People of the Philippines v Tomotorgo

Facts:

1. About seven months before the occurrence of the fatal incident Magadalena de los Santos
has been persistently asking her husband to sell their conjugal home in Camarines sur.
2. She wanted to transfer to her parent’s house which is in a different town.
3. Tomotorgo did not agree with his wife’s request because it is located far from his farming
job and he already improved their current house.
4. In 1997 at 7 in the morning Tomotorgo left his home to work on his farm.
5. When he got home in the afternoon, his wife and 3 month old baby are already gone.
6. He looked for them and found them 200 meters away from their home.
7. He pleaded to his wife so she would return with their child but the wife refused.
8. Accused then sought to take the child from his wife, which the latter threw on the grassy
portion of the land that cause the baby to cry.
9. This angered the accused, and incensed with wrath beyond his control that he picked a
wood nearby and started hitting his wife until she fell to the ground complaining of
severe pains on her chest.
10. After realizing what he did, he picked his wife in his arms and brought her home and
went back to the child where it was earlier thrown.
11. Despite his efforts to alleviate the pain of her wife, she expired.
12. She then changed her clothes and reported the incident to the barangay captain who
brought a policeman to whom Tomotorgo surrendered and he even brought the wood
which he used to beat his wife to death.
13. He was the charged with the crime of parricide which he pleaded not guilty at his
arraignment on November of 1997.
14. He later expressed his desire of his previous plea of not guilty to guilty after the
conference of his counsel.
15. The trial court allowed his withdrawal of plea.
16. Upon realizing the gravity of the offense charged against him his counsel was permitted
to establish mitigating circumstances.
17. After he testified the court found him guilty of the crime of parricide wit mitigating
circumstances namely, voluntary surrender, plea of guilty and that he acted on impulse.
18. He was given a penalty of reclusion perpetua which leads him to appeal to this court, on
the ground that the lower court disregarded the fact that he has no intention to kill his
wife and that the crime he committed was different from that of which he intended.
- He invoked art. 49.
19. He believed that he should only be punished to the offense he intended to commit which
is mere physical injury and not parricide and that his penalty should be reclusion
temporal in its minimum and maximum periods with the entitlement of the indeterminate
sentence law.
20. The court ruled that his contentions were incorrect invoking article 4 of the revised penal
code which expressly states that criminal liability shall be incurred by a person
committing a felony although the wrongful act be different from that of what is intended.
21. The fact that he intended to maltreat the victim does not exempt him from the liability for
the resulting of more serious crime.
 22. The court then held that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, however he was
recommended for executive clemency due to his manifestation of repentant attitude and
remorse.

People v Page

1. In the afternoon of February 1972, Crisanto Camposano alias Boy sangkay went to the
house of William Page Ubina in Pasay. It was recorded that they have been friends since
boyhood, Page was an 18 year old highschool student in Arellano.
2. The two went to Camposano’s house where they were offered some liquor and at about
past 10 in the evening they boarded a jeepney from the intersection of Taft Avenue to Harrison
Boulevard, the jeep was bound to Manila.
3. According to Page’s confession, he was carrying a balisong and he sat beside a male
passenger who was near the driver while Camposano sat next to two female passangers at the
back.
4. Camposano order the driver to turn left on Russel Avenue going to Paranaque where
they held up the driver and three passengers, they looted the jewelries and some money from the
passangers.
5. Page saw Camposano dumped the two female along Roxas Boulevard.

6. According to Scott, the 32 year old man who Camposano sat beside the jeep, upon declaring
hold up at the portion of Harrison Boulevard, Page pressed a knife at his neck and declared the
holdup. Page ordered the driver to shut off the lights and upon reaching Roxas Boulevard the two
covered the faces of all the passengers.

7. Camposano orderd the women to bring out their money or else there will be shots, the women
replied that they had given everything.

8. One of the woman jumped out of the Jeepney in front of El Presidente Hotel and when the
other women shouted, Camposano kicked her, Camposano noticed a car was following the
jeepney so he ordered the drive to drive at full speed. The woman who jumped when brought to
the hospital already died.

9. When they reached Baltao street they fled to a dark alley and so scott and the driver reported
the holdup to the police in Paranaque.

