CRIMINAL LAW FINALS CASES

Exempting Circumstance (Art. 12)

Case Topic Judgment SC Rationale

1. Madali v. Pp RA 9344(Juvenile Case Filed: Murder It is necessary to determine whether he
Justice Welfare Act); RTC: Homicide acted with discernment or not Sec. 6
minors CA: Affirmed RTC provides that children above 15 but below
SC: Affirmed CA 18 will be exempt from criminal liability
unless he acted with discernment. He,
however, should be subjected to an
intervention program. Sec. 36 provides for
the automatic suspension of sentence.
2. Pp v. Sarcia RA 9344; limits the Case filed: Acts of Inconsistencies in testimonies of
said suspension of lasciviousness witnesses which refer only to minor details
sentence until the said RTC: Rape (RP) do not affect the veracity of their
child reaches the CA: Rape (Death) testimonies when the principal occurrence
maximum age of 21. SC: Rape (RP) and positive identification of accused is
made and indeed proves that such
inconsistencies speaks of spontaneity and
the unrehearsed nature of such
undertaking.

The employment of force, threat,

intimidation are not elements of statutory
rape, only “carnal knowledge” must be
proven to have taken place.
3. Pp v. Mantalaba Buy-bust operation; RTC: guilty for violation of The buy-bust operation was valid,
RA 9165, Art II (Secs. 5 establishing the following: (1) the identity
RA 9165 (Dangerous and 11 of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
 Drugs Act of 2002) CA: affirmed RTC the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
SC: GUILTY but modified the thing sold and the payment therefore.
penalty due to privileged
mitigating circumstance of suspension of sentence can still be
minority applied but NOT when the offender upon
the promulgation of judgment is 21 yrs old.
or older.
4. Hubilla v. Pp Probation RTC: Homicide Sec. 39 of RA 9344 which allows the
CA: Homicide suspension of the sentence is available
SC: Affirmed CA only until the child offender turns 21 years
of age. Since he is over 23 years of age at
the time of his conviction in the RTC,
suspension was no longer feasible.
5. Pp v. Agacer Priveleged mitigating RTC: Murder When the offender is a minor over 15 and
circumstance of CA: Affirmed RTC under 18, the penalty next lower than that
minority; SC: Affirmed CA prescibed by law and shall be imposed on
Extinguishment of the accused on the proper period [Art. 68
criminal liability (2), RPC].

Upon the death of the accused pending

appeal of his conviction, the criminal
action is extinguished inasmuch as there
is no longer a defendant to stand as an
accused; the civil action instituted therein
for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is
ipso facto extinguished grounded as it is
on the criminal
6. Ty v. People BP 22; Exempting RTC: 7 counts of violation The following requisites must concur: (1)
circumstance of of BP 22 existence of anuncontrollable fear; (2) the
uncontrollable fear of CA: Affirmed RTC with fear must be real and imminent; and (3)
a greater injury modifications the fear of an injury is greater than or at
SC: Affirmed CA least equal to that committed.
 If the evil sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipated or may happen in
the future, this defense is not applicable.

It must appear that the threat that caused

the uncontrollable fear is of suchgravity
and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.

Mitigating Circumstance (Art. 13)

Case Topic Judgment SC Rationale

1.Urbano v. People Sufficient RTC:Homicide Petitioner, being very much smaller in height and
Provocation CA:Homicide heft, had the good sense of trying to avoid a fight.
SC:Homicide (2 But as events turned out, a fisticuff still ensued,
mitigating) suddenly ending whenpetitioner’s lucky punch found
its mark.
2.People v. Ignas Passion/Obfuscation RTC:Murder The mitigating circumstances of vindication of a
CA: Murder grave offense and passionand obfuscation cannot
SC:Homicide (no be claimed at the same time, if they arise from the
mitigating) same facts ormotive. In other words, if appellant
attacked his victim in proximate vindication of
agrave offense, he could no longer claim in the
same breath that passion and obfuscationalso
blinded him.
3.Bongalon v. Child Abuse RTC: Child abuse With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that
People CA: Child abuse specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the
SC: Slight physical intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
injuries being that was so essential in the crime of child
abuse.
4.Nizurtado v. Malversation of Sandiganbayan: Restitution = Voluntary Surrender
Sandiganbayan public funds through malversation of
 falsification of public
public funds through
documents falsification of public
documents
SC: Affirm CA (2
mitigating)
5.Mariano v. People Evident RTC: Frustrated In the case of a culpable felony, in case of quasi-
premeditation, Homicide offenses, under Art. 365 the judge may or may not
treachery and abuse CA: Reckless consider these mitigating circumstance in the
of superior strength; imprudence imposition of penalty. If the judge consider it or if the
hit-and-run resulting in serious judge did not consider it, that is the decision of the
physical injuries judge. Under Art. 365, the court is not mandated to
SC: Affirm CA consider the rules, the decision is based on the
sound discretion whether or not to consider the
mitigating circumstance.

