ART.
6 
US V EDUAVE
 FRUSTRATED MURDER
 Protasio Eduave, querido of the victim’s mother
 Victim – hacked by Eduave from behind because
isusumbong sa pulis na nirape; body was thrown to
the bushes, akala patay na
 SC: crime is complete, but not consummated by
reasons independent of the will of the offender
PEOPLE V ORITA
 CONSUMMATED RAPE
 Cristina Abayan, a boarder, was raped by Ceilito
Orita (frequent visitor)
 Orita mounted her first but was unable to penetrate
her, changed position, made her hold his penis, still
no penetration.
 Abayan able to escape, go to the police still naked.
 RTC’s decision of FRape was MODIFIED by SC.
Carnal knowledge, purpose attained na.
PEOPLE V CAMPUHAN
 ATTEMPTED RAPE
 4 y/o Crysthel Pamintuan, raped by Primo
Campuhan, helper of Corazon Pamintuan’s brother,
Conrado Plata
 Primo was busy filling ice bags went upstairs to
Crysthel’s room. Corazon heard her child screaming,
found Primo with his pants down also Crysthel
 Crysthel’s PE: hymen still intact. RTC charged Primo
with Stat Consummated Rape.
 SC: lowered to ARape only, insufficient evidence to
prove touching of genitals. Prosec failed to establish
Capuhan made efforts to penetrate Crysthel.
PEOPLE V LAMAHANG
 ATTEMPTED TRESPASS TO DWELLING
 Aurelio Lamahang – opening a store of cheap
goods, has already broken one board and was
unfastening the other when a patrolling police caught
him
 RTC charged him with attempted robbery, SC
lowered the charge to ATTD
 The intent was to enter by force, but other than that,
no other inferences could be made. Indeterminate
offense.
PEOPLE V SALVILLAM
 CONSUMMATED ROBBERY
 Bienvenido Salvillam, with Reynaldo, Ronaldo, and
Simplicio (all Canasares) staged a robbery at NILY
 They informed the owner (Severino Choco) all they
needed was money; Sev gave them P20K. Simplicio
took Sev’s wallet and wristwatch.
 During negotiations, Sev demanded for P100K.
Mayor countered with P50K. Police assaulted the
place when they wouldn’t budge,
 SC: CRobbery because unlawful “taking” was
complete. Properties were in the dominion of the
perps. Also, surrender is not appreciated as
voluntary.
EPIFANIO V PEOPLE
 ATTEMPTED MURDER
 Crisaldo Alberto (victim) and Allan Perez walking a
narrow path from Crisaldo’s house father, suddenly,
Leonidas stabbed Crisaldo at the back, and another,
hitting C at the left arm
 Allan helped C, brought him to the hospital. RTC
charged Epifanio with FMurder, CA affirmed.
SC: AMurder only because Epifanio failed to perform
all AOE when Allan rushed to C’s side to help him;
subjective phase incomplete
PEOPLE V SY PIO
 ATTEMPTED MURDER
 Sy Pio fired at a store, hit Jose Sy first, then Tan
Siong Kiap (right shoulder). TSK was able to run and
hide. Sy Pio also shot Ong Pian, in a different venue.
 Sy Pio admitted to his crime. Said he resented Ong
Pian for firing him and not lending money. As for
Jose Sy and TSK, they lost his money gained in
peddling thru gambling.
 RTC charged Sy Pio with FMurder, SC modified it to
AMurder only. No fatal wounds and did not perform
all the AOE.
PEOPLE V RAVELO
 SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES (Lugatiman)
 Accused-appellants kidnapped Reynaldo Gaurano;
assaulted, attacked and burned him. Next, Joey
Lugatiman, tortured and tied to the wall and told he
would be killed later, but was able to escape.
 RTC: Murder of Gaurano and FMurder of Lugatiman.
 SC: Yes to Murder of Gaurano but only Slight PI of
Lugatiman – No proof perps had the intent to kill him
nor that they attacked him. Tying on the wall would
not result in death.
PEOPLE V KALALO
 HOMICIDE for Marcelino’s death, HOMICIDE for
Arcadio’s death, and AHOMICIDE for 6860.
 Land dispute b/w Marcelo Kalalo and Isabel Holgado
re: a parcel of land in Batangas
 Isabel reaps the harvests na pinaghirapan ni
Marcelo during 1931 and 1932 kaya galit si Marcelo
 Isabel and her bro, Arcadio, ordered the land to be
plowed. Arc knew and he and his troops (brothers:
Felipe and Juan; BIL: Gregorio Ramos; cousin:
Alejandro Garcia) went there with bolos to stop the
plowing.