10. The precinct commander showed them a photograph of Camposano which the driver and
Scott identified.
11. Camposano was not pursued when the police went to his house to arrest him since he fired,
but while commiting another crim, he was killed by the Pasay City Policemen.
11. In 1972 or before Page was arrested a complaint of robbery with murder was already filed
against Page based on the investigation of Dilla and scott, page did not present any evidence
during the preliminary investigation, the case was then remanded to the CFI where the fiscal
filed robbery with homicide.
12. Page appealed that he was convicted on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence
13. Page’s contention that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt since what
happened was circumstantial and not meritorious.
14. His alibi was also fabricated stating the he was in Makati at the time of the commission of
holdup since he was sick but his school record says otherwise.
15. He also contended that he could not be held liable of the crim of robbery with homicide since
he only intended to commit robbery.
16. Although it is true that it was Camposano who directly brought Veronica, the woman who
jumped off the jeepney and died, her actuation was caused by mortal dread that Camposan would
shoot her.
17. The rule is that if a man creates another person’s mind an immediate sense of danger which
caused the person to escape and by doing so her injures himself, the man who created that state
of mind shall be liable.
18. It was also ruled that they conspired to commit robbery and that their behavior inside the
jeepney with violence and intimidation of persons inside, results to Page being liable to all
consequences of the conspiracy- including homicide. (robo con homicidio) – means that all who
had taken part of the robbery are guilty unless they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
19. The lower affirmed the decision of robbery with homicide.

Urbano v IAC

 Petition to review the decision of the Intermediate Appellate court.

Facts:

1. On the morning of October in 1980 Filomeno Urbano went to his rice fields in
Pangasinan where he saw that his palay was flooded by water coming from an irrigational
canal nearby.
2. Urbano went to the elevated portion and saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe who was
cutting grass, he asked who was responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal and
Javier admitted that he was the one.

3. Urbano then demanded him to pay for his soaked palay, A quarrel between them
ensued. Urbano then hacked Javier hitting his right palm. Javier tried to runaway
but Urbano catched up and he hit Javier on the left leg which caused swelling.
Urbano was tehn prevented by his daughter to caused further harm.
4. The sought the help of their barangay captain but he was not in their house, they were
advised by their barrio councilman to go to the police station to report the incident.
5. They were then suggested to bring Javier to a physician and was then further suggested to
go to another doctor, Dr. Meneses as they have available medicine.
6. He was then issued a medico-legal certificate.
7. Upon the intercession, Urbano and Javier agreed to settle their differences and Urbano
agreed to pay for the medical expenses of Javier wherein they formalized their amicable
settlement in 1980.
8. At about 1:30 am of Nov. 14, 1980, 22 days after the incident, Javier was rushed to the
hospital due to lockjaw and convulsions.
9. The Doctor who tended him found that his condition was caused when the healing wound
in his right arm was infected by tetanus toxin.
10. Javier died the next day.
11. On April of 1981, Urabno was charged with the crime of homicide wherein he pleaded
not guilty as he was sentenced to 12 years of prision mayor and 12k to indemnify the
heirs of the victim.
12. He filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied, hence the current petition,
13. The court ruled that the death of Javier was natural and consequence of Urbano’s
unlawful act.
14. Upon looking into the nature of tetanus, where in there are two kinds; the severe case
shows symptoms that will occur in 2-3 days of injury with a high mortality rate and the
mild symptom wherein the patient becomes symptomatic within 14 days
15. it has been found out that the reaction to tetanus depends on the incubation period of the
disease.
16. In the case at bar, Javier suffered the symptoms of tetanus after 22 days and died the next
day therefore coming into conclusion that his wound could have been infected 2 or 3 days
before he died.
17. The rule is that the death of the victim should be a logical consequence of the would
inflicted to him by the accused, and since in order for Urbano to be convicted the court
should be convinced that he caused the death beyond reasonable doubt.
18. However, doubts presented that his infection was caused the Javier’s failure to take
necessary precautions to care for his would, and that tetanus may have been the
proximate cause of Javier’s death which Urbano has nothing to do.
19. Therefore the granted his petition, reversing the decisions of the lower courts and he was
acquitted of the crime of homicide.

