to penalty for Qualified Theft is two degrees higher charge Ferdinand with qualified theft. 2 The elements of the crime of theft are the following: the minimum shall be prision mayor in its (1) there was a taking of personal property. 5 months and 11 days.00. the maximum period imposed by RTC should be increased to 16 ART. However. Qualified theft. and (5) the taking was aggravating nor mitigating circumstance in the accomplished without violence or intimidation commission of the offense. (4) the taking was 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. (3) the taking was minimum period or within the range of 10 years and without the consent of the owner. 5 months and 11 days to 18 years.000. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. There being neither done with intent to gain.00 but does not exceed for Ferdinand to be given the opportunity to submit P22. Based on the same complaint affidavit and the same sets of evidence presented by Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. be punished by the penalties next higher by two . the the complainant. arraignment was forced upon him. counter-affidavits. (2) the maximum period to reclusion temporal in its property belongs to another. preliminary investigation and the right to question degrees than those respectively specified in the next any irregularity that surrounds it. as he had already answered minimum and medium periods. if committed x x x with grave Ferdinand did not present evidence that abuse of confidence x x x. On the contrary. In this case. among others. Two degrees higher affidavits for the original indictment of than prision mayor minimum and medium is estafa/falsification of private documents.000. 310. It is not correct for Ferdinand to claim that preliminary investigation on the charge of qualified 3 The RTC imposed on petitioner the indeterminate theft was not accorded him. the said allegations when he submitted counter. to wit: by the RTC is correct. The truth is. there is no need stolen is more than P12. preceding article. theft is of 16 years. beyond the shadow of participated in the trial of the case doubt that Ferdinand took and kept the fifteen thousand peso-collection from the company’s client. Paragraph 1 of same allegations and evidence were proffered by the Article 309 provides that if the value of the thing complainant in the qualified theft. reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. amount stolen was P15.12 Under the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The minimum penalty imposed grave abuse of confidence. 2 qualified when it is. committed with months and 20 days.00. . In the instant case. as maximum. the penalty shall be prision mayor in its counter-affidavits anew. 8 Months and 1 Day of estafa/falsification of private documents through his reclusion temporal.

complex. . Each falsification of a voucher "Presented to Prov. the prosecution's theory is that in 1969 Licerio malversation. 10724 than of the money forming part of the road and bridge could dated February 28. It is settled that if the lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City. as the custodian Paragraph 4 is a certification of Voucher No. Sendaydiego. As already stated. he is presumed to be the author of the Case No. And each Quirimit and found Sendaydiego and Samnson guilty of misappropriation as evidenced by a provincial voucher malversation through falsification of public or official constitutes a separate crimes of malversation were documents committed. The falsification of six vouchers After trial the lower court acquitted the auditor. These are not cases where the execution of FACTS: a single act constitutes two grave or less grave felonies or In these three cases of malversation through where the falsification was used as a means to commit falsification. The trial court correctly ruled that a private DOCTRINE & DECISION: person conspiring with an accountable public officer in The crimes committed in these three cases are not committing malversation is also guilty of malversation. 1969 certifying that the voucher has been have malversed or misappropriated it without falsifiying any pre-audited and signed by the auditor. vouchers and he used them in order to receive public monies SENDAYDIEGO. Separate crimes of falsification and malversation were committed. the provincial treasurer of Pangasinan. L-33254 & G.R. The falsifications cannot According to the prosecution. and with falsification was resorted to for the purpose of hiding the Anastacio Quirimit. " It means for the committing malversations. Treasurer. No. Samson also signed on be regarded as constituting one continuing offense impelled the left margin of the six vouchers below the stamped words: by a single criminal impulse. 58 falsification because he was in possession of the forged PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. The falsification was used as a device to prevent certification signed by the provincial treasurer that detection of the malversation. the account mentioned in the provincial engineer's Falsification and malversation did not constitute a certification "was paid in the amount and on the date shown complex crime because the falsifications were not necessary below and is chargeable as shown in the summary hereof. P. constitutes six separate or distinct offenses.23. In the instant case. which must be punished separately. Appellant Samson is a co-principal in each of the said twelve offenses.R. Paragraph 5 is a voucher.048. No. LICERIO P. an employee of a to conceal the malversation. the provincial auditor. the falsification and malversation are separate used six (6) forged provincial vouchers in order to embezzle offenses from the road and bridge fund the total sum of P57." constitutes one crime. malversation. 1978 he conspired with the provincial treasurer in committing those offenses. JUAN SAMSON & ANASTACIO from the provincial treasurer. L-33253 January 20. in In the six vouchers the falsification was used conspiracy with Juan Samson y Galvan. Each falsification may be noted that the provincial treasurer signs two part of and each malversation constituted independent offenses the voucher. By Juan Samson. the provincial . as an accomplice. QUIRIMIT He is a co-principal in the six crimes of malversation because G.

In Sendaydiego died on October 5. and there is some doubt on whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has committed PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. He himself admitted having taken Yvonne to Maco Central Elementary School. 22 December 1997 in question. the appellant may be convicted only of grave coercion. motive becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive. Introduction (Provisions involved. 110097. Sendaydiego and Samson appealed to this Court. If the evidence does not adequately prove this kidnapping — the fact of detention or the deprivation of . In this case. the identity of appellant is not G. There being no actual detention or confinement. ARNULFO it. appellant forcibly dragged the victim toward a place only he knew. the accused cannot be held liable for kidnapping. His appeal as to his the present case. No. Indeed. principles. Furthermore. motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct ASTORGA evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. element. the prosecution merely proved that criminal liability was dismissed.R. jurisprudence): Kidnapping or Coercion? Actual detention or "locking up" is the primary element of The prosecution failed to prove one essential element of kidnapping. ISSUE: Whether or not appellants are liable for the crimes of falsicification of public documents and six crimes of malversation? No Motive to "Kidnap" Motive is not an element of the crime. 1976.