 Tension – saksakan of bolos
o Marcelo v Arcadio+ (6 stabs)
o Felipe, Juan, & Gregorio v Marcelino+ (14
stabs)
o Marcelo fired 4 shots at Hilarion
 SC: affirmed the first 2 decisions. 3 rd, discharge of
firearms to AHOMICIDE.
US V DOMINGUEZ
 Dominguez – salesman @ PH Education Company;
pocketed P7.50
 FRUSTRATED ESTAFA – no damage, only abuse
of confidence
POZAR V CA
 CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS?
 James Gregory Pozar – applying for probation from
a case of slight physical injuries
 Applied to City Probation Officer Danilo Ocampo,
and gave P100 together with the docs needed.
 SC: Acquitted. P100 given in GF (intent to
photocopy only)
PEOPLE V HERNANDEZ
 FRUSTRATED ARSON
 Mrs. M.D. Lewin got a phonecoll from Mrs. Auckback
(re: excessive smoke coming from her house). MDL
asked PAULINO BAWAL to check, found a burning
jute sack and rag soaked with kerosene
 Severino Valdes (admitted) working in the entresol
cleaning the place and Hugo Labarro cleaning the
horses
 SC: from arson to F-Arson only bec bldg. had started
to burn but the fire has been put out on time
BALEROS V PEOPLE
 From A-RAPE to LIGHT COERCION
 Martina Lourdes Albano (Malou) – UST med student
sleeping
 Renato Baleros (Chito) entered her room and
forcefully covered her face with a piece of cloth
soaked in chemical with dizzying effects with goals
of having carnal knowledge on her
 Malou was able to escape him; Kicked and
squeezed his sex organ.
 RTC: A-Rape, CA affirmed.
 SC: reversed and set aside. Lowered to LC.
PEOPLE V ALMAZAN
 ATTEMPTED MURDER
 Henry Almazan – had his 12 fighting cocks stolen.
Searched for them and ended up at Vicente
Madriaga’s house.
 Almazan shot Angel with his .38 caliber, V’s
neighbour thinking she was the culprit. Angel ran
away, and Almazan then shot Noli (another
spectator) and killed him. Turned to Noel and shot
him on the thigh.
 Almazan countered self-defense. RTC found
Almazan guilty of murder of Noli and FMurder of
Noel.
 SC: lowered to A-Murder (not slight PI as per
Almazan’s contention) because A had intent to kill.
Also, no fatal wound.
PEOPLE V LISTERIO
 FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
 Marlon Araque and Jeonito (bro), went to Muntinlupa
to collect a sum of money from Tino. They failed so
they turned back.
 Agapito Listerio, Samson dela Torre, George dela
Torre, Marlon dela Torre, and Bonifacio Bancaya
blocked their path, attacked them with lead pipes.
 Jeonito – got 3 stabs on the back (dead)
 Marlon – hit on the head by Samson
 RTC: A-Homicide of Marlon Aranque because no
fatal wounds
 SC: Affirmed.
ART. 8
PEOPLE V COMADRE
 CONSPIRACY?
 Robert Agbanlod – drinking at the terrace with
friends.
 They noticed Antonio Comadre, George Comadre,
and Danilo Lozano. Antonio suddenly lobbed a
grenade at their house. Robert died.
 RTC: multiple attempted murder
 SC: No conspiracy. Mere presence of the two is not
counted. AMurder only for Antonio Comadre.
FIDELINO GARCIA V CA
 CONSPIRACY? AND/OR HOMICIDE
 Fidelino Garcia, and brother Wilfredo Garcia, and
cousin Leopoldo Garcia, was accused of mauling,
attacking, with intent to kill with a knife, a piece of
wood and a broken bottle, Paulino Olgena+
 RTC – Homicide
 SC – Acquitted Fidelino on the ground that there
was no sufficient evi to convict him by reasonable
doubt
 There are lacking information to establish
“conspiracy” and “acting in concern”
PEOPLE V TABUSO
 Tabuso guilty of conspiring with Mendoza?
 Renato Datingguinoo heard 2 gunshots from the
alley where Arquillos Tabuso and some other
companions were headed. “Andiyan na si Dagul
(Roberto Bugarin+)”, said Tabuso.
 Tabuso was later found by Renato lying in the
ground stiffening; later died.