Aggravating Circumstances & Alternative Circumstances (Art. 14 & 15)

CASE TOPIC JUDGMENT SC RATIONALE

1.Pp v. Sibbu Qualifying Case Filed: (2) Treachery is present when the offender commits any of
Circumstance of Murder and the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or
treachery, dwelling attempted murder fonns in the execution thereof which tend directly and
and use of disguise. specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
RTC: guilty of arising from the defense which the offended party might
murder make.

CA: affirmed with

modifications

SC: affirmed CA
2. Pp v. Nazareno Aggravating Case Filed: Murder There is abuse of superior strength when the aggressors
circumstance of RTC: Murder purposely use excessive force rendering the victim unable
abuse of superior qualified by abuse to defend himself.
strength of superior strength
 and treachery

CA: Affirmed
SC: Affirmed

3. Pp v. Alfredo Incomplete self- Case Filed: Murder Treachery should not be appreciated because the
Dulin defense RTC: Murder stabbing did not take Batulan by surprise due to his
CA: Affirmed RTC having forewarned of Dulin’s impending attack.
SC: Homicide

4. Pp v. Malicse,Jr. Treachery; Abuse of Case filed: There is abuse of superior strength when there is a
Superior Strength Attempted Murder notorious inquality of forces between the victim and the
RTC:Guilty of aggressor.
Attempted Murder
CA: Affirmed
SC: Affirmed CA
5.Pp v. Bokingco Conspiracy to Case filed: Murder Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
commit felony agreement to commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred
RTC: Murder from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after
the commission of the crime.
CA: Affirmed RTC

SC: Homicide

6.Pp v. Tabarnero Treachery, no RTC: Murder The nine stab wounds inflicted on Ernesto indicate an
voluntary surrender, CA: Affirmed intent to kill and not merely to defend himself
no self-defense SC: Affirmed
7.Pp v. Vilbar No Treachery Case filed: Murder If the accused really wanted to kill the personwithout being
RTC: Guilty of identified or caught, he would have done it somewhere
Murder else
CA: Homicide(no
treachery)
SC: Homicide
8.Pp v. Matibag Treachery Case filed: Murder Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and
Special Aggravating RTC: Murder unexpected manner used by the accused made it
circumstance of CA: Affirmed RTC impossible for Duhan to defend himself.
unlicensed fireman SC: Murder
9.Pp v. Feliciano, Frat Members; Case filed: Murder Inclusion of the phrase “wearing masks and/or other forms
Jr,et al. Disguise against 12 FM of disguise” in the information does not violate their
Attempted Murder constitutional rights.
against 3 FM
Frustrated In alleging disguise disguise as an aggravating
members against 2 circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity
FM of the accused.
RTC: 5/12 guilty of
Murder and
Attempted Murder
CA: Murder(1),
Attempted
Murder(2), Slight
Physical injuries (3)
SC: Guilty of Murder
and Attempted
Murder
10.Pp v. Wilfredo Treachery as RTC: Muder (Death Treachery served to characterize the killing as murder; it
Gunda qualifying Penalty) cannot at the same time be considered as generic
aggravating CA: Affirmed aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the
cicumstance; (Reclusion maximum penalty.
Uninhabited place, Perpetua)
abuse of superior SC: Murder The two penalties being indivisible, and there being
strength (Reclusion neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
Perpetua) commission of the deed, the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua should be applied pursuant to the 2nd par. Of the
RPC.
11.Pp v. Dela cruz No alternative Case filed: Parricide The defense must show that the intoxication is not
circumstance of RTC: Parricide habitual and not subsequent to plan to commit a felony,
 intoxication CA: Affirmed RTC and that the accused’s drunkenness affected his mental
SC: Affirmed CA faculties.
12.Pp v. Naelga Instigation v. RTC: Guilty of Mere deception by the detective will not shield the
Entrapment illegal sale of shabu defendant of the offense was committed by him free from
CA: affirmed RTC the influence or instigation of the detective.
SC: affirmed CA