People v Villacorta

1. Madeja narrated that on January of 2002 while she was tending her sari-sari store in
Navotas, two regular customers; Villacorta suddenly stabbed Cruz on the left side with a
bamboo stick. Villacorte then immediately fled after the stabbing incident. Breaking the
bamboo stick in half while the other half was left inside Cruz’s body.
2. Mandeja tried to chase Villacorta but failed, they brought Cruz to Tondo Medical Center
where he was treated as an out-patient.
3. Cruz was then brought to San Lazaro Hospital on January 23, 2002 and in Tondo Med.
Center where he was treated as an out-patient.
4. On February 14, 2002 he was then again brought to San Lazaro Hospital where he died
the next day
5. Dr. Belandres stated that Cruz died due to tetanus infection of secondary stab wound
upon checking his chart and diagnosis.
6. Villacorta denied the allegation and stated that he was just buying cigarettes at the sari
sari store, when he was about to leave, Cruz put his arm around him and he prompted to
box him not knowing that he was hurt.
7. The RTC rendered their decision filing Villacorta guilty of murder, qualified treachery
and dispositive portion.
8. Villacorta appealed saying that he should only be liable for slight physical injuries.
9. The court ruled that In this case, after Cruz was stabbed he was rushed and treated as an
out-patient at Tondo wherein he died the next day.
10. However, there were no evidence presented by the prosecution of the emergency medical
treatment Cruz received.
11. Cruz was brought to San Lazaro Hospital 22 days between the date of stabbing and then
later his death,
12. The rule is that the death of the victim should be a logical consequence of the would
inflicted to him by the accused, and since in order for Villacorta to be convicted the court
on the ground of murder he should be convinced that he caused the death beyond
reasonable doubt.
13. However, doubts presented that his infection was caused the Cruz’s failure to take
necessary precautions to care for his would, and that tetanus may have been the
proximate cause of Cruz’s death which Villacorta has nothing to do
14. Although, Villacorta is guilty of slight physical injuries under Art. 266 (1) of the RPC
for the stab wound he inflicted upon Cruz. The court ruled that he cannot be held liable
for attempted of frustrated murder as there is no intent to kill. As Villacorta only used a
bamboo stick and then fled, not anything lethal like that of a metallic material.
15. The rulling of the RTC and CA was sustained of finding that treachery was found in the
case as Cruz was attacked so suddenly without provocation.
16. The court therefore reversed and set aside the judgement of Villacorta findig him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight physical injuries.

People v Cornel

 This is an appeal from the judgement of the CFI of Albay sentencing the defendant
homicide.

1. At about 6 in the morning of June 1945, Trinidad Coral stated the she personally saw the
appellant assaulting her now deceased husband, Fabian Burac with a bolo as he was
descending the stairs if his house.
2. Fabian fell, and the appellant threw a stone at him which hit his right clavicle
3. Thereafter, the appellant fled the direction of his house.
4. The trial court then gave full credit to Coral’s testimony.
5. Fabian also testified that he has been boloed by the appellant, this too was accepted by
the trial court.
6. Appellant was prosecuted for the crime of physical injuries, until Fabian’s death which
occurred several days after the incident.
7. It was then found that the cause of Fabian’s death was tetanus secondary to the infected
wound.
8. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court for the crime of homicide declaring
that appellant has motive since Fabian once arrested and threatened the appellant during
the Japanese occupation.
 Intod v CA

1.In the morning of February 1979, Sulpicio Intod with Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig went to
Salvador Mandaya’s house in Misamis Occidental
2. In a meeting, He said he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of land dispute, and that
Mandaya accompanied by 4 other men, would also be killed.
3. At 10 in the evening of the same day, the four men with Intod carrying firearms arrived at the
house of Palangpangan and fired the gun aiming at Palangpangan’s bedroom.
4. However, it turned out that Palangpangan was not in the city and it was her son-in-law that
was occupying the house at the time, no one was hit by the gunfire.
5. They were positively identified by witnesses as they should “we will kill you”
6. the court convicted Intod of Attempted Murder.
7. The petitioner then seek to review the decisions of the Court of appeals which affrirmed the
decisions of the rtc.
8. He contends that he should only be liable for an impossible crime invoking parag. 2 of art.4 of
the rpc. He further stated that Palangpangan’s absence from her room on the night he and his
companions fired the gun made the crim impossible.
9. Respondent argue that the crime was not impossible as an act to be impossible under the
clause mentioned, there must be by its nature one impossible accomplishment. On the other
hand, the case at bar falls in the category of factual impossibility that the felony was not acted
upon due to circumstances unknown to the perpetrators.
10. The court then ruled that petition is granted modifying the initial decision of attempted
murder to impossible crim.