 RTC charged Tabuso of murder.
 SC – no conspiracy and Tabuso was acquitted.
Can’t be a lookout because blind.
PEOPLE V MANERO
 Be exculpated from CRIM LIABILITY in connection
w defense which would establish NO
CONSPIRACY?
 Manero bros (Norberto, Edilberto, and Elpidio),
Rodrigo Espia, Severino, Rudy (both Lines), Efren
Pleñago, and Roger Bedaño, planning to liquidate
suspected communist sympathizers.
 Fired at Bantil (Catholic lay leader) and hit him at the
lower portion of his ear. Bantil went to Domingo
Gomez’ house
 Fr, Tulio Favali arrived at said house, his motorcycle
were towed and burned by Norberto.
 Edilberto (when Fr. Approached Norberto re: his
motorcycle) fired at Fr. Favali. Jumped over his body
3x, kicked it and fired anew wc caused Fr. Favali’s
brain to scatter.
 SC – Norberto charged with arson (no appeal). All of
them were charged with Murder re: Fr. Favali, and
attempted murder re: Bantil
PEOPLE V PUGAY
 Conspiracy to commit murder?
 Bayani Miranda+ (25y/o retarded) is friends with
Fernando Pugay. Running errands for the latter,
sleeping together at times.
 During a town fiesta, Pugay and Benjamin Samson
arrived at the plaza drunk and saw Miranda
(proceeded to make fun of him)
 Pugay poured gasoline to Miranda and Samson set
him on fire.
 SC – no established conspiracy between P and S.
Met accidentally at the scene. Pugay Homicide w RI.
And Samson Homicide w mitigating circumstance
(no intention to commit so grave a wrong)
ART. 10
LADONGA V PEOPLE
 Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga – regular
customers of Alfredo Oculam in his pawnshop
 1st loan: P9,075.55 / 2nd: P12,730 / 3rd: P8,496.55
 All checks issued by Adronico, but all bounced due
to “CLOSED ACCOUNT”
 RTC: guilty BRD of violating BP22; CA affirmed.
 Is Ladonga a conspirator in the violation of BP22
whereas it was only her husband who was the
signatory of the checks?
 SC ruled, still YES. Art 10 are applicable to special
laws. BP22 does not provide any prohibition
regarding the applicability in a suppletory character
of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code to it.
PEOPLE V SIMON
 Martin Simon – charged with violation of Sec 4 Art 2
of RA no. 6425
 Sold 4 teabags (positive for MJ) to a poseur-buyer
amounting to PhP 40.
 RTC – life imprisonment
 Is ISLaw applicable?
 SC – Yes. Judgement AFFIRMED with
modifications. 6months to 6years.
ART. 11
SELF-DEFENSE
MANABAN V CA
 IS SELF DEFENSE APPLICABLE?
 Joselito Bautista tried to withdraw money from the
ATM of BPI Kalayaan (bec he needed money for
hospital fees of her daughter Frinzi – breathing
probs)
 ATM did not dispense cash so he kicked the
machine. Ramonito Manaban entered the scene,
tried to appease Bautista, but to no avail.
 Manaban fired 2 shots – 1 st was warning, 2nd killed
Bautista.
 Manaban argued that Bautista was intoxicated, drew
a gun, and that former acted under the influence of
uncontrollable fear. Also raised self-defense.
 RTC and CA: homicide. No unlawful aggression
from Bautista.
 SC affirmed. The threat was just a mere speculation.
PP V ALCONGA
 PROVOCATION AS MITIGATING?
 May 27, 1943 – Silverio Barin+, in the home of
Mauricio Jepes, was playing games. Black Jack:
Barin was the banker and playmate Maria de
Raposo invited Dioscoro Alconga to be her partner
 Alconga kinda cheated and stood behind Barin and
was giving signals to de Raposo; Barin learned
about it and resulted in exchange of words bw him
and Alconga. Barin: “Tomorrow morning, I will give
you breakfast.”
 2 days later, while Alconga was in duty as a home
guard, Barin came up to him: “Coroy, this is your
breakfast.” Then swung his pinangahan, wc Alconga
was able to avoid.
 Alconga fired at Barin, wc he evaded. A sword fight
ensued when Alconga unleashed his own bolo.
Barin received a couple of injuries wc made him flee
from the scene. Alconga still pursued him and they
got into fight again, then delivered a mortal bolo blow
at Barin’s cranium.
