Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies

People v. Lamahang
Facts:
This is an appeal on a previous case convicting Aurelio Lamahang of
attempted robbery and sentencing him to two years and four months of
prision correctional and an additional penalty of ten years and one day of
prision mayor for being a habitual delinquent with accessory penalties of
the law and to pay costs of the proceeding.
In the early hours of March 2, 1935, the accused was caught by policeman
Jose Tomambing in the streets of Iloilo trying to open the store with an
iron bar in C.R. Fuentes Street. The accused only succeeded in breaking
one board and unfastening another one from the wall when he was
arrested.
The court finds that there is a clear attempt to commit an offense on the
part of Lamahang when he attempted to enter Tan Yu’s Store by means of
violence and pass through the concrete wall when Tomambing caught him.
Issue: Whether or not the Court erred in sentencing the accused with
attempted robbery.
Ratio: Sentence appealed and revoked; accused is charged with
attempted trespass to dwelling by means of with aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and sentenced to 3 mos. and 1 day of
arresto mayor w/ accessory penalties and to pay the cost.
In the given circumstances, the accused actions were merely the beginning
of the execution.
Art. 6 of the RPC states that there is a felony is attempted when the
offense commences by direct overt acts.
The overt acts leading to the commission of the offense cannot be
punished UNLESS aimed directly to the execution of the offense.
In the case of robberies, there must be a clear showing of an intent to gain
in order for the simple act of entering a dwelling through force or violence
to be considered an attempt to rob.
Given the facts above, the court ruled that attempted trespass to dwelling
would be a more appropriate pursuant to Article 280 of the RPC which
states that the offense is committed when “a private person shall enter the
dwelling of another against the latter’s will.”
In the case at bar, Lamahang attempted to enter Ta Yun’s store with the
use of a crowbar while the latter was asleep.
The Court also took into account his previous charges involving robbery
and theft and the aggravating circumstance of night time. The breaking of
the wall in this case cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance
given that it constitutes as an offense.
The RPC provides that a consummated offense of trespass to dwelling has
a penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods with
a fine not exceeding P1K IF commited with force (Art. 280) but because
the crime is merely attempted it is reduced to arresto mayor in its
minimum and maximum period.

People v. Dio
Facts:
This is a review by the then Circuit Criminal Court which convicted Danilo
Tobias and John Doe, later known as Hernando Dio guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and to suffer the penalty of
death as well as 12K to indemnify heirs of Crispulo Alega, Php 10K for
moral damages, 10k for exemplary damages and to pay costs.
FULL STORY
In afternoon of July 24, 1971, Crispulo Alega, the victim, fetched his
girlfriend Remedios Maniti Southeastern College in Pasay after he left work
at a certain Sugar Construction Company.
The couple then proceeded to the city’s Public market to eat.
They were going up the stairs to Teresa and Sons Restaurant when
Remedios heard that her boyfriend dropped her school items.
She turned behind her to see that Tobias was twisting the neck of her
boyfriend while Dio held the victim’s hands up.
The assailants tried to take the victim’s Seiko wristwatch but the victim
fought back.
Tobias proceeded to stab Crispulo on the left side of his chest. The victim
ran downstairs while his girlfriend shouted for help.
The assailants failed to victim died when he reached the front of the Pasay
Commercial Bank.
Autopsy conducted by Dr. Ricardo Ibarola of the NBI revealed that the
cause of death was a stab wound below his left breast which penetrated
through the heart.
The appellant was arrested on October 24, 1972 and admitted on his
statement that he and Danilo Tobias held up a man and a woman, that
Tobias stabbed the victim as the latter fought back and that the assailant
ran away before they knew what happened to the victim
Upon arraignment, the defense claims that the appellant had no direct
participation in the crime and that his statement must carry more weight
than that of the witness, Maniti.
The accused also claimed that he was forced to admit to the crime in an
extrajudicial confession where he was hit in the buttocks by police officers.
This was refuted by Rimorin, the patrolman who took his statement, as he
never filed charges against officers who allegedly maltreated him.
Such spontaneity proves that his claims were, in fact, NOT dictated by
police officers.
That being said, the Court dismissed the appellants claims which now leads
us to this review.