liberty. that he actually detained her. Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. 2 That he kidnaps or detains another. female. as provided in Section 15 of the Revised Administrative Code. much less." Accordingly. Likewise." which refers not only to the placing of a person in an enclosure which he cannot leave. any of the A review of the events as narrated by the prosecution following circumstances is present: witnesses ineluctably shows the absence of "locking up. which is the primary element of kidnapping. Grave coercion or coaccion grave has three elements: (a) that any person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited . or appellant cannot be convicted of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. or victim. Consequently. 4 That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor. or in any the Spanish text is controlling in cases of conflict with the other manner deprives the latter of his liberty. Lockup is included in the broader term of "detention. other deprivation of liberty which does not necessarily involve locking up. Rather. English version. the felony committed in this case is grave coercion under Article 286 of the same code. The authority." It is clear that the appellant and the victim were constantly on the 1 That the kidnapping or detention lasts move. or a public officer. 3 That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal. There was no "lockup. or evidence does not show that appellant wanted to detain Yvonne. the Revised Penal Code was originally approved and enacted in Spanish. person of Yvonne. the The Spanish version of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code elements of kidnapping are as follows: uses the terms "lockup" (encerrar) rather than "kidnap" (secuestrar or raptar). 4 That in the commission of the offense. Appellant's 3 That any serious physical injuries are forcible dragging of Yvonne to a place only he knew cannot inflicted upon the person kidnapped or be said to be an actual confinement or restriction on the detained or threats to kill him are made. There is no actual confinement or restraint of the for more than five (5) days. Appellant's apparent intention was to take 2 That it committed simulating public Yvonne against her will towards the direction of Tagum. but also to any 1 That the offender is a private individual.

thus the another has no right to do so or. as described. one of his companions with others in chasing. accused or "Boy" Astorga told Yvonne Traya. knew Yvonne’s family and who stays with her grandparents and so with her parents and he got from the accused Yvonne who showed some at Sitio Binuangan. and later. Brief issues: hence Yvonne cried and protested that she must go home but the accused did not heed her plea. one of those who chased. Accused hurriedly walked restraint is not made under authority of a law or in the fast with Yvonne. control over the will of the offended party. he exercise of any lawful right. and met some group of youngsters-men and the said group was (c) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of suspicious about the man who was bringing a child. placed his hand on her shoulder. Appellant presented no justification for preventing Yvonne from going home. When appellant forcibly dragged carried the victim and ran but they were chased and were and slapped Yvonne. either by material force or such a While the accused and Yvonne were walking in the situation display of it as would produce intimidation and. Maco. did not answer. asked the accused where they were bound and he answered towards Binuangan but the group noticed something suspicious because their destination was Brief facts: already towards Tagum which is an opposite direction to Binuangan. While there was a brown out. he took away her right to go home to overtaken. and the group brought the accused and Yvonne to immediately grabbed and held Yvonne’s hand as the latter Yvonne’s home at Binuangan. and went and walked inside the compound of Maco Elementary School. that the said group decided to follow them. to go with him to buy candy and resistance. who was only eight (8) years old at that time Jonathan. .by law. accused brought her out to the highway and walked towards the direction of Tagum which is the opposite direction towards her grandparent's house at Binuangan. Binuangan. covered her mouth. or compelled to do something against his or her will. they consequently. Edwin Fabila declared that Jonathan. (b) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence. and to prevent from being overtaken. in other words. be it right or wrong. there being no person around the gate. somewhere near the Luponlupon bridge.

The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. and is therefore retroactive in application. the the accused. likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected Section 64 of the newly enacted law also provides that cases of to an intervention program. 2008 FACTS: The petitioner.EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES law.Whether the accused’s motive to kidnap Yvonne Traya is relevant to convict him for the crime of kidnapping. was Whether Yvonne Traya was not detained. who was then 14 years old. Yes! happened in 3 occasions. HELD Section 6 of RA 9344 clearly and explicitly provides: : Yes RATIO Section 6. such child shall be subjected to immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act the appropriate local social welfare and development officer. . The RTC ruled that the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of rape and is sentenced to reclusion temporal. PEOPLE (CRIMINAL) Whether or not the petitioner can avail exempting circumstance provided by the newly enacted law on minors in conflict with ARTICLE 12 . Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility . During the pendency of the case in the SC.A child : The petitioner can avail the exempting circumstance that will relieve 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the him from criminal liability because the law enacted was favorable to offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. motive is not relevant. shall discernment. Juvenile child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant Justice and Welfare Act provides that a child under 15 years of age in to Section 20 of this Act. in which case. because the petitioner was a minor under 15 years of age at the commission of the crime. the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. At the case at bar. unless he/she acted with children under 15 years of age at the commission of the crime. ORTEGA vs PEOPLEGR No. However. That the rape crime of kidnapping but only for grave coercion. however. Exemption from criminal A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall liability. RA 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act was enacted that establishes a comprehensive system to manage children in conflict with the law. 151085August 20. he can be relieved from criminal liability. Joemar Ortega. No. who was about 8 years old. does not include exemption from civil liability. locked-up or charged with the crime of rape deprived of her liberty so as not to convict the accused for the for allegedly raping AAA. but is subject to an intervention program. ISSUE: ORTEGA V.

