#14 Paera v.

People

Facts:

Santiago Paera (petitioner), a punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong, Negros Oriental, allocated his
constituents the use of communal water coming from a communal tank by limiting the distribution to
its residents. The water tank which was situated in the same area was continuously being drawn by

Indalecio Darong, father of Vicente Darong (complainant). Consequently, on 7 April 1999, Paera
reminded Indalecio about the water distribution scheme and later on was prevented from accessing the
tank. However, on the following day, he discovered a tapping of the main line which was disconnected.
He then fixed the problem and suddenly Indalecio arrived. Unfortunately, Paera picked-up his bolo and
pointed towards Indalecio, thus Indalecio ran away for his safety. On the other hand, the wife of
Indalecio and Vicente were also threatened by Paera. But According to Paera, he was first threatened by
Indalecio and later on defended himself.
Issue: whether Paera is guilty of three counts of Grave Threats.

Ruling: Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) finds merit in petitioners concession of liability for the single

count of the continued complex crime of Grave Threats. The OSG, however, rejects petitioner’s prayer
for the dismissal of Vicentes complaint, arguing that petitioners guilt was amply proven by the
prosecution evidence, not to mention that petitioner failed to raise this issue during trial. Further, the

OSG finds the claim of defense of stranger unavailing for lack of unlawful aggression on the part of the
Darongs. Lastly, the OSG notes the absence of regularity in petitioners performance of duty to justify his
conduct. Hence, the petition was denied and afrirms the RTC’s decision.
# 15 SPO2 Cabanlig v. People

Facts: On 24 September 1992 a robbery occurred in the Municipality of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, thus,
investigating authorities apprehended three suspects: Jordan Magat (Magat), Randy Reyes (Reyes) and
Valino. The police recovered most of the stolen items. However, a flower vase and a small radio were

still missing. Cabanlig asked the three suspects where these two items were. Reyes replied that the
items were at his house. Around 6:30 p.m., five fully armed policemen in uniform Cabanlig, Padilla,
Mercado, Abesamis and Esteban escorted Valino to Barangay Sinasahan, Nueva Ecija to recover the

missing flower vase and radio. just after the patrol jeep had crossed the Philippine National Railway
bridge, Valino suddenly grabbed Mercados M16 Armalite and jumped out of the jeep. Cabanlig, saw
Valinos act of taking away the M16 Armalite. Without issuing any warning of any sort, fired one shot at
Valino, and after two to three seconds, fired four more successive shots. Thus, valino was declared dead.

Issues: WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DEFENSE OF FULFILLMENT OF
DUTY PUT UP BY CABANLIG WAS INCOMPLETE; THAT CABANLIG COULD NOT INVOKE SELF-
DEFENSE/DEFENSE OF STRANGER TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS; That the CABANLIG will SUFFER
IMPRISONMENT AND IN ORDERING HIM TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF P 50,000 TO THE HEIRS OF VALINO

Ruling: The Sandiganbayan acquitted Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban as the court found no
evidence that the policemen conspired to kill or summarily execute Valino. Since Cabanlig admitted
shooting Valino, the burden is on Cabanlig to establish the presence of any circumstance that would

relieve him of responsibility or mitigate the offense committed. The Sandiganbayan held that Cabanlig
could not invoke self-defense or defense of a stranger. The only defense that Cabanlig could properly
invoke in this case is fulfillment of duty. Cabanlig, however, failed to show that the shooting of Valino

was the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty. The Sandiganbayan pointed out that
while it was the duty of the policemen to stop the escaping detainee, Cabanlig exceeded the proper
bounds of performing this duty when he shot Valino without warning. Wherefore, the decision was

reversed, thus SPO2 Cabanlig was affirmed acquitted.