ISSUE/S:
 1. The Court erred in convicting the defendant of a special complex
crime of robbery with homicide (ART 294, par. 1, RPC)
2. Even if the court assumed that he committed the said crime, the
court erred in sentencing him to suffer death penalty
RATIO: The accused is found guilty of a special complex crime of
attempted robbery with homicide and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of 10 yrs to 1 day of prision mayor
minimum to 20 years reclusion temporal maximum and indemnify
heirs of Alega Php 30K and pay ½ of the costs.

The Court revoked the previous ruling of special complex crime of robbery
with homicide as there was only an attempted robbery with homicide
because the assailants were unsuccessful at obtaining the wristwatch.
Since there is no showing of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the
penalty is applied in its medium period (the Indeterminate Sentence Law)

PEOPLE v. TRINIDAD
FACTS:
This is an appeal on a previous ruling which sentenced Emeliano Trinidad
of Murder and Frustrated Murder in the RTC of Agusan Del Sur.
The victims were Lolito Soriano who was a fish dealer from Davao and
Marcia Laroa, a helper of Soriano.
On January 19, 1983, the three with a driver and the principal witness,
Ricardo Tan, arrived in Butuan to sell fish.
The following day, Tan was left at Lahingan Market to sell fish but soon
followed Soriano and Laroa to Buenavista
The accused, a member of the Integrated National Police, asked for a ride
to Bayugan which is en route to Davao City on the same day.
The witness was driving the vehicle while Soriano was on his right were
Soriano, Laroa, and Trinidad.
Upon reaching the stretch between El Rio and Afga, the accused advised
them to drive slowly as the area was dangerous.
Suddenly, Tan heard two gunshots and saw Soriano and Laroa slumped
dead.
Tan did not see the actual shooting of Laroa but saw Soriano being shot by
Trinidad using his carbine.
Tan fled towards some bushes for fear of his life. The Fiera continued
running for about 7-10 meters until it stopped at a muddy side of the road.
Tan another shot from the vehicle.
After 20-30 minutes, Tan was able to ride a passing jeep.
However, he soon noticed Trinidad at the backseat; when Trinidad
recognized Tan, he ordered the latter to get out of the vehicle.
The two ended up running around the jeepney. But as soon as the jeep
started to elave, Tan clung the sides of the vehicle and Trinidad was able
to shoot him on the right thigh.
Another jeep happened to be there and Tan jumped from the first jeep to
the next. The passengers however did not want him there and was pushed
out.
He was able to reach Butuan via bus with the help of a member of the
Philippine Constabulary.
Trinidad denied such accusations and claimed to have an alibi – He was in
Cagayan De Oro City on the day of the incident and that he had asked
permission from his Commander the day prior for a leave as it was his
birthday on the 20th. He left his home at 3, took a bus, and arrived in CDO
at 8 in the evening.
He proceeded to his sister’s house at Camp Alagar for his subsistence
allowance as his sister worked at the Finance Station
He allegedly met with Sgt. Caalim, Mrs. Andoy and Paelmo. Caalim
corroborated Trinidad’s claim.
Further, the accused claimed to have left CDO the following day where he
was arrested at Buenavista.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: W/N court erred in giving full faith and credit to the witness’
testimony who the defense alleges is unreliable.
RATIO:
The court found that Trinidad’s claims were not consistent to Tan’s
statement to the NAPOLCOM officer where the victim’s testimony was
relayed as well as that of a witness, Felimon Comendador, a fish vendor,
who saw Trinidad seated with the victims and the witness because the
vehicle stopped by Comendador’s house.
Tan remained firm on his testimony even during cross-examination.
HOWEVER, the defense is correct in contending that TRINIDAD should only
be convicted with attempted murder and NOT frustrated murder given that
the accused performed all acts of execution but did not produce the
intended effect due to Tan narrowly escaping by clinging to the side of the
jeep.
Moreover, it is a doctrinal rule that were a wound inflicted on a victim
prove not to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder (People
v.s Phones, People v. Garcia)
Hence
Trinidad is charged guilty for two counts of murder shall suffer
In each of Criminal Cases Nos. 79123-24 (Nos. 96 and 99 below) for
Murder, he shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify
the heirs of Marcial Laroa and Lolito Soriano, respectively, in the amount of
P30,000.00 each; and to pay the costs.
2) In Criminal Case No. 79125 (No. 100 below) for Frustrated Murder, he is
hereby found guilty only of Attempted Murder and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum; to indemnify Ricardo Tan in the sum of P5,000,00;
and to pay the costs.