 RTC: Homicide. With 2 mitigating: voluntary
surrender and provocation.
 SC: No provocation. Alconga was the one holding
the more powerful weapons, has the superior
fighting ability.
 Alconga struck the victim a couple of times, including
the fatal blow, EVEN AFTER THE NECESSITY OF
HIS DEFENDING HIMSELF HAS CEASED.
PP V GENOSA
 SELF-DEFENSE? Parricide w treachery?
 Marivic Genosa – attacked, wounded and killed her
husband, Ben Genosa, when he began going on
about Marivic being a nagger.
 During their fight, while Ben was trying to open the
drawer containing a gun, when Marivic smashed his
arm w a pipe, and proceeded to smash his nape
while he was on the ground picking up his wallet.
 Marivic, tho, insisted he killed Ben w a gunshot while
he was asleep.
 RTC: Parricide w intent to kill, w treachery and
evident premed. Death penalty.
 Urgent Omnibus Motion: 1) re-examination of Ben’s
body 2) Marivic’s psych exam to test her mental
state during the time she killed Ben 3) partial re-
opening of case to take the testimonies of
psychologists.
 Case was remanded to the trial court to take the
expert opinions re: the plea of BWS
 SC: Not self-defense. BWS STILL DOES NOT
establish the legal right of the wife to kill hub. Evi
must still be considered.
 SC: still affirmed Parricide. With 2 mitigating
circumstance. (psych paralysis and P&O)
SENOJA V PP
 Is Leon the unlawful aggressor?
 Exequiel Senoja, Fidel Senoja, Jose Calica, and
Miguel Lumansac, were drinking in Crisanto
Reguyal’s hut when an angry, bolo-armed Leon
Lumansac came looking for his bro.
 Exe and Jose tried to pacify Leon. Exe hugged Leon
to evade the bolo hack and Jose got the bolo from
Leon’s hand. Exe and Leon talked later and were
able to work things out.
 Later that day, Exe followed Leon on his way home.
Stabbed Leon in the back w his colonial knife. And
more when Leon turned around.
 RTC and CA: Homicide
 SC: Leon is not the unlawful aggressor, he had
ceased being the aggressor after he left the hut to
go home. Exe became the aggressor bec he wanted
to have a confrontation.
 SC: Affirmed RTC and CA’s decision.
RAZON V PP
 Same w Senoja v PP, hinabol niya even after
umalis ng aggressor.
 Around midnight, a taxi driven by Edwin Razon
stopped by PO1 Francisco Chopchopen, w Razon
asking for help re: 3 men who held him up.
 They went to the crime scene and PO1 saw
Benedicto Gonzalo lying on the ground soaked w
blood. PO1 asked if Razon stabbed him, denied.
 Razon later on admitted he stabbed Gonzalo but IN
SELF-DEFENSE.
 Razon’s story: 3 men boarded his taxi, and upon
reaching destination, Gonzalo pointed a knife at his
neck and declared a hold-up. Razon was able to
grab the knife and release himself from the other
holdapers. Al; 3 men alighted the cab but Razon still
ran after them. Gonzalo (has polio, sa mahabal
maglakad) has a cane and tried to hit Razon w it.
 Razon went back to his cab and got his knife, there.
 RTC: Homicide. CA: dismissed the appeal due to
requirement probs
 SC: No self-defense. The 1st aggressor runs away
ans his UA ceases to exist, and ALSO the
defender’s right to kill said aggressor. Affirmed
RTC’s decision.
ORIENTE V PP
 Arnel Tanael otw to Romulo Cario+’s house, when
he passed by Manuel Oriente’s house while having
their own drinking spree
 At Romulo’s house, he was drinking alone when
Arnel arrived. Romulo went out to buy cigs, and
thereafter Arnel heard 2 gunshots.
 Arnel went to see what’s happening and saw Manuel
and Paul Lopez picking up a fight w Romulo. The 2
hit Romulo w a pipe, and then Paul pulled the trigger
at him, but it did not fire.
 Due to his head injury, Romulo died later on.
 RTC and CA: Homicide on Manuel Oriente re:
Romulo’s death
 SC: No self-defense. UA from the part of Romulo
has not been established.
PP V TANGAN
 INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE
 Eladio Tangan – driving along Roxas blvd heading
South. At the same time, Generoso Miranda was
driving the same path w his uncle, Manuel Miranda.
 Generoso was ahead of Tangan, when firecrackers
were thrown his way  he swerved and cut
Tangan’s path  in which why Tangan blew his horn
several times.