#5 People vs. Alfredo Dulin

Facts: on or about August 22, 1990, Alexander Tamayao, Tamayao was on Tamayao Street in Atulayan
Norte, Tuguegarao when a young man came running from the house of Vicente Danao towards the
house of Batulan, shouting that his Uncle Totoy (Batulan) had been stabbed. Tamayao rushed towards
Danao’s house, where he saw Dulin stabbing Batulan who was already prostrate face down. Tamayao
then ran towards Batulan’s house to inform Estelita Batulan, the victim’s wife who was his aunt, about
the incident. On the other hand, however, there has been a long standing grudge between Batulan and
Dulin, and of seeing them fighting in April 1990.

ISSUE Whether or not Dulin can claim incomplete self-defense with the absence of unlawful aggression

Ruling:

Dulin himself admits that he successfully wrested the weapon off of BANTULAN, the unlawful aggression already ceased to
exist. Unlawful aggression is the condition sine qua non of self-defense (whether as justifying or mitigating
circumstances). DULIN is afforded neither complete nor incomplete self-defense.
#16 Almeda v. Sandiganbayan

Facts: On November 29, 1988, Julian Herrera, Jr., together with his two nephews Donato Salabao and PC

Constable Leo Salabao arrived at the Bautista's Snack Inn to fetch Susonte Montero. Herrera asked
Donato to enter the snack inn and inform Montero that they were ready to head home. However,
Montero was in the middle of a drinking spree with Vice Governor Acosta and the latter's companions,

one of whom was Almeda who was the Vice Governor's bodyguard. Upon the invitation of Vice
Governor Acosta, Herrera joined the drinking session and left his nephews in the service jeep. Unknown
to the Salabao brothers, during the past hour, Herrera had himself been arguing with Vice Governor
Acosta because of the latter's accusation that Herrera was involved in anomalous transactions.
Thereafter, Almeda promptly grabbed the barrel of the armalite rifle which Cbl. Salabao carried with him
and pushed it down. Simultaneously, Almeda pulled out his .45 caliber pistol pointed it at Cbl. Salabao's
head and shot the latter in the left temple. Almeda then left along with the Vice Governor and his
companions. The following day, Almeda was arrested by a group of PC Constables.

Issue: Whether Almeda was guilty of homicide

Ruling: The Court of Appeals is convinced that no significant facts or circumstances were overlooked or

disregarded by the courts. With respect to the issue of credibility of witnesses, the appreciation and
assessment thereof is best left to the trial court judge having the unique opportunity of observing that
elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand, a privilege denied to the

appellate court. WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the trial court convicting Rudy
Almeda of homicide.
Aguilar v. DOJ

Facts: On February 01, 2002, at Sitio Talipapa, Brgy. Pag-asa, Occidental Mindoro, Francisco M. Aguilar
alias “Tetet”, was arrested by respondents for alleged acts of extortion and on the suspicion that he was
a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines/National Peoples Army Revolution Movement. On
the other hand, respondents, during that time, were engaged in an operation to entrap a suspected
extortionist, later identified as Tetet, who was allegedly demanding money from a businesswoman
named Estelita Macaraig. For this purpose, they devised a plan to apprehend Tetet at Sitio Talipapa in
his extortion letters to Macaraig. On the same day, Tetet was collared by Sgt. Ferdinand S. Hermoso
while in the act of receiving money from Macaraig’s driver, Arnold Magalong. Afterwards, shouts were
heard from onlookers that two persons, who were supposed to be Tetet’s companions, ran towards the
mountains. As the first group was passing along the Viga River, Tetet blurted out to the operatives that
he would point out to the police where his companions were hiding. Thereafter, Tetet pulled a hand
grenade clutched at the bandolier of Abordo, jumped out of the jeep and, from the ground, turned on
his captors by moving to pull the safety pin off of the grenade. Sensing that they were in danger,
Dangupon fired upon Tetet, hitting him four times in the body. Tetet was brought then to the Hospital
for treatment but was later pronounced dead on arrival.

Issue: whether or not the CA erred in finding that the DOJ did not gravely abuse its discretion in
upholding the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint against respondents.

Ruling: The Court, however, maintains a contrary view with respect to the determination of lack of
probable cause. It is well-settled that conspiracy exists when one concurs with the criminal design of
another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime
 committed. Therefore,
finding no direct participation or conspiracy, the Court holds that the DOJ did not gravely abuse its
discretion in affirming the Provincial Prosecutors dismissal of the charges against them. In this respect,
the CAs Decision must stand. Wherefore, it is reversed and set aside.
(SET 3)

Vicky Ty v. People

Facts:

Ty’s mother was confined in Manila Doctor's Hospital to which a medical bill amounting to 600,000
pesos was made to be paid to TY, after signing a contract of responsibility with the hospital. Ty, issued 7
checks to cover the said expenses, all of which were dishonored for being drawn against a closed a
account. Manila Doctors Hospital then instituted criminal actions against Ty for violation of BP22.

In her defense she alleged that she issued the checks involuntarily because her mother threatened to
commit suicide due to the inhumane treatment she allegedly suffered while confined in the hospital.
She further claimed that no consideration was obtained by her because all the checks were made as
payment to the medical bills.

Issue: Whether or not valuable consideration exists

Ruling:

Under Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, it is presumed that valuable consideration exist
upon the issuance of a check in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Valuable consideration is any
benefit, interest or profit accruing to the party. The use of the hospital facilities and services may be
deemed as such.
Lacanilao vs. CA

Facts:

Issue: WON the petitioner was guilty of homicide

Ruling:
Jovito Cabuslay vs. People

Facts:
People vs. Catbagan

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:
Rufino Mamungin v. People

Facts:

Issue:
Ruling:
(Set 3)

People vs. Roger Austria

On September 25, 1989, Myrna dela Cruz Samson and six of her seven children were fast asleep in their

house at Brgy. Domalandan, Lingayen, Pangasinan. Myrna and her sons Tyrone and Teddy, were
sleeping in one room while Myrnas daughters were sleeping in another bedroom. Roger Austria,
appellant, who was the Samson’s neighbor suddenly entered their house without their knowledge and

consent, and proceeded to the room where Myrna and her two sons were sleeping. He then stabbed
several times, Myrna and Tyrone as well as Mylene who was caught looking at them on the adjacent
room which unfortunately resulted to injury of Mylene and death of Myrna and Tyrone. Appellant,
sought to establish himself the defense of insanity of the crimes he committed.

Issue: Whether the grounds of insanity will be exempt him from criminal liability.

Ruling: The Court is convinced that the testimonial and documentary evidence marshalled in this case by
acknowledged medical experts have sufficiently established the fact that appellant was legally insane at
the time he committed the crimes. since appellant is not criminally responsible, the aggravating
circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength are not applicable either. For the above
aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, it must be shown that appellant consciously adopted the
same as a mode of attack against his victims to insure its commission without risk to himself. Wherefore,
the court acquits the appellant of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder by reason of insanity and

he is ordered confined at the National Mental Hospital for treatment until further notice.
(SET 3)

People vs. Alberto Medina

Facts:
(SET 3)

People vs. Jerwin Dorado

Facts:

On April 15, 2004, While Ronald was talking to his friends, Dorado, carrying a sumpak, along with his
friends, Confessor and Cabiaso, arrived and threw stones and bottles at Ronald's group. Ronald's group
scampered for shelter toward the talipapa and hid inside to avoid being hit by the stones and bottles.
When Ronald thought that Dorado's group was no longer-in the vicinity, they came out of hiding.
Dorado's group, however, was out there waiting for them. When they finally surfaced, Dorado's group
resumed throwing stones at Ronald's group. During the commotion, Dorado fired his sumpak and hit
Ronald between the eyes. Ronald fell unconscious for about ten (10) minutes while Dorado's group ran
away. Thereafter, Ronald was brought to the hospital and unfortunately it resulted a lost of his left eye
while his right eye could only see some light.

Issue: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE
PETITIONER FOR THE CRIME CHARGED.

Ruling:

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s Decision, finding that Dorado
(SET 3)

People vs. Josefina Bandian

Facts: On January 31, 1936, Valentin Aguilar, the appellant's neighbor, saw the appellant go to a thicket
about four or five brazas from her house, apparently to respond to a call of nature because it was there
that the people of the place used to go for that purpose. A few minutes later, he again saw her emerge
from the thicket with her clothes stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly
showing signs of not being able to support herself.

Issue:

Ruling:
People vs. Cresencio De Garcia

Facts: On February 19, 1992, Anita Almazan was at her yard in front of her house in Barangay Cuyapo,
Nueva Ecija when she saw
 brothers Cresencio, Dalmacio and Bonifacio De Gracia hurling invectives

against the Almasan family. Her brother-in-law, Crispin Almasan, went out of his house toward the yard
but was met by the De Gracias. Thereafter, when Crispin told the De Gracia’s regarding their behavior,
he was being stabbed by the De Gracia’s that resulted of his death.

Issue: Whether the Garcia’s claim of self-defense is sufficient for their acquittal

Ruling: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has given appellant-Bonifacio a penalty of mitigating circumstance
of prision mayor due to his voluntary surrender while Cresencio was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

*SP02 Nacnac vs. people

Facts: On February 20, 2003, SP02 Lolito Nacnac-accused-appellant, SP01 Doddie Espejo-victim and a
number of other police officers were on duty. Accused-appellant being the highest ranking officer during
the shift, was designated as the officer-of-the-day. before 10:00 in the evening, the victim, together with
then SPO1 Eduardo Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds, when accused-appellant
saw it, he stopped the victim and his colleague from using the tricycle. The victim told accused-appellant
that he (the victim) needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement with a security of a
local bar. Unfortunately, the two had an argument which the victim drew his .45 caliber gun while the
accused-appellant fired his M-16 armalite as a warning shot but still the victim continued on drawing his
gun that resulted to his instantaneous death.
Issue: Whether the victims drawing of his handgun or pointing it at the petitioner is not sufficient to

constitute unlawful aggression based on existing jurisprudence; Whether the showing the victim holding
his handgun in a peculiar manner despite the fact that no expert witness was presented to testify
thereto; Whether the victim met the second and third requisites of self-defense.

Ruling: The trial court went on to differentiate the act of drawing a gun and pointing it at a target. It held
that the mere act of drawing a gun cannot be considered unlawful aggression. for unlawful aggression to
be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an
actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude. the rule is that factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal,

thus, the trial court did not consider certain facts and circumstances that materially affect the outcome
of the instant case. Hence, therefore, the petitioner was acquitted of homicide on reasonable doubt.

Jayme vs. People

Facts:

Issue:
Ruling:

People vs/ Wilson Gutual (not yet)

Facts: on 29 December 1990, Celestino Maglinte-victim, was walking along the barangay road of
Belmonte in San Vicente, Davao, carrying his four-year old child. The victim had just come from his farm

and had a bolo with him, which was placed in its scabbard. Maglinte was then surprised by the sound of
an exploding firecracker, thus, he left his child by the road and ran towards the store of Brgy. Captain
Wayne Gutual, calling to the latter, who did not, however, come out of the store. Maglinte headed for
the nearby basketball court, apparently still searching for the Barangay Captain. All the while the bolo
remained in its scabbard. Suddenly, accused Wilson Gutual and Joaquin Nadera appeared, armed with a
Garand rifle and an M-14 rifle, respectively. Gutual fired around three warning shots into the air and
Maglinte dropped to the ground. Gutual then went near Maglinte and shouted surrender, thus Maglinte
raised his right arm as a sign of submission. At that time, Gutual fired some five shots at Maglinte,
although already injured, Maglinte managed to stand. Thus, Gutual and Nadera fired again, and the
victim toppled over, mortally wounded. Gutual and Nadera left the scene at once. Immediately the
following morning, the victim was buried upon the Barangay Captains order.

Issue: Whether or not Joaquin Nadera should be held civilly liable despite his acquittal; Whether or not
Wilson Gutual has sufficiently proved self-defense or defense of a relative or of a stranger, or, at the
very least, the incomplete justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of a stranger.

Ruling:

Sherwin Dela Cruz vs. People

Facts: on January 1, 2005, Sherwin Dela Cruz-petitioner,