PEOPLE v. CAMPUHAN
FACTS:
This case is in relation to the case of People v. Orita which ruled that:
1. There is no such thing as a frustrated rape, only attempted or
consummated rape.
2. The rape is consummated the moment that the offender has carnal
knowledge of the victim.
3. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, even without
perfect penetration (i.e. rupture of hymen/ laceration of the vagina)
constitutes as consummated rape.
4. Only entry into the labia or lips is synonymous to touching the
external genitalia, hence, is sufficient to consummate the rape.
5. The absence of such penetration only warrants the conviction of
attempted rape.
6. Attempted rape = reclusion temporal, consummated rape = death
penalty
STORY:
 In the afternoon of April 26, 1996, Ma. Corazon Pamintuan was on
the ground floor of their home to prepare Milo drink for her two
children.
 There she met Primo Campuhan who worked as the helper of her
brother, Conrado Plata.
 He was preparing plastic bags of water to be frozen into ice in the 2 nd
floor of their home.
  Corazon heard one of her daughters cry out “Ayoko, ayoko!” which
prompted her to rush upstairs.
 She found Campuan kneeling before one of her daughters, Crysthel,
with his shorts removed and the child’s panties and jogging pants
removed.
 Campuan was found forcing his penis into the child’s vagina. The
mother cursed and boxed at the accused and as he pushed her and
tried to escape, Corazon also ran out and shouted for help
 Soon Campuhan was apprehended by Corazon’s brother, a cousin
and an uncle who answered to her calls for help.
 The accused was held at the back of the compound until barangay
officials detained him
 The medical exam revealed that there was no sign of extra-genital
injury and that the victim’s hymen was intact (orifice is .5cm)
 The accused maintained his innocence, claiming that he had no ill-
intent in refusing Corazon’s errand
 and that Crysthel merely wanted to ride on his back when she pulled
him down and caused the two to fall into the compromising position.
 The Court found him guilty of statutory rape (forcible sexual
intercourse with a child 15 yrs and; age of consent is raised to 16) as
well as 50K for moral damages, 25K for exemplary damages and
costs.
 The accused argues assails the credibility of Corazon, being
inconsistent with human nature and experience:
- Crysthel’s younger sister was also in the room
- He was in the family compound and so cries of help would have
deterred him from committing the act
- A vivid description of the alleged sexual contact is impossible
because Corazon could not have seen such contact from her
position.
- The absence of injuries or penetration on the victim’s private parts
proves his innocence.
ISSUE: W/N the Court erred in finding the accused guilty of statutory
rape.
RATIO: Attempted rape with an indeterminate prison term of 8
years, 4 months and ten days of prision mayor medium and 14
years, 10 months, and 20 days of reclusion temporal medium as
maximum.
The court ruled that what is inconsistent with man’s instinct for self-
preservation is that the accused allowed for his organ to be exposed
knowing very well that he is caught by no less than the victim’s mother.
The time it took for the mother to climb to the 2 nd floor from the ground
floor was more than enough for the Campuhan to desist and even conceal
his evil design.
The victim herself admitted that there was touching of the organs but no
penetration.
Given, however, that a 4 year old could not possibly know what
penetration is much less the concept of sexual intercourse, the Court
instead relied on the victim’s cries of help during the ordeal which was
“Ayoko” and NOT “Aray ko”.
This knowledge combined with the fact that there were no external injuries
on the victim’s vagina lead the Court to believe that the appropriate
sentence would be attempted rape.

PEOPLE v. ERINIA (NO MORE FRUSTRATED RAPE)

FACTS:
This is an appeal on a previous judgment by the now RTC of Manila finding
Julian Erinia guilty of consummated rape and to suffer 17 years, four
months, and one day of reclusion temporal wit the accessory penalties and
costs.
The victim was 3 and 11 months old and evidence proves that the accused
had intended to have carnal knowledge of her but it is inconclusive as to
whether or not there was penetration due to the timely intervention of the
victim’s sister and mother.
The medico legal found slight inflammation on the exterior part of the
vagina but expressed doubts if there was penetration. The mother also
found a sticky substance on the victim’s organ but cannot conclude if there
was penetration.
ISSUE: Whether or not the rape was consummated
RATIO: Guilty of frustrated rape and to suffer 12 yrs of prision
mayor w/ accessory penalties prescribed by law and costs.
The court ruled that while complete penetration was impossible,
penetration is not essential to committing the crime. Penetration in the
labia suffices.
Due to the lack of evidence, the accused is found guilty of frustrated rape
HOWEVER, the court also acknowledged that the accused was living in the
house of the parents of the victim as a guest.
Hence, the court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence

PEOPLE v. CABALLERO
FACTS:
This is a review on the decision by the RTC of San Carlos, Negros
Occidental convicting Ricardo Caballero and Marciano Caballero of murder
and to suffer death penalty and frustrated murder and to suffer reclusion
perpetua.
In a compound in San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, lived 4 families:
The Mondragons, The Caballeros, The Broces, and the Bawins. With the
Bawins lived Eugene “Gene” Tayactac, a brother of Myrna Bawin.
Prior to the incident, 3 of the Caballero siblings, namely Armando, Robito,
and Marciano were in a drinking spree in their brother’s house, Ricardo.
Come evening, Eugene Tayactac and a friend, Arnold Bacuma arrived in
the sari-sari store of Wilma Broce located across the compound where the
former had dinner and the latter went to chat with the former’s girlfriend,
Susan Broce.
Armando approached Eugene and angrily asked him if “he was going to
buy from the store.” Eugene replied, “What’s this about, we don’t have any
quarrel between us.”
Armando soon left the store but stood by the gate of the compound
followed by his brothers. Two of whom were armed with knives.
As the store closed, Eugene proceeded to the house of his girlfriend.
His sister, Myrna, had left a window open and told him to go home.
As Eugene crossed the gate of the compound, Armando suddenly grabbed
him which prompted the other siblings to assault Eugene.
Armando even reached for a wooden pole holding the clothes line to hit
Eugene.
The victim sustained 3 stab wounds. His sister witnessed this and shouted
for help. Wilma, the store owner, was paralyzed after witnessing the
events.
Eugene’s girlfriend, Susana, and his friend, Arnold, rushed to him to pacify
the brothers. Arnold inquired of the issue but was also stabbed on the left
side of his body. He fled as soon as the Caballeros ganged up on him and
hid at a neighbor’s house.
One of the Broces, Leonilo also rushed out of his house to see the
commotion but was stabbed in the chest and asked for his uncle, Lucio, for
help.
The Caballeros were on pacified when the compound owner, Teresito
Mondragon, intervened.
The victims were rushed to Planter’s hospital for treatment but soon
expired from the wounds.
Autopsy revealed that Eugene died of severe hemorrhage from the three
stab wounds on the chest.
Leonilo died of hypovolemic shock (severe blood or fluid loss which makes
the hear unable to pump blood throughout the body) from the two stab
wounds on his chest.
Arnold Barcuma, Eugene’s friend, survived due to the medical intenvention
and sustained two wounds on the arm and on the chest.

Robito went missing while the rest of the brothers were arraigned.
They claimed to have been mauled by a group of men when the crime took
place and sustained an abrasion and swelling on Marciano’s face.
They deny such claims and even claimed they had no idea why Wilma,
Arnold, and Myrna would implicate them in the crime.
For this information, the Court charged Caballero brothers for 2 counts of
murder and 1 count of frustrated murder with intent to kill, treachery, and
evident premeditation as well as an aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength.
REQUISITES OF TREACHERY:

1. Victim cannot defend himself during the attack.

2. Offender consciously adopted particular means/method/form of attack in executing the
crime.

Hence, this review

ISSUES/S: W/N the court erred in
1. The court erred in not acquitting the accused in the criminal cases
despite fact that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt
2. The court erred in appreciating aggravating circumstances of
treachery and abuse of superior strength on the case.
3. The court erred in imposing the death penalty upon the accused
upon the assumption that they killed the victim.
RATIO: The court modified the previous ruling and found the
accused guilty of murder qualified by treachery and to suffer
reclusion perpetua and pay the heirs of Eugene Tayactac 50K for
civil indemnity and 50k for moral damages.
The accused were also found guilty of frustrated murder and to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of 9 yrs and 4 mos of prision
mayor medium as minimum and 17 years to 4 mos of reclusion
temporal medium as max. and to pay Arnold Barcuma 25k for
moral damages and 10k for moderate damages.
The court found that all the appellants conspired to kill Eugene and assault
Arnold. The court appreciated conspiracy given the accused were united in
their objective to kill Eugene and cause injuries to Arnold in trying to
prevent the altercation.
The Court also found Robito Caballero to be solely guilty of killing Leonilo
Broce, who attempted to pacify the group, applying a previous case
(People v. Flora) because killing Leonilo was not part of the Caballero’s
plan.
The court maintained their appreciation of treachery in the crime
REQUISITES OF TREACHERY:

1. Victim cannot defend himself during the attack.

2. Offender consciously adopted particular means/method/form of attack in executing the

crime.

Both of these were present in the case at bar given that 1.) The victim had
no opportunity to defend himself being ganged up by 4 people, 3 of whom
had a weapon 2.) There was conscious effort on the part of the offender
because they had knives prepared and they came to the victim as a group.
The court also maintained their decision of frustrated murder: The group
performed all acts of execution but the felony is not produced due to
Arnold escaping which was independent of the will of the perpetrators.
The Court also acknowledged that there was intent to kill on the part of the
accused on all of the victims with Arnold being saved due to the timely
medical intervention.
Intent to Kill

a. Motive
b. Nature/number of weapons used
c. Nature and number of wounds of the victim
d. Manner the crime was committed
e. Words uttered by offender while inflicting the injuries

US v. Tomas Adiao
FACTS
Defendant was charged with theft in the Municipal Court of Manila.
He appealed in the Manila RTC and was sentenced to a lesser crime of
frustrated theft, a fine of 100 pesos, subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and costs.
The court, however, erred in sentencing the accused for theft due to
evidence that
The accused, a customs inspector, confiscated a leather belt costing P.80
from a T. Murakami and kept the belt in his desk in the Custom house
which was found by other employees.
Hence, the Court cannot simply classify it as frustrated as defined in Art. 3
of the Penal Code.
The fact that the accused was under observation during the entire
transaction and was able to obtain the belt is immaterial given that all
elements of theft are present.
ISSUE: W/N the court erred in sentencing the accused to frustrated theft
RATIO: Ruling reversed; accused is sentenced to 3 mos and 1 day
of arresto mayor and all costs. Belt is returned to T. Murakami.
The court referred to a Spanish court ruling where an accused was caught
in the act of taking a fruit from another person’s land but was only
apprehended later. The Spanish court held that it is consummated given
that the accused already obtained the fruit and the policemen only
prevented him from fully utilizing it.
Another ruling involved a pickpocketing incident inside a church where
victim noticed the theft going ont but did not do anything about it. Court
ruled that defendant performed all acts of execution and successfully
committed the crime= consummated.
Another case involved the entering of a room using a key from where a
small box containing a purse of money was taken; the accused was caught
by two guards nearby constitutes as a frustrated theft.
The court also appreciated an aggravating circumstance when the offender
took advantage of his public position. Hence the penalty is imposed in the
maximum degree.

PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ (1925)

FACTS:
 The defendant Domingo Hernandez raped his grandchild, Conrada
Jocson by means of force and intimidation; the former threatened to
kill the latter with a knife should she not comply.
 The fact that the accused is the victim’s grandfather and that the
crime was done with grave abuse of confidence given that the
accused and the victim were living in the same house.
 Given the facts, there is no question as to the defendant’s guilt. He
claimed, however, that he was drunk and so he does not know what
he was doing.
 A testimony from the witnesses of the prosecution claimed that the
accused did was, in fact, not intoxicated when he committed the
crime or immediately afterwards.
 The court found Hernandez guilty of frustrated rape and murder and
to suffer 10 yrs and 1 day of prision mayor.
ISSUE: W/N the court erred in convicting the accused of
frustrated rape and murder.
RATIO: Modified. Consummated rape and to suffer 17 yrs and 4
mos of reclusion temporal in light of the aggravating
circumstances.
 In rape cases, US jurisprudence has established that it is enough that
there is penile contact in the labia. Perfect penetration is not
required.
 The victim’s medical examination revealed that there was the vaginal
opening was inflamed and there was semen.
 The investigation also revealed that the defendant laid on top of the
victim for 15 minutes and that the victim also felt intense pain.
 The aforementioned further strengthens the fact that the rape was
consummated.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