she resides with her common-law husband and their minor daughter. 218 G. that ‘The testimony by questioning her behavior after she was express pardon of a person guilty of attempted abduction of allegedly raped. 1997 SCRA 98. It is clear to the mind of this Court that the prosper as a defense the accused must show that he was so complainant has not expressly pardoned the said accused.’ (U. The court ruled that it is not proper to judge a minor. J. No. IRVIN she would take considering the delicate nature of the TADULAN y EPAN problem they were facing” (citing People v. Joaquin.’ It was also held in another case. she was not yet certain of the steps PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 192 SCRA 266). shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by the calculus. Pasig. or its immediate vicinity at the time of granted not only by the parents of an offended minor but its commission (People vs.) 55 O. People v.The Court therefore held that the case against Joemar Ortega the accused as a friend. Garcia child when the crime was committed on her. 6 Dr. 344 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner is hereby referred to the local called him “Tito Loloy.G. vs. in Barangay Sumilang. 225 SCRA 179). almost like a relative. that the victim was only a naive nine (9) year old Complainant Estela Santos owns a house at No. It has been held time and again that for alibi to Pardon.. Accused-appellant tries to discredit the victim’s inefficacious. there are authorities holding that pardon must be the place of the crime. extend a valid pardon. Danguilan. —which is but a few 9460. The range of emotion 360).. we find the following words: ‘Neither must we be kilometers from Barangay Sumilang of the same understood as supporting the view that the parents alone can municipality where the crime was committed. In this also by the minor herself in order to be effective as an case. too are of the belief that the pardon by the parents.A. Jr. is not sufficient to the actions of children who have undergone traumatic remove criminal responsibility. Tasurra.” social welfare and development officer of the locality for the appropriate intervention program As correctly observed by the Solicitor General: “(A)s regards the acts imputed to Estela. Besides. (C. in this FACTS: connection. have ruled that a delay in prosecuting the rape is not indicative of fabricated charges. it is not so situated.S. Maristel . the delay of seven (7) days from the date of her knowledge of the rape incident on 4 April Case No. Jr.R. for according to him he express pardon under Art. but must be accompanied by experience by the norms of behavior expected under the the express pardon of the girl herself. we PADILLA. far away that he could not have been physically present at Besides. for we. Far from it. 65 1992 in reporting to the authorities the rape of her daughter is excusable. granted by the latter’s parents. Luna. circumstances from mature people. 117407 | April 15. Lacson. was at the plant of the Republic Asahi Glass Corporation in Thus. in the case of People vs. standing alone. She considered St.. It is thus unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. is Rape. Pasig. Barangay Pinagbuhatan. 1 Phil. At that time.It should be borne in mind. as in fact she is hereby DISMISSED. DOCTRINE / RULING: Alibi. however.

as a special act.P. The DOJ also cited the case apartment unit right away. Blg. She and punishes.P. special acts that do not provide for a prescriptive period for the offenses thereunder. Cawili occupied by accused Irvin Tadulan. his wife Adefa Tadulan and Ramon C. one unit of which was rented and from petitioner Panaguiton. 22 shall prescribe after four (4) years with lewd design and by means of force. threats and starting on the date the checks were dishonored (March 18. filed a complaint against accused’s children in the vicinity of their house and the Cawili and Tongson for violating Batas Pambansa (B. on March 15.P. Estela Santos thereafter office (administrative proceedings). complainant also owns a three. 1993.Cruz.. unlawfully and 1993) Panaguiton. 3326. Reyes. that Irvin Tadulan was still coming home to complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon the apartment unit every night despite the promise of his City does not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period wife that she herself would call the police should he ever for violation of B. Bilang 22 before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. She often played with the On August 24. but requested that she and her children be allowed judicial proceedings. as amended. penalized by B.P. Therefore. Jr. Jr. Blg. Behind the said house. Jr. however. Tongson (Tongson) jointly issued in favor of and their three children name Dianne. 1999. 1992. v. 3326. Maristel Cruz was about nine (9) checks were dishonored. and not the one before the prosecutor's to stay until Saturday. Rodrigo Cawili borrowed various sums of money door apartment building. 1992 in the Sampaga held that the case had already prescribed pursuant Municipality of Pasig. JR. DOJ Ruling: Facts: NO. 1993. year old and was in grade school. this Petition for Review. Blg. 90 of further informed Adefa Tadulan that she would not take the Revised Penal Code which governs the prescription of action against the latter’s husband if they would vacate the offenses penalized thereunder. did then and there willfully. Adefa Tadulan later on met with of Zaldivia v. April 11. 3326 pardon and alibi of the accused? PANAGUITON. Act No. Metro Manila. 1995. minor. 3326 applies to it. Issues: ISSUE: Whether or not the offense of violation of B. without her consent and against The DOJ explained that Act No. 22. wherein the SC ruled that the Estela Santos and told her that she had driven away Irvin proceedings referred to in Act No. are Tadulan. which provides that violations the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Jr. intimidation. as amended. . In 1992 Upon presentment for payment on March 18. Jr. Assistant City Prosecutor That on or about the 2nd day of April. and not Art. respectively. Philippines and within to Act No. Blg. Estela Santos immediately informed the wife of Irvin does not provide for the prescription of the offense it defines Tadulan that her husband has raped her daughter. a the case on the same grounds of prescription.) apartment building. Panaguiton. Since B. However. the filing of a noted. armed with a knife. Angie and Bochoy Panaguiton. three (3) checks in payment of the said loans. come back to the place. 22 has Whether or not the court erred in disregarding the defense of already prescribed per Act No. In 1992. appealed to the DOJ but it dismissed feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Maristel Cruz. 22. Hence. who were aged 10. the complainant’s daughter.P. 9 and 5. nine (9) years old. On January 8. 3326 applies to violations of her will.