 Generoso let Tangan pass, but when Tangan was
ahead, he slowed down and blocked Generoso’s
path.
 FFWD to their street fight, they exchanged
invectives w each other. Tangan got his .38 caliber
and shot Generoso in the stomach.
 XXXX HINDI PA TAPOS.
PP V NARVAEZ
 Mamerto Narvaez – taking a nap when he heard
sounds of construction near his house. He
addressed the group and asked them to stop
destroying his house.
 David Fleischer responded “No, goddamnit,
proceed, go ahead.” Narvaez lost his “equilibrium”
and shot Fleischer. Flaviano Rubia run toward the
jeep where Fleischer’s gun was placed but he was
also shot by Narvaez.
 This incident was intertwined w a legal battle
involving Fleischer and Co. and the land settlers of
Cotabato, among whom was appellant.
 RTC: Murder for both victims, w qualified treachery.
 SC: Homicide only. No treachery, bec of the
presence of provocation on the part of the deceased.
There is also passion and obfuscation.
 Privileged extenuating circumstance: incomplete
self-defense. 2 generic mitigating: voluntary
surrender and obfuscation. No aggravating.
PP V BOHOLST-CABALLERO
 Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero had a rough marriage
w her hub Francisco Caballero. Cab left, and BC and
her daughter were left to the support of her parents.
 BC went carolling one night to earn money for child,
when she met Cab, and he manhandled her.
Sinabunutan and sinampal until her nose bled.
 BC was pushed to the ground, but held on to Cab’s
waist. She grasped the knife tucked by the left side
of his body.
 When Cab knelt over and tried to choke her, BC
thrusted the knife at Cab, hitting the left side of the
body near the belt line.
 BC ran home and threw the knife on her way.
 Next morning, she surrendered to the police and
presented her torn and blood-stained dress. Police
asked for the weapon but it can no longer be found,
so she was just advised to just give any knife.
 ISSUE: Did BC act act in legitimate defense of her
person?
 SC: Yes. All elements of self-defense are present.
o There was UA when Francisco attacked her.
o Reasonable necessity for means employed.
BC was strangled. The knife afforded BC the
ONLY REASONABLE MEANS w wc she
could free and save herself.
o Lack of sufficient provocation. BC did not
provoke Cab; gave a valid excuse that she
went carolling to earn money.
SOPLENTE V PEOPLE
 Characters: during an amateur singing contest being
held in line w the fiesta at Purok Sta. Cruz
o Eduardo Leyson, with his friends:
o Joel Notarte
o Gracidio Gulle
o Renato Besinga
o Ewing Bayani
o Ralowe Velayo
o Ebol Bayani
o Reynaldo Jamerlan
o Bono de Vera
 2 people from this group approached the cousins
Rogelio and Nicanor Soplente, and insisted to bring
Nicanor with them. Rogelio intervened and told the 2
to stop harassing Nicanor.
 When the cousins were about to go home, Bukay
asked them to help her find her children who also
watched the singing contest.
 Nicanor separated w them to buy cigs. Few mins
later, Bukay was able to find her children and
proceeded to go home.
 When Rogelio was on his way home, he found
himself surrounded by 10 persons led by Leyson.
Leyson drew his gun and fired at Rogelio, wc the
latter was able to deflect when he tapped Leyson’s
hand.
 Rogelio then stabbed Leyson, then he was kicked by
Notarte, whom he also stabbed. Rogelio escaped
and sought refuge at Susing’s house.
 Police arrived at Susing’s house and Rogelio
voluntarily surrendered himself plus the knife he
used.
 RTC: F-Homicide for wounding Leyson, and
Homicide for Notarte.
 ISSUE: Can Rogelio be absolved from incurring crim
liab by reason of Self-defense?
 SC: YES. 3 elements of S-D are present.
o UA – Rogelio was surrounded by Leyson’s
group. Leyson drew his gun.
o Reasonable necessity – the knife Rogelio
had was the only weapon he had that time.
Logical to use it.
o Lack of sufficient provocation – No evi to
show Rogelio provoked Leyson and Notarte
to a fight.
 ACQUITTED.
DEFENSE OF HONOR
PP V LUAGUE
 SPS GUILTY OF HOMICIDE?
 Natividad Luague while in her house w 3 children,
and her husband, Wenceslao grinding corn ome kms
away, Paulino Disuasido came and began to make
love to her.
 Failing to dissuade Paulino, Nat ran to the kitchen.
Bent to fulfil his satisfaction, Paulino pointed a knife
to Nat and started embracing her and fondling her
breasts. While beginning to lie w her, Pau pit down
his knife. Same knife w/c Nat used to stab him.
 Paulino ran away and jumped thru the window. Nat
eventually surrendered herself to the authorities.
 PROSEC’S STORY: it was a conspiracy bw the sps
and that they invited Pau to their house so Nat could
slash him w a knife, and while jumping thru the
window, Wen picked up a stone to struck him.
 RTC: found sps guilty of homicide.
 SC: Not guilty of homicide. Gave importance to the
testimony of 2 policemen: “no bloodstains on the
kitchen floor and threshold where Pau jumped”
 SC: ACQUITTED the sps. Nat acted in self-defense.
Wen has no participation at all. Decision reversed.
PP v JAURIGUE
 Defense of honor?
 Amado Capina – been courting Avelina Jaurigue and
doing irritating things in relation to it
 One time, when Ave went to the chapel, Amado saw
her there and seated right next to her. Put his hand
on her thigh. Ave got pissed and stabbed Amado on
his neck. Barrio lieutenant was also at the church
and Ave then surrendered herself.
 CFI: homicide.
 SC: Not defense of honor. No possibility of Ave
getting raped in a well-lit, occupied place. Stabbing
is evidently excessive.
 SC: Homicide w 3 mitigating circumstances: 1)
voluntary surrender 2) passion and obfuscation 3)
lack of intent to commit grave a wrong.
the four assaulted him w sticks and cutting and
stabbing weapons. Ribis fell down and died instantly.
 ISSUE: WON the accused can invoke DOP as
defense in killing Ribis?
 SC: No. DOP can be invoked as a just’ing circ ONLY
when it is COUPLED W AN ATTACK ON THE
PERSON ENTRUSTED W SAID PROPERTY.
 Even though Ribis had bolo on his waist, it cant be
concluded that it is intended to be used to assault
the accused.
 Bumanlag: HOMICIDE, as co-principal by direct
participation. Together w the three.
DEFENSE OF STRANGER
PP V FERNANDEZ
Xxxxxx

DEFENSE OF LIBEL STATE OF NECESSITY

PP V CHUA-HIONG TAN V STANDARD VACUUM
 Caesario Gocheco, nephew of Federico Chua
Hiong, published an article in Manila Chronicle in
“Double Citizenship”  questioning Chua-Hiong’s
citizenship
 Gocheco also filed charges against CH.
 CH published an article on the same newspaper to
answer all the allegations being thrown at him.
Accused Gocheco of persecution mania, and that he
is sending threatening letter to CH using the
pseudonym Benito Solipco.
 In an earlier case, Gocheco and his family lost 2/3 of
the inheritance left by his father, and CH was the
one who financed the prevailing parties.
 ISSUE: WON CH’s act of publishing a libellous
article on Manila Chronicle about Gocheco a valid
defense of reputation
 SC: YES. CH’s act is justified because he intended
to explain or deny what was previously said of the
one making libellous statements against him.

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
PP V APOLINAR
 Anastacio “Atong” Apolinar occupies a parcel of land
in Pangasinan, owned by one Joaquin Gonzales.
 One time, when Apol was overseeing said land,
while carrying his shotgun, he saw a man w a bundle
of palay carrying on his shoulder. Believing that man
was a thief, Apol called his attention, but the former
ignored him. Apol fired at the person (Domingo
Petras)+.
 Petras, after being shot, ws able to run back to his
house and narrate what happened to Angel
Natividad, the barrio chief. He later died.
 Upon learning Petras’ death, Apol surrendered to the
authorities, justified the killing by “defense of
property”.
 ISSUE: WON the killing of Petras justified by
defense of property?
 SC: No. DOP can be invoked as a just’ing circ ONLY
when it is COUPLED W AN ATTACK ON THE
PERSON ENTRUSTED W SAID PROPERTY.

US V BUMANGLAG
 Rafael Bumanglag noticed that 40 bundles of palay
wc he kept in his granary were missing. Searched
for them and found them in an enclosed field planted
w sugar cane.
 For purposes of knowing who had done it, he let the
palay there, and on that same night, he went again
to the same field w Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio Ribao,
and Saturnino Tumamao, and waited.
 Thereafter, Guillermo Ribis+ appeared and
attempted to carry the palay w him. In that instant,