PEOPLE v. GENOSA
Facts:
This is a review on a case decided by the RTC of Ormoc which found the
Marivic Genosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide (Art. 246, RPC
restored by Sec. 5, R.A. No. 7659) with treachery and evident
premeditation and is sentenced with the death penalty
STORY
 Marivic Genosa shot her husband to death when the latter returned
home intoxicated and provoked the accused.
 The two had been childhood friends and even cousins. Their first
year of marriage was uneventful until they started quarreling
 This quarreling escalated into full-blown physical altercations as
witnessed by family members, neighbors as relayed in the
proceedings.
 The common theme coming from the court witnesses is that both
parties would have frequent verbal if not physical (or both)
 altercations.
 While the accused admitted to the crime, she claimed it was out of
defense of herself and her 8-month old child.
ISSUE: W/N the “Battered Woman Syndrome” can be appreciated by the
Court as self-defense.
RATIO: Parricide is affirmed; penalty reduced to 6 yrs and 1 day prision
mayor min, to 14 yrs, 8 mos, and 1 day reclusion temporal as maximum.
No.
The Battered Woman Syndrome describes three phases of the cycle of
violence which must met to be considered as such ( 2 cycles are needed):
1. Tension-Building Phase – the woman tries to pacify the husband
which encourages the husband to believe that he is correct in his
position and, therefore, the abuse worsens.
2. Acute-Battering Phase – characterized by brutality,
destructiveness, and sometimes, death. The woman has no control
on this phase.
3. Tranquil Period – profound relief is experienced by both parties.
Batterer may show nurturing behavior toward partner and woman
tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again.
While the accused perfectly relayed the first phase, tension-building phase.
However, given that it is part of a “cycle”, it must manifest more than once
and the accused failed to prove such.
Neither did the accused sufficiently meet the third phase of the cycle – the
tranquil period – in order for the accused to suffer the “Battered Woman
Syndrome”.

BWS as SELF-DEFENSE

The Court found the defense claims to be devoid of merit.

Art. 11 provides that in order to invoke self-defense, the ff requisites must
concur:
 1. Unlawful Aggression (of which must be imminent and actual)
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
In the case at bar, the accused herself revealed that there was no unlawful
aggression during the couple’s argument, given that the victim retreated to
the bedroom which extinguished the factor of unlawful aggression.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

With the findings presented by the medical experts, the court appreciated
the mitigating circumstance that the accused acted out of passion and
obfuscation out of:
1. The cyclical nature and severity of the battery experienced by the
accused.
2. Defense not only of herself but of her 8 month-old child.