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

3019. Thus. President Fidel V. Diaz-Salcedo to resolve the case based on the available evidence. 13 creating the Presidential aforementioned Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans Committee on Behest Loans v. the determine the parties involved and recommend whatever aggrieved party. 1992. Thus. 61 expanded the functions of the Committee to because. Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the Committee classified the loans obtained by NOCOSII from PNB as The assertion by the Ombudsman that the phrase 'if the behest because of NOCOSII's insufficient capital and same not be known' in Section 2 of Act No.A. Officer (GIO) I Melinda S. The respondents failed to submit any responsive pleading provides that prescription is interrupted 'when proceedings before the Ombudsman. held that it was well-nigh impossible for the State. petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman thus provides no room for interpretation but only the criminal complaint against respondents on April 5. agree with the COMMITTEE that the prescriptive period for the offenses with which respondents in OMB-0-96-0968 Among the accounts referred to the Committee's Technical were charged should be computed from the discovery of the Working Group (TWG) were the loan transactions between commission thereof and not from the day of such Northern Cotabato Sugar Industries. In a Resolution. we loans. the filing of the complaint was Pambansa Blg. increased the prescriptive period from well within the prescriptive period of 15 years. 3326. as alleged. (NOCOSII) and commission. a special law. prompting Graft Investigator are instituted against the guilty person. GIO Diaz- Records show that the act complained of was discovered in Salcedo recommended the dismissal of the case on the 1992. the public officials concerned connived include the inventory and review of all non-performing or conspired with the "beneficiaries of the loans. 195. FACTS: On October 8. No. application. Ramos The issue of prescription has long been laid to rest in the issued Administrative Order No. to have known the violations of R. where the Court (Committee) which was tasked to inventory all behest loans. or within three (3) years from against the respondents and for prescription of the offense. Section 4. 3019. Inc. Petitioner alleges that respondents violated the following provisions of Section 3 (e) and (g) of R. appropriate actions to be pursued thereby and Memorandum 3019 at the time the questioned transactions were made Order No. As to when the period of prescription was interrupted. 1995. . Amending said law. Based on the Sworn Statement of PCGG consultant Orlando which is written in a clear and unambiguous language and Salvador. the second paragraph of Section 2. 1995. Batas the time of discovery. as amended. ten to fifteen years. Desierto. No. 3326 does not inadequate collaterals after it had examined and studied all mean 'lack of knowledge' but that the crime 'is not the documents relative to the said loan transactions. The complaint was filed with the Office of the ground of insufficiency of evidence or lack of probable cause Ombudsman on April 5. as it provides an interpretation that defeats or negates the intent of the law.A. Act No. whether behest or non-behest. reasonably knowable' is unacceptable.

whether or not it case. Petitioner accepted the offer . the role of novation may only be to The Supreme Court ruled that SENCOR’s criminal liability either prevent the rise of criminal liability or was not extinguished. it may prevent the rise of criminal liability information technology firm. the respondents has prescribed. But after the ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave justice authorities have taken cognizance of abuse of discretion in ruling that the offense leveled against the crime and instituted action in court. or other similar disguise is resorted to. substituting the person of the debtor. an criminal liability. 2007 recognized by the Penal Code whereby criminal liability can be extinguished. vs It may be observed in this regard DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE that novation is not one of the means August 8. the novation does not apply because there was no was such that its breach would not give rise original contract that can be replaced by a new contract to penal responsibility. RULING hence. an ordinary creditor-debtor situation. We held: Office a complaint against Martels and their five co-accused for SENCORs non-payment of contributions. respondent Martels offered to assign to petitioner a apply prior to the filing of the criminal parcel of land in Tagaytay City. In the case employees. The Court observed that although novation is not one of the FACTS means recognized by the Revised Penal Code to extinguish respondent Martels are directors of SENCOR. The crime being an offense against the No. To pay this The novation theory may perhaps amount. In this original basic transaction. information in court by the state prosecutors Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was because up to that time the original trust denied by GIO Diaz-Salcedo.Ombudsman Desierto approved the recommendation. 158131 state.R. Petitioner is a government- or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic owned and controlled corporation mandated by its charter. provided the novation takes place before the RA 1161. which was approved by relation may be converted by the parties into Ombudsman Desierto. subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. transaction. Nery. as when money changing the object or principal condition of the original loaned is made to appear as a deposit. as distinguished from the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM G. or contract. The SC argued that for novation to to cast doubt on the true nature of the apply there must be an original contract to speak of. only the latter can renounce it. Petitioner filed with the Pasay City Prosecutors People v. offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability. thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. civil. to provide financial benefits to private sector filing of the Information with the trial court.

A. the prescriptive over the 24 offenses ascribed to Romualdez. Chavez against the petitioner with the PCGG. therein have already prescribed. However. 2004 by requiring the petitioner to capacity as the Ombudsman. in lieu of the Tagaytay City property. 3019 by B. Blg. the same cash settlement within a reasonable time. prescription of offenses defined by and penalized under special laws. respondents. Part I. 165510-33. 3326. Thus. No. Martel wrote petitioner years. prescriptive periods of the offenses charged against him. ROMUALDEZ. Sandiganbayan. In Article 91 of the RPC cannot be applied suppletorily to Act Romualdez v. and PRESIDENTIAL submit his counter-affidavit. On the other hand. G. MARCELO.P. this Court rules that the prescriptive ISSUE period of the offenses herein began to run from the discovery Whether or not the concept of novation serves to abate the thereof or on May 8. computer- related services. Under Section 2 of Act No. 1982. petitioner. Nos. Case No. In March 16. when the Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated BENJAMIN ("KOKOY") T. invalid the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG 195 which was approved on March 16. the prescriptive period shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against Intro/Doctrine/Ruling: the guilty person. 1982. July 28. Thus. 2 of Act No. 2006 2 No. reference is made Prosecutors Office another complaint against respondent to Act No. there is no such proceeding instituted against the petitioner to warrant the tolling of the Sec. which is the date of the complaint criminal liability of the respondents filed by the former Solicitor General Francisco I. Petitioner filed with the Pasay City As to when these two periods begin to run. period for offenses punishable under the said statute was . But prior to petitioners cases in the Sandiganbayan to take declared the amendment of Section 11 of R.R. SIMEON V. 13406- vs. in its resolve to deal with the merits of the case to remove the possibility of any 1 Yes. respondent Jose V. petitioner shall prescribe in 10 years. subject to the condition that respondent Martels will settle only ten (10) years.HON. Thus. 1987. 3019 provides that all offenses misunderstanding as to the course which it wishes punishable therein shall prescribe in 15 years. in his official 13429 on March 3. for offenses allegedly committed by their obligation either by way of dacion en pago or through the petitioner from 1962 up to March 15. the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case Nos. Sec. the alleged offenses subject COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT. 3326 which governs the computation of Martels for SENCORs non-remittance of contributions. for offenses withdrew its complaint but reserved its right to revive the allegedly committed by the petitioner during the period from same in the event that no settlement is arrived at. in conducting a preliminary investigation of cases not falling within its competence. the same shall prescribe in 15 December 2001. offering. 3326 because such Act is not a special law within the acted without jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion ambit of Article 10 of the RPC. 7 and 11 of RA 3019. 1982 until 1985. Section 11 of RA No. petitioner averred that PCGG No. This Court. 3326. 70 Therefore.

thus: them. petitioner assailed the makes the Code suppletory to special laws. Act No. Section 2 of Code. criminal cases pending against him on the ground of prescription. while it is true that Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code Issues: 1. An invalid information is no Thus. the informations were filed by an Philippines. 3019 and Act No. this Court held. information with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 interrupted the The running of the prescriptive period shall be interrupted prescriptive period. and if the same be not known at the the complaint with the Presidential Commission on Good time. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. should be applied. Clearly. 13406-13429 considering that the same and used in Article 10 of the RPC because it does not define were subscribed and filed by the PCGG. Act No. 3326 did not provide that the absence of the accused 3326 or the Act To Establish Periods of Prescription For from the Philippines prevents the running of the prescriptive Violations Penalized By Special Acts and Municipal period. 3326. from the discovery thereof and the institution of Government (PCGG) in 1987 and the filing of the judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. that the absence of the petitioner from when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. Section 2 of Act No. 91 cannot apply suppletorily to Act No. the nullity of the proceedings initiated by then and Liabilities for the period 1967-1985 during his tenure as Solicitor General Chavez in 1987 with the PCGG and by the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and for the PCGG with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 is judicially settled. that considering that both RA No. Thus. did not consider the absence of the accused from the run when the offender is absent from the Philippines. the only inference that can be gathered from Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin the foregoing is that the legislature. the Philippines from 1986 until 2000 also interrupted the and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed aforesaid period based on Article 91 of the Revised Penal for reasons not constituting jeopardy. period 1963-1966 during his tenure as Technical Assistant in In contemplation of the law. Sandiganbayan. period. In granting any acts which are punishable and provides penalties for petitioners plea. To Run. Also. unauthorized party. The defect cannot be cured by conducting another preliminary investigation. no proceedings exist that could the DFA. Whether the offenses for which petitioner are . information at all and cannot be the basis for criminal proceedings. the Philippines as a hindrance to the running of the prescriptive Revised Penal Code. 3326 validity of the informations filed with the Sandiganbayan in cannot fall within the ambit of special law as contemplated Criminal Case Nos. In Romualdez v. are silent as to whether prescription should begin to 3326. He claims that the court should dismiss the have merited the suspension of the prescriptive periods. in enacting Act No. 3019 for failure to file his Statements of Assets Indeed. 3326 provides that the prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the The Ombudsman and the PCGG argue that that the filing of violation of the law. Art. 3 No. which answers the same in the negative. Special law is defined as penal laws that punish acts not defined and penalized by the Penal Code of the Here. Facts: Petitioner is being charged with violations of Section 7 of RA No.

" disturbance in the street. the accused had no basis to interpose self-defense. forms in the execution. can discern if such witness is telling the truth incomplete. (2) the findings of most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the Trial Court pertaining to the credibility of a witness is the part of the victim. In case of threat. Victim was allegedly stabbed action." It is present "only when the one attacked faces real by the accused while the latter were causing some and immediate threat to one’s life. Elements are not all present. It "presupposes actual. positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. .Any person who. therefore. methods. such that it suspended the running of the prescriptive period of 10 or 15 years in RA 3019? 1) With treachery.not merely threatening and intimidating murder qualified by treachery. Whether or not the accused had basis to the defense which the offended party might make. employing means. without risk to the offender arising from 1. whether complete or and. interpose self-defense? No. weight and substance that would have affected the result of He must prove all the elements of self-defense. shall be Sandiganbayan interrupted the running of the prescriptive guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua period? to death if committed with any of the following attendant 3 WON Article 91 of the RPC applies suppletorily to Act No. self-defense. spontaneous and frank manner and remains upon a person. Exchange of words lead to the Treachery. misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. Murder. entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand. sudden. straightforward. and (3) a witness who testifies in a categorical. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical or not. unexpected or Facts: Accused Vergara and Inocencio were charged of imminent danger . taking advantage of superior strength. it must be offensive and consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness. with the aid of armed men. shall kill another. (2) reasonable necessity of the means settled are the guiding rules some of which are that (1) the employed to prevent or repel such aggression. July 3. the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford People of the Philippines vs Vergara impunity. assault. unless there is a showing that it had overlooked. strong. or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury. and (3) lack of Appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to lower Court. However. which tend directly and specially to Issues: insure its execution. or employing means to weaken Case #72. self-defense to be successfully pleaded. 2013 Doctrines: Credibility of Witnesses: Self-Defense. the the case. part of the victim. circumstances: 3326. not falling within 2 WON the filing of the complaint with the PCGG and the provisions of Article 246. . how manifested: the offender commits any incident initiated by the accused and the retort of the victim of the crimes against persons. elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the When it comes to the matter of credibility of a witness. being charged have already prescribed? Article 248. which showing is absent herein. GR No 177763. In fact. or was not likened by the former.

It must be shown that all participants performed infanticide. March 20. The number and are part of the conspiracy to commit the murder. thereby ensuring In this case. identified as accused. Here. who was then just conversing with had been killed. x x x (Emphasis supplied) latter of any real chance to defend himself. 2. accused-appellants Norberto (Jun) Adviento. depriving the original design. Facts: . 175781. and pointing to Lolito Aquino as the one who Alipio at a very close distance. and it is shown by Doctrine: such acts that they had the same purpose or common design Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the and were united in its execution. Alipio said unarmed victim. Alipio. to defend himself other than feebly raising his arm to ward In People v. AL agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide G.00. principle of conspiracy.the unlawful aggression came from the accused and not the There is also evident premeditation because the evidence victim. to wit: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. thus qualifying the he saw and heard transacting with Francisca Talaro on April crime as murder. which is not parricide or established. The presence of any one of the indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony. The assailant. Raymundo Zamora already saw and heard life of the victim in peril. just suddenly fired upon Atty. 2012 to commit it. No. the existence of a conspiracy has been the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. talking to Francisca Talaro and coming to is present. Alipio. threw his arm around the victim’s Pitted against the prosecution evidence.R. some other people. circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Code is Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his sufficient to qualify a killing as murder. attended by circumstances such as treachery or specific acts which such closeness and coordination as to evident premeditation. There can be no cavil that the evidence on record shows positively identifying all three accused-appellants as the ones treachery in the killing of Atty. Alipio. TALARO ET. P60. Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense. confederates which follows incidentally in the execution of a In People v. Whether or not treachery is present? Yes. established by the testimony of Raymundo Zamora. Said severity of the wounds received by the victim indicated that defense is sorely wanting when pitted against the he was rendered immobile and without any real opportunity prosecution evidence. Melvin Alipio for the price of appellant Renato Ramos.000. words with the victim. the Court held that the essence of common design as one of its probable and natural treachery is the sudden attack by an aggressor without the consequences even though it was not intended as part of the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. accused-appellant Vergara after exchanging an agreement to kill Atty. accused-appellants' shoulder and proceeded to stab him. without any provocation from demanded and received part of the payment after Atty. The victim was totally only defense is that the evidence is insufficient to prove they unaware of the evil that would befall him. 24. conspiracy is sufficiently unlawful killing of a person. Sanchez. The victim was passing in peace when they shows that a couple of days before the actual shooting of approached him and initiated the act of killing causing the Atty. Bautista. the Court reiterated the hornbook off the attack. treachery and Lolito Aquino. Renato Ramos. 1994 to kill Atty.

Thus. Zamora got the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to scared and stayed away from the group. Bactad. the man of the definition of felonies in Article 3 as “acts or omissions sitting with them on the bench suddenly stood up and shot punishable by law” committed either by means of deceit Atty. person who. he was asked by Francisca reckless imprudence the use of a motor vehicle. run after the assailant. or negligent act Another eyewitness. He heard that Francisca Talaro. Since Article 48 speaks of Atty. 4 months and 1 day to 4 years) helper at the clinic. Lolito Aquino. Melvin Alipio in consideration for a certain amount.Raymundo Zamora is the nephew of Gregorio Talaro. After learning of the group's plan. Reny Balanga. a man arrived the most serious crime shall be imposed. the Issue: Whether or not there was treachery.The picture was that of Renato Ramos. was sitting at a bench in the garage of complex crime is committed. Alipio finished talking to them. with agreement. 1994. After the petitioner. After a few minutes. a confined at the clinic. In the morning of April 24. Where a reckless. is prision correccional shooting. commits any act which. Alipio. Hidalgo identified the assailant from a picture FACTS: shown to him. his motorcycle and the two were able to speed away aboard said vehicle. Dayap allegedly drove in a reckless manner a 10-wheeler cargo truck hitting an automobile driven by Sendiong who was with two female passengers. Such incident caused the . Alipio was still necessary means for committing the other. applied in its maximum period. Alipio came out to the garage and talked to the two felonies. was transacting with the other three accused-appellants for the killing of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any Atty. Alipio was merely one meter (dolo) or fault (culpa). When Atty. it is applicable to crimes through negligence in view women. Eusebio Hidalgo. and also sat at the bench. Alipio three times. when Zamora went home for breakfast after driving his tricycle. the penalty for having his breakfast. were he to be found guilty. evident husband of Francisca Talaro. 1994. resulting in Talaro to drive her and her husband Gregorio to Brgy. the penalty imposable upon away from the assailant when the latter shot him. Two other Penal Code provides that when the single act constitutes two women who were looking for Atty. premeditation and conspiracy in the given case. he found Francisca Talaro. 2 months and 1 day to 6 the latter had whistled to his companion who was waiting on years). imprudent. but three days after prision correccional in its medium period. The Talaro spouses alighted at a place in Brgy. the death of a person attended the same article imposes upon Bactad. Alipio also sat at the or more grave or less grave felonies. but and maximum period (4 years. Atty. the same to be looking for Dr. by reckless imprudence. the assailant walked away. waited for them. or when an offense is a bench with him after he told them that Atty. whose son was results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. Hidalgo then saw the in its medium period (2 years. would constitute a grave felony. and Norberto Jun Adviento conversing among DAYAP VS SENDIONG themselves. Thereafter. When such that meeting in front of his house. The three accused-appellants then nodded their heads in had it been intentional. Renato Atong Ramos. He assumed that the couple delivered the payment to someone in Brgy. Article 48 of the Revised the clinic on the morning of April 26. while Zamora stayed in his tricycle and merely medium and maximum periods. the defendant the penalty of prision correccional in its Bactad.

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

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

Institution of criminal and civil held that the applicable provisions are not Article 2180 in actions. . However. that Article 103 of the Revised Pajarillo. the CA issued its assailed Decision. as Security Agency. on quasi-delicts. It ruled that while father of a family in the employment and supervision of it may be conceded that Safeguard had perhaps exercised employees is inapplicable and irrelevant in civil liabilities care in the selection of its employees. reserves found guilty of Homicide in a final and executory judgment his right to institute it separately. adjudged civilly liable under the provisions of Article 100 of Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity the Revised Penal Code since the civil liability recoverable in under the Revised Penal Code. since it has established Petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the CA. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING.When a criminal action is instituted. 34. the CA SECTION 1. that unlike in civil liability The RTC also found Safeguard as employer of Pajarillo to be arising from quasi-delict. 103 of the Revised Penal Code.'s civil liability in this case is only amended.and that he also failed to proffer proof negating liability in extinguished with the extinction of the penal liability with a the instant case. it should be exonerated from civil portion of which reads: liability. and 2176 of the Civil Code of the because said liability arises from the offense charged and no Philippines arising from the same act or omission other. or institutes the and is said to be serving sentence in Muntinlupa. he must be civil action prior to the criminal action. in which case. Articles 32. there was no sufficient evidence to show that Penal Code provides that the liability of an employer for the Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father of a family civil liability of their employees is only subsidiary. to wit: subsidiary under Art. Safeguard insists that the claim for damages by servants and employees. the appealed decision The law at the time the complaint for damages was filed is is hereby AFFIRMED. and damages under the criminal action is one solely dependent upon conviction. the defense of diligence of a good jointly and severally liable with Pajarillo. for the guidance of their YES. In finding that Safeguard is only subsidiarily liable. . that since Pajarillo had been the offended party waives the civil action. that Safeguard's evidence or solidary. unless under the Revised Penal Code. but also the duty to see to it that respondents is based on culpa aquiliana under Article 217611 such regulations and instructions are faithfully complied of the Civil Code. the dispositive supervision of Pajarillo. civil action for the recovery of civil liability is but the provisions on civil liability arising from felonies impliedly instituted with the criminal action. pronouncement that the fact from which the civil action might proceed does not exist. not joint in the supervision of its employee. 33. with the modification that Safeguard Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. its liability is jointly and with. simply showed that it required its guards to attend trainings ISSUE/S: and seminars which is not the supervision contemplated Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the liability of under the law. the relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. severally with Pajarillo. Inc. that supervision includes not only the Safeguard Security is subsidiary issuance of regulations and instructions designed for the HELD: protection of persons and property. that this is also the civil liability that is deemed of the accused. On July 16. particularly of based on crimes or ex-delicto. that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and 2004.

provided that the offended and in fact filed the same on January 14. or (b) where be punishable by law. been found guilty of and serving sentence thereof. for which he had already such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted . Rule 111. Pajarillo's act of shooting and killing Evangeline under Article 2176. (e) of An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise Section 3.e. in a criminal act. 178115 July 28. The liability of Safeguard their vicarious responsibility for the injury caused by Security must be Solidary and not Subsidiary. No. In Elcano vs Hill. WARLITO MONTEBON. party is not allowed. whereas the civil i.Respondents reserved the right to file a separate civil action and found guilty or acquitted. culpa contractual or happened or has not been committed by the accused. under Article 100 of the liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict only and Revised Penal Code. Accused. RICARDO SUMILHIG alias punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character. the court ruled that: Article 2176. The Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot source of the obligation sought to be enforced in the civil recover damages twice for the same act or omission or under case is a quasi-delict not an act or omission punishable by both causes. 1998. whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. thus must assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. e. voluntary and intentional. Either of these liabilities may be based on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict which is separate enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under and distinct from the civil liability arising from crime. the injured party is granted a right to file an action The civil action filed by respondents was not derived from independent and distinct from the criminal action under the criminal liability of Pajarillo in the criminal case but one Article 33 of the Civil Code. intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34. A reading of respondents' complaint shows that the latter are Since the civil liability was founded on a quasi-delict and not invoking their right to recover damages against Safeguard for from the crime of homicide. Briefly obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil stated. a separate civil action lies against the offender LIMAMA. ERIC ENOC. PASOT SALOLI. G. The CA found that the source of damages in the instant case to recover damages on both scores." covers not only acts "not JOJO SUMILHIG. but also acts which are PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2014 entrenched is the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence. The scope of Article 2176 is not limited to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. law. not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not complained of as a felony. We here hold.g. on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. that culpa Code... in reiteration of Garcia. Well. and culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. and would be entitled in must be the crime of homicide.* and CIO Consequently. if he is actually charged also criminally. refers exclusively to civil liability founded to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender. and (2) independent civil liabilities. refers to "fault or negligence. (1) civil liability ex delicto. Plaintiff-Appellee.R. where it vs. Civil Code. In other be governed by the Revised Penal Code words. CARDING SUMILHIG.

Province of Davao del Sur. unlawfully and feloniously. It further ordered them to indemnify. findings of the RTC. confederating and helping one another. and PASOT SALOLI. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. wounding Marissa Santander and Micel Santander. the sums double murder and double frustrated murder in an Amended of P50. it found merit in appellants’ armed with assortedfirearms. the CA disposed prejudice of the offended parties. 2006. However.00 as moral and exemplary Information. JOJO SUMILHIG.00 as civil indemnity. to the damage and rendering its Decision9 dated July 28. were charged with surviving victims. ofthe case as follows: WHEREFORE. then and there complex crime since the death and injuries complained of willfully. with intent to kill with argument that the crime committed could not have been a treachery and evident premeditation. The RTC convicted the appellants ofthe complex crime of double murder and double frustrated murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of death. together with the accused Eric Enoc. jointlyand severally. Alias Carding Sumilhig and Pasot Saloli is affirmed ISSUE: butmodified as follows – WON: the crime committed is a complex crime Appellants Juan "Jojo" Sumilhig. the judgment of conviction of appellants Jojo Sumilhig.3 the accusatory portion of which reads: damages. Thus. Alias Carding Sumilhig and Pasot Saloli. and the Warlito Montibon and Cio Limama. Rolly the sum of P100. respectively. which appellants should be convicted instead of two counts of would have caused their death had there been no timely and murder and two counts of frustrated murder. the heirs of Cresjoy and FACTS: Appellants.000. Marissa and Micel.000.000. Philippines. in able medical assistance rendered to them. are found guilty beyondreasonable doubt of: Rulings: . the above-named On appeal. did. inthe Municipality of Ruling of the Court of Appeals Kiblawan. Accused-Appellants. And as treachery was alleged in the [Cresjoy] Santander and RollySantander and seriously Amended Information and sufficiently proven during trial. conspiring.00 and P30. 1998. the CA did not find any reason to disturb the accused. simultaneously strafe did not result from a single act but from several and distinct the house of Eugenio Santander resulting to death of acts of shooting.8 That on or about October 31. RICARDO SUMILHIG alias Ruling of the Regional Trial Court CARDING SUMILHIG.