People v Jacinto

 Petition to review on certiorari

1. In June 1997, Isabelita Milabo known as Baby Aquino paid using check to Mega Foam
International amounting to 10,000.00 as payment for the purchases.
2. Gemma Jacinto was the collector of the said company, somehow, the check was
deposited to a Landbank account of Generoso Capitle the husband of Jacqueline Capitle
3. Generoso Capitle was the sister of Jacinto and was a former employee of Mega Foam.
4. Meanwhile, one of the employees of Mega Foram, Rowena Ricablanca received a call
from a customer asking if she should issue checks payable to the company instead of
issuing checks payable to cash, this was an instruction that she received from Jacqueline
Capitle.
5. Ricablanca also received a call from a Landbank Valenzuela branch looking for Generoso
Capitle to inform that the check deposited was
6. Ricablanca then called Anita Valencia who was a former employee to inform Jacqueline
Capitle about the bounced check.
7. Anita Valencia told Ricablanca that the check was from a customer came Baby Aquino
and instructed her to ask Aquino to replace the check with cash, saying that they should
plan to take the cash and divide it equally by four.
8. Ricablanca then reported it to the owner, Dyhencho, upon the advise of the company’s
accountant.
9. Dyhencho confirmed to Aquino that she indeed issued a check sometime in July 1997
and said the Jacinto called her about the bouncing check which was never remitted back
to the company.
10. Generosa Capitle, when asked about why the money was deposited in his account, he said
that an unknown woman arrived at his house on the first week of July 1997 to have the
check rediscounted.
11. He then parted with his cash in exchange of the check without bothering to inquire the
woman’ s identity.
12. Dyhengco filed a complaint in NBI where they worked out an entrapment operation with
its agents. 10,000 persos worth of marked money was given to Ricablanca to pretend that
she was in with Valancia’s plan.
13. Ricablanca was tasked to pretend to have met with Jacinto in her house, petitioner handed
over the BDO check.
14. They were supposed to to go to Baby Aquino’s place to have the check replaced with
cash but they decided to go shopping instead. It was Ricablanca Valencia who went TO
the latter’s factory where there petitioner was arrested by the NBI.
15. They were then tried and found guilty of crime of qualified theft, where they filed a
motion for consideration.
16. Anita Valencia was reduced to 4 months instead of the initial 5 years but Jacinto’s
petition was denied therefore, the case here at bar.
17. She issued that she cant be convicted of crime not charged in the information and
whether a worthless check can be the object of theft.
18. The court ruled that she took a personal property, which. Belongs to another and her
intent was to gain without the owner’s consent and it was done with grave confidence.
19. Although it was contested that the check has no value yet and was dishonored.
20. Therefore, the court granted her petition and found her guilty of impossible crime, her
sentence was reduced from 5 years to 6 months.

RAIT VS. PEOPLE

1. In 1993, AAA was sent by his brother to buy cigarettes from a nearby store, while she
was there, Rait and Pitago arrived.
2. Rait and Pitago ordered beer and invited AAA to drink which she refused, but when
Aurora Raez, one of their neighbors joined, she was then forced to also drink.
3. When she was drunk and feeling weak, Rait and Pitago brought her to the 20 th and 21st
streets where they allegedly forcibly removed her pants and underwear.
4. Rait also forcibly inserted his finger to AAA’s vagina, she tried to shout for help but Rait
covers her mouth and Pitago held her feet. As Rait was about to b go on top of AAA to
insert his penis AAA was able to kick both of them and run away.
5. After going home to his brother and after narrating what happened, his brother went out
to find the petitioner which he beated but was able to run away.
6. AAA went home to their parents’ house and they were accompanied to Bombo Radyo.
7. From there, they were went to a provincial hospital for medical examination and next to
the police station for blotter.
8. In 1994, Rait was charged with attempted rape.

- APPEAL
1. Rait appealed in the CA but was denied.

- SUPREME COURT
1. Rait argues that he should not be charged of RAPE but rather unjust Vexation, citing the
case of Baleros Jr vs People. Which was denied by the court saying:
a. The evidences found by the CA is conclusive and is proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
b. Unlike in Baleros, the acts of petitioner clearly establish his intention to
commence the act of rape. Petitioner had already successfully removed
the victimÊs clothing and had inserted his finger into her vagina
2. Therefore, they found no merit that the lower court erred in their decision and Rait’s
charged was sustained.

People vs. Costales

1. Spouses Miguel and Crispina lived in Pangasinan with their three daughters, Donabel,
Jessie and Erlinda.
2. In the night of 1997, Miguel was lying on a folding bed besides the door and Jessie and
Erlinda just finished watching TV when two persons suddenly barged into their house
and strangled Miguel. Jessie recognized the two intruders being Fernando Costales and
Fernando Ramirez. She was able to recognize them even though it was dark because their
room was illuminated by a night lamp.
3. Jessie narrated that Costales was the one who shot her father and Ramirez was the one
who sprayed the teargas- upon spraying the teargas they heard another gunshot which
was directed their mother- Crispina.
4. Both daughters, Jessie and Erlinda affirmed that it was Costales and Ramirez as they are
the high priests of the sect “Lamplighter”. Her parents decided to quit this brotherhood
because of the waning of Ramirez towards them.
5. Erlinda also stated that Ramirez was molesting her, which she did not report to the
authorities as she feared for her life.
 6. Costales denied the allegation by showing proof of his activities saying that he was
irrigating his land, he accompanied his family to attend a religious service and his wife
even showed an attendance notebook.

- RTC

1. The RTC did not believe the alibi of the defense as alibi of his uncle did not match with
those from his nephew and the court did not see any dark motives of the two witnesses-
Erlinda and Jessie.

- CA
2. Costales said that the court erred in saying that the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent
and biased, in not giving weight to his alibi and that there are no aggravating
circumstances established beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The court argues that:
a. The testimonies of these accused-appellant were biased and seems flawless
which invites suspicion and disbelief as compared to the prosecution
witnesses which gave almost uniform observation.
b. as the trial court observed, by the three (3) prosecution witnesses, especially
Crispina Marcelo, a victim herself, immensely fortifies the conclusion that
accused-appellant is guilty as charge
c. The appealant court agreed the regional court erred in charging Costales of
using an unlicensed firearm which under PF 1866 should be a special
aggravating circumstance in murder and homicide and not as a separate
offense.
d. The court however, cannot give assent to the view that nighttime and evident
premeditation accompanied the commission of the crimes but rather,
circumstances absorbed by treachery.

4. the trial court explained that the failure of the prosecution to present a medical certificate or competent
testimonial evidence showing that Crispina would have died from her wound without medical
intervention, justified the accused conviction for attempted murder only.

US vs. Eduave

1. Eduave was accused of attempted murder while the court believes that it should be
frustrated.
2. Eduave sturck the girl from behind with a sharp bolo which resulted in severing of all the
muscles and tissues in her lumbar region. Eduave was incensed of the girl as he was
criminally charged of having raped her and causes her pregnancy.
3. He was her mother’s querido and was living with her at the commencement of crime.
4. The contending issues why it was frustrated is:
a. The act was done treacherously, when he blow in the back and side of the girl
using his bolo.
b. The crime is clear and was done, he performed ALL of the acts which would have
resulted in consummated crime and voluntarily desisted from further acts. It
cannot be attempted unless Eduave after the beginning of the commission of
crime by overt acts, prevented it, against his will by some outside cause which
prevents the to produce the crime.
c. Eduave passes the subjective phase, it would be attempted, if, he was interrupted
and compelled to desist by the intervention of outside causes.