ABERRATIO ICTUS

People v. Pinto
People v. Sabalones
Facts:
Sabalones and 3 others were convicted of murder (2 counts) and frustrated (3 counts) murder. They shot at the cars of the victims while they were
on their way to a wedding party (staged ambush). The accused argue that there was aberratio ictus (mistake in blow) when they shot the victims.
Issue: WON there was aberratio ictus
Held: No.
The allegation that there was aberration ictus does not advance the cause of the appellants. It must be stressed that the trial court relied on the
concept of aberratio ictus to explain why the appellants staged the ambush, not to prove that appellants did in fact commit the crimes. Even
assuming that the trial court did err in explaining the motive of the appellants, this does not detract from its findings, as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals and sustained by this Court in the discussion above, that the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Guillen
FACTS
· Accused Guillen was found guilty of murder and multiple counts of frustrated murder after his attempt to assassinate Pres Manuel
Roxas.
· During the 1946 Presidential Elections, Guillen voted for the opposing candidate of Manuel Roxas. According to him, he was
disappointed with the latter for failing to redeem and fulfill promises made by Roxas during the elections.
· Consequently, he was determined to assassinate him and found opportunity to do so on the night of March 10, 1947, when Roxas
attended a popular meeting by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda.
· Guillen intended to use a revolver to accomplish his goal but had previously lost his license, and so he used two hand grenades, given to
him by an American soldier in exchange of two bottles of whisky.
· The accused stood on the chair he had been sitting on and hurled the grenade at the President when the latter had just closed his
speech.
· A general who was on the platform saw the smoking grenade and kicked it away from the platform towards an open space where he
thought the grenade was likely to do the least harm.
· The grenade exploded in the middle of a group of persons standing close to the platform and grenade fragments seriously injured
Simeon Varela, who died the next day due to the mortal wounds caused, and several other persons.
· In his appeal, he was claiming that he should be acquitted as it was not his intention to injure the persons who were affected by the
grenade as it was the President he was aiming.
ISSUE/s
· WoN Guillen is guilty - YES
HELD
· The facts do not support the contention of the counsel for the appellant.
· In throwing the hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice and is therefore liable
for all the consequences of his wrongful act.
· As provided by Art 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
· In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed
without malice
· As held by the SC, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of the reckless imprudence
· Where such unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered reckless imprudence
· The sentence of the trial court is affirmed by a unanimous vote and death sentence shall be executed in accordance with Art 81 of the
RPC
People v. Esteban
Facts:
In the afternoon of May, 1963, Maravilla had an altercation with the accused Esteban and one Camaya, and later that night, there were
successive gunshots fired in the yard where Maravilla and some others were drinking, killing one Maria Pascua and wounding Maravilla. Maravilla
saw and pointed, right after the incident, to Esteban and Mati as the gun wielders, then only after more than 6 months, implicated Camaya, as well.
Esteban was charged with murder for the death of Pascua and frustrated murder for Maravilla.
Issue:
1. WON Maravilla’s belated identification of Camaya is credible.
2. WON Esteban is guilty of murder.
Held:
1. No. Belated identification of Camaya is inconclusive evidence of his guilt, and the prosecution was not able to explain that gap in its
evidence, and that which lacks spontaneity is not credible. Guilt not having been established to a moral certainty resulted in Camaya’s acquittal.
2. Yes. The fact that Esteban intended to kill Maravilla and in the course of the assault incidentally killed Maria Pascua makes him liable
for murder just the same because a person is criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Peope v. Itlanas
FACTS
· Itlanas was found guilty by CFI for murder of Sgt. Perez, homicide against Edmar Mag-aso, and homicide through reckless imprudence
against Manuel Flores
· Itlanas was the oiler in tugboad M/V San Pedro San Pablo, which delivers cement in diff places in Visayas and Mindanao. For security
purposes, three members of the constabulary, (2 of the deceased included) escorted the group in its route to Zamboanga, from Danao
· July 2, 1978, the tugboat unloaded 35,000 bags of cement at Zamboanga City Port, and it began its voyage with Flores (the other
deceased) as an apprentice who joined the group
· 10am of July 12, Perez was playing cards with a crew member inside the sergeant’s cabin. Mag-aso was on deck duty, unarmed
· Itlanas went to the upper deck and took the armalite of Mag-aso which was hanging ont the wall, and went back to the lower deck and
hid himself behind the steering wheel behind Perez’ cabin
 · When Perez’ companion left the cabin, Itlanas approached Sgt Perez, and fired the aramalite, subsequently killing him. He went to the
upper deck, where Mag-aso tried to grab the armalite but unsuccessful, and shot dead
· An appeal was made to the SC as to Itlanas’ guilt as far as the death of Flores is concerned, it being a stray bullet without his intention to
injure him
ISSUE/s
· WoN Itlanas is guilty of homicide – YES
HELD
· Itlanas contends that he could not be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged because there was no eyewitness to the
actual commission of the crime despite the presence of the 15 members of the crew in the small tugboat and that his extra-judicial
confession which could have been the only basis for his conviction should have not been the only basis for his conviction should not have
been admitted in evidence as the same was taken without the assistance of counsel and obtained through the use of physical and
psychological coercion
· With respect to the crime committed on deceased Manuel Flores, who was killed by stray bullets when CIC Mag-aso was shot by him,
Itlanas is guilty of homicide
· Art 4 RPC provides that, “Criminal Liability shall be incurred: (1) by any person commiting a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended”
· The provision of the law is SO clear that there is no room for interpretation
ERROR IN PERSONAE
People v. Oanis
FACTS:
Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal and escaped convict, Anselmo Balagtas, and if overpowered, to
get him dead or alive. They went to the suspected house then proceeded to the room where they saw the supposedly Balagtas sleeping with his
back towards the door. Oanis and Galanta simultaneously or successively fired at him which resulted to the victim’s death. The supposedly Balagtas
turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man.
ISSUE:
1. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of their official duties.
2. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the performance of their duty.
HELD:
1. No. Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. “Ignorance facti excusat” applies only when the mistake is committed without
fault or carelessness. The fact that the supposedly suspect was sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked whether it is the real Balagtas.
2. No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office. There are 2 requisites to justify this: (1) the offender acted in teh perfomance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office, (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office. In this case, only the first requisite is present.
People v. Fernando
People v. Cabareno
People v. Albequerque
FACTS
· Gines Alberquerque, a widower of 55 years and father of 9 children, has been suffering from partial paralysis for some time, walks
dragging one leg and has lost control of the movement of his right arm
· He has been unable to work since he suffered the stroke of paralysis
· One of his daughters named Maria and another, are married, while another one is a nun
· With the exception of the other married daughter and the nun, all of them, including Gines, live with Maria whom they depend for
support
· Pilar, one of the daughters, had intimate relations with Manuel Osma (the deceased) about the end of 1928, when he frequently visited
her in the house.
· The relations between Pilar and Manuel culminated in Pilar’s giving birth to a child
· Gines did not know that his daughter’s relations with the deceased had gone to such extremes, that he had to be deceived with the
information that she had gone to her godfather’s house in Singalong, when in fact she had been taken to the Chinese Hospital for
delivery.
· Gines only knew the truth when Pilar went home with the child
· Gines was deeply disappointed not only because of the fact that Pilar hid the truth, but also that it was basically an added burden to
Maria, to whom they depended on for support. It must be noted that later on, Manuel did not live up to his promise of supporting them
· Angry, Gines went to the office of Manuel and spoke to him privately. What happened later, nobody witnessed. But the undisputed fact
is that on the occasion that Gines inflicted a wound at the base of the neck of Manuel, causing his death
· Trial court found that Gines did not intend to cause so grave an injury as the death.
ISSUE/s
· WoN Gines is guilty - YES
HELD
· SC ruled that the conclusion of the trial court is supported by evidence. In his testimony, Gines emphatically affirmed that he only
wanted to inflict a wound that would leave a permanent scar on the face of Manuel, or one that would compel him to remain in the
hospital for a week or two but NEVER intended to kill him, because then it would frustrate his plan of compelling him to marry or support
his daughter
· Gines stated this intention in some of his letters to Manuel by way of a threat to induce him to accept his proposal for the benefit of his
daughter
· That the act of the appellant in stabbing the deceased resulted in the fatal wound at the back of his neck, was due solely to the fact
hereinbefore mentioned that Gines did not have control of his right arm on account of paralysis and the blow, although intended for the
face, landed at the base of the neck
 · SC took into consideration the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to cause so grave an injury as the death of the deceased as
well as those of his having voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities, and acted under the influence of passion and obfuscation
OTHER CASES ART 4 RPC
People v. Ulep
People v. Pugay
US v. Valdez
People v. Quiazon
People v. esteban
People v. Opero
FACTS
· April 1978, Salvador Oliver, a GSIS security guar dassigned to the House International Hotel, was informed by Barcing, another security
guard, that he picked up a 3-year old girl loitering at the 2nd floor of the building.
· Ordona, a Janitor, told oliver that the girl is from room 314 so Oliver called up from rom 314 but nobody answered, hence he personally
brought the girl to the room
· When nobdy answered the knock on the door, he pushed the door open and smelled the foul odor from the room—they saw Liew Soon
Ping dead faced down on the bed with both feet tied, her body is bloated and a towel covered her mouth
· Oliver called up the homicide division of the Manila Police. They also saw a small baby girl crying and trying to get out of a crib near the
bed of the dead person
· A preliminary inquiry was made around the vicinity, to which three suspects were named: Diego Opero, Milagros Villegas, and Asteria
Avila (with a fourth suspect that was unidentified).
· A follow up team of Manila Policemen further investigated the case, and a separate police team was sent to Samar to track down the
suspects.
· Dr. Hong, husband of the deceased, was informed of the incident, who then came back from Cebu immediately. (and made an inventory
of their belongings, and found at least about 30k worth of their personal effects be missing)
· When the body was autopsied by Dr. Singian, it was later on discovered that the death was caused by asphyxiation by suffocation with
an impacted bolus (the pandesal) into the oropharynx and compression of the neck with a broad clothing around the neck
· Respondents claim that they never intended to kill the deceased, that it was their intention of merely robbing her, for if indeed they had
the intention to kill, they could’ve done that easily with a knife, and that therefore, they should only be liable for robbery
ISSUE/s
· WoN Opero is only guilty of robbery – NO
HELD
· SC finds no basis for the theory of Opero in the law or in jurisprudence. It was repeatedly held that when direct and intimate connection
exists between the robbery and the killing, regardless of which of the two precedes the other, or whether they are committed at the
same time, the crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
· If the circumstances would indicate no intention to kill, as in the instant case were evidently, the intention is to prevent the deceased
from making an outcry, and so a pandesal was stuffed into her mouth (mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so
grave a wrong may be appreciated)
· Stuffing of the pandesal would not have produced asphyxiation had it not slid into the neckline, caused by the victim’s own movements
· It may not avail Opero to contend that the death was bymere accident for even if it were so, which is not even beyond doubt for the
sliding fo the pandesal into the neckline to produce asphyxiation could reasonably have been anticipated, it is a settled doctrine that
when death supervenes by reason or on the occasion of the robbery it is immaterial that the occurrence of death was by mere accident.
What is important and decisive is that death results by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (Spanish doctrine from People v.
Mangulabnan)
· In the present case, the intended victim, not any other person, was the one killed, as a result of an intention to rob, as in fact appellant
and his co-accused did rob the deceased.
· SC affirmed the appealed decision
FACTS
· Rosalino Rodriguez is charged with punching Marciano Magno on the left side toward the stomach, and the other on the back, which
knocked him down
· He got up by the assistance of two witnesses who were present at the time of the occurrence and by their aid endeavored to return to
his home, which he did not reach, he fell to the ground once again, but this time, dead L
· Two witnesses testified that they saw Rodriguez strike the two blows, which was countered by Rodriguez’ daughter, who said she gave
the first blow (NAKS) for Magno held hand with unchaste designs.
· CFI ruled that Rodriguez is guilty of homicide, hence an appeal to the SC was made
ISSUE/s
· WoN Rodriguez was guilty of homicide - YES
HELD
· SC ruled that the crime is properly classified as homicide
· A blow with the fist or a kick, though causing no external wound, may very well produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and
cause death; and although the assaulted party was previously affected by some internal malady, if, because of a blow given with the
hand or the foot, his death was hastened, beyond peradventure he is responsible therefor who produced the cause for such acceleration
as the result of a voluntary and unlawfully inflicted injury
· In the complaint bhowever, it is alleged that the cause of the assault was that, Rodriguez saw the deceased holding the hand of his
daughter, for the purpose of making love
· It therefore appears that Rodriguez’ act was preceded by an immediate provocation on the part of the deceased, and, evidently, the defendant did not
intend to cause so grave an injury as he produced