Santander the sum of P100. he did not file any case against them. As part of [ten] (10) days of prision mayoras minimum to his defense.000. eight (8) months and twenty prosecution witnesses’ allegation that after the strafing Jojo (20) days of reclusion temporalas maximum. and x x x are True. It was and P30. as could be gleaned from the testimony of the doctor himself that the healing period may vary depending . Jerry and Carlos Santander. d. four (4) months and defense. exception[s]. four (4) months and also against their family. perpetua. Sumilhig stated that because of this. Quirapas appeared determined to rule out The appeal has no merit.00 as moral damages killed his family. the possibility that he could walk without crutches five Appellants’ conviction was based on months after his discharge. Frustrated Murder for the shooting of Marissa Santander and x x x are sentenced to suffer an Assessing the evidence presented by both [P]rosecution and imprisonment ofsix (6) years. he harbored Santander and x x x are sentenced to suffer an ill feelings not only against Jerry and Carlos Santander but imprisonment ofsix (6) years. It is well to note. however.000. All Sumilhig shouted"Nakabalos na ko!" The likelihood of his accused are ordered to indemnify jointly and intention to wipe out the said family became even more severally the heirs of Crisjoy Santander and Rolly apparent. viz: c. the accused Jojo Sumilhig narrated that his fourteen (14) years. Remigio Santander [in] February 1998. without only after he was arrested that he filed a complaint against subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.00 and the surviving victims Marissa Santander and Micel Despite his positive assertion that it was the Santanders that Santander P50. Even as Dr. that the said court b. Murder for killing Crisjoy Santander. but upon the prosecution witnesses’ identification of appellants as the assailants.000. and x x neither based the appellants’ conviction on the existence of x are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion such motive nor on Pasot’s weak defense of ignorance alone. the RTC noted in its Decision the existence of motive sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion on the part of Jojo for committing the crime as well as perpetua. we see a less than glaring hint of vendetta. Short of admitting Frustrated Murder for the shooting of Micel the crime.00 as exemplary damages. Ruling of the Supreme Court His alibi likewise failed to meet the stringent requisites of the Rules. the same was based on general their positive identification by the medical prognosis. Pasot’s incredulous claim of ignorance on almost about everything. brother of (20) days of reclusion temporalas maximum. Thus a clear motive for killing the ten (10) days of prision mayoras minimum to Santander family has been established giving credence to fourteen (14) years. a. eight (8) months and twenty family was massacred by Jerry Santander. Murder for the killing of Rolly Santander. Such prognostication admits certain prosecution witnesses.

concerted action. and to the accused when traces of ingenuity and craftiness community of interest. during and . the former undisputedly [deserve] Sumilhig claimed total ignorance of almost anything only more credence and [are] entitled to greater evidentiary served to arouse incredulity. small.15 scene. which Anent the respective alibis interposed by appellants. suffice it is of common knowledge to be widely spoken in almost every to say that "[a]libi cannot prevail over the positive part of Mindanao. month or year. Third. "[C]onspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an xxxx agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."21 It is not necessary to adduce evidence of a More importantly. Here. their acts before. Neither could [they] allegedly speak [or] understand Visayan.22"Conspiracy may be belied by the evasiveness by which all three accused shown through circumstantial evidence. We find [it] difficult to ascribe innocence leadto a joint purpose and design. deduced from the answered in obvious effort to avoid criminal responsibility. Both claimed they did not know the complainants or of There was conspiracy among the accused."19 could not read. tell time."20 [it] was when he was testifying. "[t]ime-tested is the rulethat between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative The "overkill" by which the accused Pasot Saloli and Carding averments of the accused.17 and. Saloli claimed he did not know what day identification of a credible witness. these claims [of] utter ignorance are previous agreement to commit a crime.18 Besides. Both accused claimed they weight. there is no proof of a previous agreement among the All these observations however become insignificant in the accused but there is a series of events that clearly established face of the positive and spontaneous identification of the conspiracy among them. they surreptitiously approached the crime and Remigio Santander. mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. or Behind the façade of ignorance and lack of education lurks a inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such calculating mind. Notably There is no reason to doubt Jerry and Mario’s identification Jojo Sumilhig was then 23 years old. Second.16 (2) the moon was bright and Jerry What was certain was the positive identification made by was familiar with all the accused as most of them are his Jerry Masaglang and Remegio Santander of all of the relatives."23 characterize their testimonies. when they were within close range of the intended victims. they were all armed with assailants/accused by credible witnesses Jerry Masaglang firearms. the massacre that took place. Undoubtedly. of the appellants considering that (1) Jerry was just six meters away from them.on the age and physical condition of the patient. write. they ceased firing at the same time and fled together. First. Fourth. they simultaneously discharged their firearms. or the day before and after that. day. (3) Mario knows Jojoever since he was accused.

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

pointed to accused-appellant as the perpetrator wounds on his body which directly caused his instantaneous of the brutal killing of his father. Even assuming that to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in accused-appellant's admission was inadmissible in evidence. taken . ISSUE: The RTC promulgated its Decision on June 24. death.which attack was that said victim received multiple stab collectively. 2010 finding Whether the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable accused-appellant guilty of Parricide based on his verbal doubt of the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure admission that he killed his father. the RTC adjudged that the prosecution was still able to establish sufficient circumstantial evidence which. his favor. Jose.