TREACHERY

REQUISITES OF TREACHERY:
1. Victim cannot defend himself during the attack.
No showing of such as the victim as forewarned by their argument of
such aggression
2. Offender consciously adopted particular
means/method/form of attack in executing the crime.
There is no proof that the accused employed specific means to kill her
husband. She merely remembered the gun the moment she decided her
to kill her husband.
Hence, the Court resolved this doubt in favor of the accused.
PEOPLE v. NARVAEZ
Facts:
 This is an appeal by the now RTC of South Cotabato which found
Mamerto Narvaez guilty of MURDER qualified by TREACHERY and
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION offset by a mitigating circumstance of
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER and to suffer Reclusion Perpetua and to
pay the heirs of Davis Fleischer 12K in compensatory damages, 10K
in moral damages, 2K for attorney’s fees, and costs.
 For the MURDER of Flaviano Rubia, same costs as above.
STORY
 This incident was apparently intertwined with a legal battle between
the Fleischer Co. and the land settlers of Cotabato.
 The accused was among those who moved from either North or
Central Luzon who moved to Cotabato and subsequently petitioned
to then President MLQ to convert the plantations into subdivisions
 One of these two plantations was bought by George Fleischer.
 The actual surveying of the subdivision lot was put to a stop due to
WW2
 The settlers would protest against this but the land would always be
awarded to the Fleischer Co.
 As a result, the settlers were removed from the land which they have
occupied for 30 years.
 The accused was one of those settlers who spent 20K to transfer to
his current abode which was not far from his previous residence.
 Prior to the shooting, the accused entered into a contract of lease
with the company for Php 16/month. As to who owned the land was
yet to be settled.
 The accused never paid rent claiming the milling they did for Rubia
was already a means of payment.
 This prompted Davis Fleischer, the victim, to send him a letter
indicating that the deal is off and he had 6 months to leave the land.
  In the afternoon of August 22, 1968, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano,
Cesar Ibanez together with the victims Davis Fleischer and Flaviano
Rubia were fencing the land of Fleischer’s father, George.
 The land is hacienda and the accused’s house and rice drier was
nearby.
 The accused was resting when he awoke to the sounds of his house
being chiselled and saw the fencing taking place.
 If the fencing were to continue, he would not be able to go inside his
house and the bodega/warehouse of his ricemill.
 He called out to the group asked them to stop the fencing and to
discuss how to settle their issues.
 Fleischer responded “No goddamit proceed go ahead”
 This pissed off Narvaez which prompted him to get his gun and shoot
at Fleischer.
 Rubia, who was with the group, ran to the jeep to get a gun but was
also shot by Narvaez. Both died due to injuries sustained.
ISSUE: W/N court erred in convicting Narvaez of murder when he acted
in defense of his person and rights.
RATIO:
The court found that there was aggression on the part of the victims
being that they were obstructing the entryway of the accused and even
as the accused attempted to sort the issue, he was angrily dismissed.
Indeed, there was an aggression on the accused’s property rights.
This is reiterated in the court’s decision in People vs. Encomiendas that
“Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault
of immediate and imminent kind.”
The necessity to defend the property by means of a gun is not
proportionate to the aggression.
HENCE, the appellant is found guilty of 2 counts of homicide mitigated
by incomplete defense and generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. He is ordered to indemnify the victim’s heirs of 4K each.
Given that he has been in detention for 14 years since his voluntary
surrender, his immediate release is hereby ordered.
PEOPLE v. BOHOLST-CABALLERO
Facts:
 This case involves a prayer for acquittal on a previous ruling which
found Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero guilty of Parricide by the then CFI
of Ormoc.
 The case basically involves a couple whose marriage turned sour
 On the evening of Jan 2, 1958, the victim Francisco Caballero was
drinking “tuba” with two friends, Ignacio Barabad, and Kakong Sacay.
 The group decided to head home at about midnight.
 The accused was waiting for her husband at the corner of yard.
 The accused approached the victim and suddenly stabbed him.
 His two companions brought him to St. Jude Hospital where the
owner Dr. Cesar Samson personally attended to the victim
 The doctor found a wound on the left of his lower back but advised
the group to move to Cebu City as his hospital did not have the
facilities to fully assist the victim.
 The accused surrendered to the police station and admitted to
stabbing her husband.
 The accused positively identified his wife as the perpetrator while he
was in the hospital.
 The victim died on the way to Cebu City via the MV Ormoc the same
day.
 The accused claimed to be in a rocky relationship with the victim
 That in the evening of the incident, her husband accused her of
prostituting herself, threatened to kill her and her child,
 He proceeded to hold her by the hair and slapped her until her nose
bled.
 She held onto his belt to keep herself steady and was able to grasp a
knife on the latter.
 He proceeded to choke her and made it known to her that he will kill
her.
 She was left with no other choice but to stab him with his knife.
  She reported the incident the following day but the police found no
sign of the weapon.
 The court found her guilty of Parricide. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: W/N the stabbing of the appellant’s husband is a
legitimate defense of her person?
RATIO: ACQUITTED
While there were inconsistencies theories as to how the crime happened,
the court ruled on the case based on the physical and objective
circumstances as in the case of People vs. Aquino (1973).
Upon cross-examination, it was revealed that the accused had joined a
caroling group and that it was the husband approached her to confront her
about her alleged prostitution.
Applying Art 11. Of the RPC, the Court finds that self-defense claims of the
accused are meritorious.
1. Unlawful aggression was established when her husband manhandled
her for her alleged prostituting as mentioned before.
2. On her instinct to survive, she grabbed her husband’s knife and stab
it at the latter as the choking served as the imminent danger in the
case at bar.
3. There was undoubtedly no provocation on the part of the accused,
given that it was her husband who approached her and assaulted
her.

PEOPLE v. ALCONGA SKIPPED

FACTS: