UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA

COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW 1
CASE DIGEST

Submitted by: John Kayle C. Borja

Submitted to: Fiscal Francis B. Reyes
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Table of Contents

Case 26: People of the Philippines vs. Ceilito Orita

Case 27: People of the Philippines vs. Florencio Abanilla
Case 28: People of the Philippines vs. Balas Medios
Case 29: People of the Philippine vs. Jose Geronimo
Case 30: People of the Philippines vs. Jose Agripa
Case 31: People of the Philippines vs. Natividad Luague
Case 32: Conrado Cano vs. People of the Philippines
Case 33: Honorable Court of Appleals vs. People of the Philippines
Case 34: Edwin Razon vs. People of the Philippines
Case 35: The United States vs. Catalino Merced
Case 36: Rodolfo C. Velasco vs. People of the Philippines
Case 37: Luis Marcos P. Laurel vs. Hon. Zeus C. Abrogar
Case 38: People of the Philippines vs. Cesario Sanchez
Case 39: People of the Philippines vs. Armando Sarabia
Case 40: People of the Philippines vs. Marivic Genoso
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
CELITO ORITA
G.R. No. 888724 | April 3, 1990

Facts:
The plaintiff Cristina S. Abayan is a 19-year-old freshman who studied at St. Joseph’s College in
Borongan, Eastern Samar. Appellant was a Philippine Constabulary (PC) soldier.
In the early morning of March 20, 1983, the complainant arrived at her boarding house. Soon
after his companion left. Suddenly, someone hugged her, and a knife was inserted in her neck.
He then admitted to the appellant that he was a frequent visitor at another border.
She begged him to release her, but he ordered her to go upstairs with him. With his left arm
wrapped around her neck and his right hand pushing a "balisong" around her neck, the appellant
dragged the complaint upstairs. He ordered her to find a room. With the Batangas knife still on
her neck, they entered the plaintiff's room.
The appellant pushed the complainant, whose head hit the wall, against the wall. The appellant
took a knife in one hand and took off his clothes. He then ordered the complainant to remove her
clothes. She was so scared that she took off her shirt. Then he took off her bra, pants, and
panties. He ordered her to lie down on the ground and then helped her up. He asked her to hold
his penis and insert it into her vagina. When he continued to poke her, she obeyed his orders.
However, the appellant could not penetrate her completely. As he continued to move, only part
of his penis entered her.
Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. In this position, only a
small part again of his penis was inserted into her vagina. At this stage, complainant thought of
escaping. She ran into the next room and locked herself in. The appellant chased her and climbed
onto the tablet. She fled to another room and jumped out the window. Still naked, she ran to the
municipal building about 18 meters from the bedroom and knocked on the door. In building,
police opened the door and found the complainant sitting naked on the stairs crying.

Issue:
Whether the accused is guilty of frustrated rape.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Held:
No, the crime committed was not frustrated it was consummated. The Supreme Court thru
Justice Medialdea further explain that, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has
carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the
offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. There for the
crime committed was consummated rape.
In addition, in a catena of cases decided by the Supreme Court it is clear and unequivocally
pronounced that perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of male organs into female
organs is sufficient. There is no rupture of the hymen or vaginal tear at the entrance of the labia
or the lips of the female organ is enough to prove guilt. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is
no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution were performed. The
offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
Source: G.R. No. 72244 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
FLORENCIO ABANILLA
G.R. Nos. 148673-75 | October 17, 2003

Facts:
The defendant, forty-four years old, was a widower for four years. He is a carpenter and often
gets drunk when he comes home at night. In June 1999, and in the second and last week of
October 1999, the defendant arrived at his home in Pulot Itaas, Batangas City, drunk. Around
10:00 in the evening, he was lying next to his sleeping daughter Lorena. Lorena was 17 years old
at the time. He touched her private parts, took off her shorts and panties, took off her clothes, and
pressed on her. He inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. Then he does up and
down exercises and expels the hot stuff from his penis.
He told Lorena not to make any noise, because her brothers slept in the same room. He warned
her not to tell anyone, because if she did, he would kill her. Out of fear, Lorena did not report
anyone, but on April 1, 2000, Lorena's godmother Modesta Ebola noticed that Lorena's breasts,
hips, and abdomen were enlarged and tried to talk to the latter, who said that the accused is the
responsible. for its condition. On April 3, 2000, when the defendant had a haircut, Lorena
denounced SPO4 Natividad, who arrested the defendant. Lorena was examined by a doctor and
had an ultrasound that confirmed that she was pregnant. On July 14, 2000, Lorena gave birth to a
boy.
Issue:
Whether the appellant was guilty of 3 counts of rape.
Held:
No, the Supreme Court explains that the first incident, however, cannot be deemed as rape. The
complainant’s testimony shows that appellant "was not able to insert his organ." Appellant
merely rubbed it against her private part until ejaculation. In People v. Campuhan, the Court
extensively discussed what should constitute rape under the doctrine laid down in People v.
Dulay, the traditional concept of rape is that carnal knowledge is gained against or without the
consent of the victim. If the rape is made by force, violence or intimidation, it is self-evident that
it was made against or without the victim’s consent.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis

indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external
surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.
As to the second and third incidents, the complainant’s candid narration is complete in all its
details. There was a categorical declaration that appellant either used force or threatened to kill
her before inserting his penis into her vagina. Evidently, all the required elements to convict for
rape are present: 1) the offender had carnal knowledge; and 2) by using force, threats or
intimidation. The Court finds no reason to doubt the testimony of the complainant, whose
credibility has already been passed upon by the trial court.
Source: G.R. No. 148673 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
BALAS MEDIOS
G.R. No. 132066-67 | November 29, 2001

Facts:
From 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm on December 7, 1992, three men, namely Artemio Palpal-latoc,
Manolito C. Ramos and José R. Guerto along Barangay San Miguel Drive west on the barangay
highway from Balungao, Pangasinan to the Artemio Palpallatoc pump. Suddenly, when
approaching the sewer, two men, who recognized Balas Medios and Rubén Cabural, took pills
from both sides of the road come out, stop them and say, "There are two people waiting here."
Then, Rubén Cabural immediately stabbed Artemio Palpallatoc, first hitting his forehead above
his left eye, and then hitting his left shoulder and his body.
The parts, including his left thigh, where the pill blade was broken and stuck, and then in the
stomach and armpit when the pill no longer had a sharp edge. At the same time, Balas Medios
stabbed and attacked José de Guerto and Artemio Palpallatoc. Ruben Cabral also stabbed
Manolito Ramos, but the latter escaped the stabbing and ran away unharmed.
Neither Artemio Palpal-latoc nor Manolito Ramos knew what happened to their companion, Jose
de Guerto, who they last saw being hacked and stabbed by Balas Medios with a bolo. It was not
until the following morning, at about 8:00 o'clock that they came to know that Jose de Guerto
was found lying dead at the middle of the barangay road, about 50 meters away from where he
and his companions were attacked the previous night.

Issued:
1. Whether there was a conspiracy between the two appellants.

2. Whether the lower Court correctly convicted the appellant of a crime of murder in Case
No. 3411-R and attempted murder in Case No. 3412-R
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Held:
1st
Yes, the Supreme Court states that, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement to
commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or
inferred from the acts that point to joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of
intent. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts, a
common intent or desire to attack so that the act of one accused becomes the act of all.
In this case, the specific actions of the defendants in the execution of criminal activities clearly
cooperated, indicating their common purpose. The defendant waiting in the ambush, one on both
sides of the road, suddenly attacked the victims, and heard the signal: "These are the two people
we are waiting for." As Palpallatoc said, when Cabural While stabbing him (Palpallatoc), the
appellant attacked Deguerto. While the attack continued, the defendant even shouted: "We are
going to kill you." Obviously, there is only one purpose between the two defendants, which
clearly shows the existence of a conspiracy. Since the defendants conspired through their
concerted actions, there is collective criminal responsibility. Regardless of the scope and nature
of the participation, the two conspirators bear the responsibility as the principal, because the
behavior of one person is the behavior of both parties.
2nd
No, because in criminal case no. 3412R, wherein appellant was indicted for frustrated murder,
the trial court convicted appellant of attempted murder on the ground that the injuries suffered by
Palpal-latoc were superficial, considering that the injuries suffered by Palpallatoc. However,
there is evidence that Paparatok would die like De Getto if there were no timely medical
assistance. Dr. Ordofiez testified that the penetrating wound to Palpallatoc's stabbed left thigh
was enough to cause his death if this wound and his other injuries were not treated.
In other words, if there is no tetanus vaccine, the thigh wound will be fatal. Furthermore, it
should be emphasized that what determines whether a crime is attempted or frustrated is not only
the severity of the injury, but also whether the subjective stage of the crime has passed and
whether the objective stage has been reached. Therefore, the crime that had been committed was
a crime of frustrated murder.
Source: G.R. No. 132066-67 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
JOSE GERONIMO
G.R. No. L-35700 | October 15, 1973

Facts:
Accused-appellants Enrico Geronimo, Romeo Geronimo, and Jose Geronimo, as well as the
deceased, Fermin Magbanua, arrived from the market place of Sigma, Capiz, already drunk and
stopped at the store of one Fesertas Bacalangco to buy ten liters of tuba on April 6, 1966, at
about 122:30 p.m. in Sitio Ilaya Ilaya, Poblacion Norte.
Fermin Magbanua and the accused began walking home after drinking, but after passing several
meters away from the Fesertas Bacalangco store, Fermin Magbanua was struck in the face by a
sling shot wielded by one Eleodoro Carlos. Fermin collapsed to the ground, and Romeo
Geronimo rushed over to catch him, while Jose Geronimo went around and struck Fermin in the
head with a stone, knocking him out.
Enrico Geronimo, who was held unconscious by Romeo, pulled Fermin's bolo from his belt and
hacked him on the right ankle joint, while Jose boloed his left ankle joint, nearly severing it. As a
result of his wounds, Fermin Magbanua perished.

Issues:
1. Whether there was a conspiracy between the appellant and Enrico Geronimo.
2. Whether the crime committed was murder.
3. Whether the appellant should be accorded of mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed and alternative circumstances of lack of
instruction.

Held:
1st
No, the Supreme Court in a catena of cases reiterated that, it should be noted that all the accused
and the victim were drinking together in a tuba store on the day of the incident. No other
evidence was presented by the prosecution to show conspiracy which according to the settled
rule, must be proved as clearly and as convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. It must
be real and not presumptive. In the absence of clear proof that the killing was in fact envisaged
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

by them, and there being no satisfactory showing that the

killing was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for
conspiracy.
2nd
Yes, because the record and the medical certificate show that the serious wounds inflicted upon
the deceased were all at the back part of the body, indicating that the assailants were behind the
deceased when they hacked the latter. In the situation pictured by these witnesses, there can
hardly be any doubt as to the helpless condition of the victim when he received the injuries
which caused his death. Treachery attended the killing where the nature and location of the
wounds indicate that the victim was attacked from behind. For murder results from the presence
of qualificative circumstances based upon the manner in which the crime was committed and not
upon the state of mind of the accused.
3rd
Yes, but not for both of them. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed should have been appreciated by the trial court, but not for both but
only for appellant Jose Geronimo who alone inflicted injury without intent to cause the death of
the victim when appellant Romeo Geronimo was holding him.
Regarding the alternative circumstance of lack of education, while the evidence shows that
appellant Romeo is unschooled, this circumstance alone is not sufficient. Illiteracy alone will not
constitute such circumstance. It must be accompanied by lack of sufficient intelligence and
knowledge of the full significance of one's act.
Source: G.R. No. L-35700 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
JOSE AGRIPA
G.R. No. 72244 | May 8,1992

Facts:
Jose Agripa went to bed early that night, but woke up when he felt a stab in the stomach. He
couldn't see the attacker because it was dark. He covered the wound with his right hand, but
stabbed him again in almost the same place the second time. Instinctively she curled up in a fetal
position, put her hands on the back of her neck and asked, "Why are you stabbing me?" He got
no response, but he soon thrust through her left arm a third time and pierced her right chest. At
that moment, he clenched the attacker's fist and the two fought for weapons in the dark. He can't
remember what happened next, because he must have passed out. He said he did not remember
what he said before he was sent to the hospital. He did not regain consciousness there until May
4, 1980, and was later told that his wife had tried to kill him.
His statement was confirmed by his 18-year-old son Edwin, who testified that there was no
dispute between his parents when his father went to bed early on the night of April 29, 1980.
However, his mother was usually angry. After finishing the course, he went to sleep by himself,
while his mother continued to fold clothes. Later he was awakened by the sound of fighting, and
when he turned on the flashlight, he saw his mother stabbing his father. He magnified his
testimony with gestures, swinging his right arm down in the simulated stab wound. Fearing to
help his father, he woke up his two brothers and ran with them to his grandfather's house to seek
their help. When they left, they heard their father say: "Why did you stab me?"
The violent nature of Adelfa was affirmed by another witness, Manuel Cardel, who testified that
he was in the store of one Macedonio in the afternoon of April 29, 1980, when he heard Adelfa
say she would stab Jose if he came home without any money.
Issue:
Whether the appellant must be accorded of justifying circumstances of self-defense.

Held:
Yes, the appellant must be accorded of justifying circumstances of self-defense because when the
accused invokes the justifying circumstance of self-defense, he loses the constitutional
presumption of innocence and assumes the burden of proving, with clear and convincing
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

evidence, the justification for his act. 10 The essential

elements of self-defense, according to Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code, are: a) unlawful
aggression: b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. We feel that all these
requisites are present and have been sufficiently established in the case at bar.
The accused was asleep when he was suddenly attacked by his wife with the intention of killing.
There was no warning for the deadly attack. There was no provocation, unless it was his insane
rage that he didn't take the salary home, which was not sufficient provocation as required by law.
José was in no way prepared to stab his abdomen and chest, posing a direct threat and danger to
his life. Under this fierce attack, he could only use the sole means to resist unknown attackers.
He snatched the knife from his insane wife and furiously attacked his killer. He stabbed him
blind, only thinking of saving his life, even if it drained from the wound he suffered. If he later
wounded his wife no less than fifteen times.
A Higher Tribunal shall judge Adelfa Agripa. But this Court need not wait a minute longer to
absolve the accused-appellant. Jose Agripa is innocent. There is no stronger instinct than the
instinct for survival, which moved him without fault to do what he did.

Source: G.R. No. 72244 (lawphil.net)

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
NATIVIDAD LUAGUE
[No. 43588. November 7, 1935]

Facts:
On the morning of February 18, 1935, the defendant Natividad Luague was at her home in
Lupuhan, Apanji District, Negros Calatrava, in the west, accompanied by her three minor
children, her husband and co-defendant Wenceslao Alcansare. Paulino Disuácido went to Juan
Garin’s house a few kilometers away to grind corn. He came and began to have sex with him;
since Nativida couldn’t stop his purpose, she went to Paulino to follow her in the kitchen at the
back, although she insisted that he could not satisfy her wish, because Paulino was determined to
satisfy their request at all costs, pulled out and opened a knife.
He threatened her with death, began to embrace her, and stroke her breasts. When preparing to
sleep with her, Paulino had to leave the knife on the floor, and the defendant took the opportunity
to take the weapon and stabbed him in the abdomen; Paulino felt injured, jumped out of the
window and fell on some rocks to escape, and the defendant went immediately The town
surrendered to the authorities and condemned Natividad Luague by fatally wounding Paulino
Disuasido.
Wenceslao Alcansare and Natividad Luague charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance
of Occidental Negros and sentenced, the former to the penalty of from eight years and one day of
prisión mayor, as the minimum, to fourteen years, eight months .and one day of reclusión
temporal, as the maximum, with the accessories of the law, and the latter to that of from six years
and one day of prisión mayor, as the minimum, to twelve years and one day of reclusión
temporal, as the maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law, both to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of Paulino Disuasido in the sum of one thousand pesos, with costs.

Issue:
Whether the accused acted on purely self-defense.

Held:
Yes, the accused acted on purely self-defense, because aside from the right to life on which rests
the legitimate defense of our person, we have the right to property acquired by us, and the right
to honor which is not the least prized of our patrimony. The attempt to rape a woman constitutes
an aggression sufficient to put her in a state of legitimate defense inasmuch as a woman's honor
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

cannot but be esteemed as a right as precious, if not more,

than her very existence; and it is evident that a woman who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the
offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal liability since such killing cannot be
considered a crime from the moment it became the only means left for her to protect her honor
from so great an outrage.
Source:https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b9cbadf1ef111f7da000d00d40059
004a/t/?o=False 7/8
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

CONRADO CANO
vs.
PEOPLE OF TH PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 155258 | October 7, 2003

Facts:
At around 7 am on May 31, 1993, the victim, Orlando Cano, arrived at the petitioner Rush's
identification booth located under the light rail line of Santa Cruz Rizal Avenue in Manila. The
victim asked David Olivario, an employee of the petitioner, where the petitioner was. The victim
said angrily that the petitioner was a pakialamero. He also said: "Putang ina niya! Why do you
want to copy our permit?" Since the petitioner has not yet arrived, the victim returned to the
Rush identification kiosk a few meters away from him.
The victim tried to stab the petitioner with balisong, but the latter managed to escape and locked
himself in the dark room inside his cabin. The victim followed him, tried to open the door to the
dark room and yelled, "Lumabas ka diyan! Putang ina mo, papatayin kita!" The complainant did
not come out. The victim tried to force open the door by kicking it and stabbed the door with her
balisong. The door to the dark room was suddenly opened and the petitioner came out with a pair
of scissors. The victim and the petitioner beat each other. In the tumult, the scissors slipped from
the petitioner's hand. He then grabbed the victim's knife and the victim took up the scissors
again. They attacked each other again.
The victim fell and his wife rushed to his side. Petitioner fled from the scene. The victim’s wife
asked for assistance from the people in the vicinity. The victim was then loaded on a jeep and
was rushed to a hospital, but he was dead on arrival

Issue:
Whether the accused must be accorded of justifying circumstances under Article 11 section 1 of
the Revised Penal Code.

Held:
Yes, the petitioner must be accorded of justifying circumstances of self-defense because for self-
defense to prosper, petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following
elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been
proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other
words, in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. It presupposes an actual,
sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person – not a mere
threatening or intimidating attitude – but most importantly, at the time the defensive action was
taken against the aggressor.
In addition, in order to properly adjudicate the self-defense as justifying circumstances the judge
must place himself in the position of the object of the aggression or his defender and consider his
feelings, his reactions to the events or circumstances. It is easy for one to state that the object of
the aggression or his defender could have taken such action, adopted such remedy, or resorted to
other means. But the defendant has no time for cool deliberation, no equanimity of mind to find
the most reasonable action, remedy or means to. He must act from impulse, without time for
deliberation.
Lastly, evidence shows that petitioner acted in lawful self-defense. Hence, his act of killing the
victim was attended by a justifying circumstance, for which no criminal and civil liability can
attach. Article 11 (1) of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that anyone who acts in
lawful self-defense does not incur any criminal liability. Likewise, petitioner is not civilly liable
for his lawful act. The only instance when a person who commits a crime with the attendance of
a justifying circumstance incurs civil liability is when he, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does
an act which causes damage to another, pursuant to subdivision of Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code. Otherwise stated, if a person charged with homicide successfully pleads self-
defense, his acquittal by reason thereof will extinguish his civil liability.
Source: G.R. No. 155258 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 51206. | August 25, 1989

Facts:
On the afternoon of December 21, 1976, Captain Nicolás Portane and his father Pedro Portane
from Barrio Abehilan, San Isidro District, Bohol, requested assistance from the Commander of
the San Isidro Police Station. Pedro Portane's son and Leopoldo's older brother were arrested.
Potane Nicolás, has begun to show signs of recurring insanity. Since arriving from Mindanao in
1974, Leopoldo has been acting strange and sometimes violent. On December 18, 1975,
Leopoldo chased Nicolás's wife with a polo shirt and nearly beat her to death.
He always took a bolus and threatened to kill his wife, daughter, brother and even his parents.
Fearing for his safety, they temporarily moved to the housekeeping building of a nearby school,
leaving Leopoldo alone in his father's house. Nicolás Potane and his immediate family want
Leopoldo to receive mental illness examination and treatment from provincial health officials.
Afterwards, the two policemen, accompanied by Nicolas Portane and others, went to Pedro
Portane's home where Leopoldo was located. He invited Leopoldo to have a drink, but Leopoldo
refused to go out of the house. Masipequiña then told Leopoldo that his father and brother
condemned him for chasing his sister-in-law with bolo, and his person in charge sent him to
investigate the report. He let Leopoldo down so they could talk.
Nicolas stayed on the door landing while Masipequiña entered the sala and was about to sit down
on a rocking chair when Leopoldo suddenly emerged from an adjacent room and rushed at him
swinging a bolo. Masipequiña pushed the rocking chair towards Leopoldo. Leopoldo hit
Masipequiña on the bridge of the nose. At this juncture, Masipequiña drew his revolver and fired
three shots. One shot misfired but the other two hit Leopoldo on the chest. Leopoldo continued to
advance towards him. He pushed the rocking chair at Leopoldo and ran out of the house shouting
for help.
Leopoldo ran after him. Pat Masipequiña jumped from the house and landed on the ground. In
the process he hit his shin on a piece of stone. Leopoldo also jumped to the ground and continued
to pursue Masipequiña. As Leopoldo poised to hack Pat. Masipequiña, Pat. Alampayan fired his
gun hitting Leopoldo once at the thigh.
Leopoldo Potane died some thirty minutes later while being brought to the health center for
treatment.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Issue:
Whether the petitioner Masipequiña must be accorded of justifying circumstances of self-
defense.

Held:
Yes, he must be accorded of justifying circumstances of self-defense because, the law on self-
defense embodied in any penal system in the civilized world finds justification in man’s natural
instinct to protect, repel, and save his person and rights from impending danger and peril; it is
based on that impulse of self-preservation born to man and part of his nature as a human being.
There was unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased Leopoldo Potane is evident from the
established facts. Leopoldo Potane, who had showed signs of mental illness and had threatened
his immediate relatives with a bolo, suddenly and without provocation attacked with a bolo
Masipequiña, whom he (Leopoldo Potane) has asked to go inside the house.
That there was reasonable necessity of the means employed by Masipequiña to prevent or repel
Leopoldo Potane’s attack is also supported by the evidence. It must also be borne in mind that
the rule is that the reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent the attack
depends upon the imminent danger of injury, not on the harm actually done to the accused. Thus,
that Masipequiña escaped serious injuries does not necessarily imply that the means he used to
repel the attack were unreasonable and excessive. The fact remains that the act of Leopoldo
Potane of attacking Masipequiña with a bolo was a very real danger to his life that the latter had
to repel the best way he can. That the gunshot wounds he inflicted on Leopoldo Potane proved to
be fatal does not make the means he employed any less reasonable under the circumstances.
Then, the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Masipequiña is too plain to even doubt.
He, together with Patrolman Alampayan had been tasked by his superior to apprehend Leopoldo
Potane upon complaint of his own father and brother. Thus, petitioners herein, when they went to
apprehend the deceased, were in the performance of their official duties as peace officers. And
when they reached the house where Leopoldo Potane was hiding, Masipequiña tried to coax
Leopoldo Potane into coming out of the house, but the latter would not. It was only when
Leopoldo Potane asked Masipequiña, who was his childhood friend, to enter the house that he
did, followed by Nicolas Potane. Masipequiña was about to take a seat, definitely a non-
provocative act, when he was suddenly attacked by Leopoldo Potane with a bolo.
Source:https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b9cc092d3a987a243000d00d400
59004a/t/?o=False 11/11
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

EDWIN RAZON
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 158053 | June 21, 2007

Facts:
Around midnight on August 1, 1993, the PO1 Francisco Chopchopen was walking towards the
city of Upper Pinget Baguio, at that time a car was being driven by Edwin Razon and Lucea
(Razon) The taxi was parked next to him. Razon told Chopchopen that he was detained by three
men at Dreamland Subdivision. Jop Choppen then asked Larsson to accompany him to the scene
of the incident to see if the person who detained him was still there. Reason was hesitant at first,
but eventually made his way to the area about 100 meters up the road with Chopchopen.
While walking about eight meters from the road, Chopchopen noticed a person lying on the
ground, partially covered by a large rock. Looking closer, Qiaopu Qiaoping discovered that the
man's shirt was soaked in blood and he could barely breathe. A wooden staff lay beside the man.
Chopchopen asked Razon to help him get the person to the hospital. Along the way, Qiao Piao
Peng asked Larsson if he stabbed the victim. Larsson replied no. They soon encountered a
mobile police patrol led by SPO2 Samuel Bumangil (Bumangil), and they followed them to
Baguio General Hospital. The victim was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo (Gonzalo)
and was pronounced dead on arrival3. He is 23 years old and a victim of polio.
Upon questioning, Razon told Bumangil that he was held up by three men, which included
Gonzalo whom he stabbed in self-defense. Razon brought out a fan knife and told Bumangil that
it was the knife he used to stab Gonzalo. A later search of the cab however yielded another
weapon, a colonial knife with bloodstains which was found under a newspaper near the steering
wheel. At the police station, Razon admitted having stabbed Gonzalo but insisted that he did so
in self-defense.

Issue:
Whether the petitioner was guilty of a crime of Homicide.

Held:
No, the petitioner must not be accorded of justifying circumstances as provided in the RPC
Section 1, Article 11 because self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated
by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and

the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of the prosecution.
Razon's assertion that he was held up, and assuming the same to be true, there was, indeed
unlawful aggression when Gonzalo poked a knife on Razon's neck. But, when Razon, in a
Herculean feat, was able to grab the knife from Gonzalo and freed his right hand from the hold
of Gonzalo's two companions, the aggression no longer existed. In fact, Gonzalo's two
companions, went out of the taxicab and Gonzalo himself went out also towards the canal of the
road. At this point, Razon could have started his taxicab and left the place because he was left
alone in the taxicab. But he did not.
He went after Gonzalo and his two companions and started swinging the knife he grabbed from
Gonzalo. He even had time to go back to the taxicab and get his own knife and then went back to
the three men. He then was holding two knives. There was no proof that Gonzalo's companions
were able to throw stones at him or the taxicab to indicate perhaps, that his three passengers who
intended to hold him up continued their unlawful aggression when Gonzalo and his two
companions went out of the taxicab, and Razon followed them outside, Razon became the
aggressor. The wounds sustained by Gonzalo would clearly show that he was attacked by Razon.
Therefore, when unlawful aggression ceased to exist the same was not consider as self-defense
but a retaliation.
Source: G.R. NO. 158053 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

THE UNITED STATES

vs.
CATALINO MERCED
G.R. No. L-14170 | November 23, 1918

Facts:
On the evening of March 4, Catalino Merced went to Teodora Sarasin's house in the Palimpinon
neighborhood of Luzuriaga and sat down for dinner with her at the invitation of the host. Soon
after, Apolonia Patrona also arrived and brought morisqueta or cooked rice from her
neighborhood. She also sat down to eat with the other two people mentioned above. After dinner,
Merced and Patron came down from the house one after another. After returning to the house
first, with the consent of the owner, they went to the main room of the house to rest.
The same is true for Apollonia Patrona, she soon returned to the house, and the two met in that
room and lay there sleeping. There, Teodora Sarasin, the owner of the house, slept with her
children. When she slept, she was awakened by the noise caused by the fighting in that room. At
this moment, Sarasin heard Apollonia tell her husband that she was injured, and she heard her
husband respond to her saying, "that is what you got."
These incidents, out of fear, the owner of the house abandoned her and walked through the
kitchen. A few minutes later, when she returned to look for her child, she found Apolonia
Patrona's husband Pantaleón Arabe stretched. On the mat he had slept on; it was bloody and
pressed against her belly. The witness now found the light that was previously turned off in the
house. A few hours later, when the justice of the peace began investigating the crime, he found
Arabe's body near the home of the deceased on the river bank. This is the testimony of Teodora
Sarasin.

Issue:
Whether Merced was guilty of a crime of homicide.

Held:
Yes, Merced was guilty of a crime of homicide because facts related above certainly constitute
the crime of homicide comprised within article 404 of the Penal Code. The record does not show
that the violent death of Pantaleon Arabe, as the result of one single serious and mortal would in
the left side of his back, was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

article 503 of said code. The two defendants and the owner
of the house, which latter person, awakened by the fight waged between the deceased and his
assailant within the main room of the house, was unable to see and witness what occurred, on
account of there being no light in the house, and learned that one of the fighters was Pantaleon
Arabe only.
On returning to her house which she had left through fear, to get her children, she found the
deceased, covered with blood, lying stretched out on the bed where she had lain, and, from the
presence of the deceased in her house, she deduced the conclusion that the fight had been
between the deceased and the defendant Merced. Furthermore, with respect to the qualification
of the crime, it may be held to have been proven, there being no proof to the contrary, that the
crime committed was only that of homicide, for the reason that the mortal wound which caused
Arabe's death was a consequence of the struggle engaged in by the latter and the defendant
Merced.
Sourrce: G.R. NO. 158053 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

RODOLFO C. VELASCO
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 166479 | February 28, 2006

Facts:
Prosecution evidence often shows that around 7:30 a.m. On April 19, 1998, private
whistleblower Frederick Maramba cleaned and cleaned his house in front of his house in Rasip
Grande, Dagupan. Main jeep. When a motor tricycle pulled up next to him. The defendant
Rodolfo Velasco abruptly got off the tricycle, approached the complainant and fired several shots
with a .45 caliber pistol. The defendant missed the first shot, but the second hit the author's upper
arm and knocked him to the ground. The author stood up and ran, while the accused continued to
shoot him but missed.
The shooting incident was reported to the police sub-station in Malued District by Barangay
Captain Dacasin of Lasip Grande, describing the suspect as wearing a vest or a "chaleco." The
police, composed of SPO4 Romulo Villamil, PO3 Rolando Alvendo, and SPO1 Soliven
respondent and pursued the accused who proceeded on board a motorized tricycle to the highway
going to Barangay Banaoang in Calasiao town.
In its decision dated 29 June 1999, the RTC of Dagupan City, Branch 41, found petitioner guilty
of the crime charged.

Issue/s:
1. Whether lack of motive could be used to negate the committed by the accused.

2. Whether the crime committed by the appellant was attempted murder.

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Held:
1st
No, motive could not be use as a defense to negate the criminal liability of the accused because it
must be stressed that motive is a state of (one’s) mind which others cannot discern. It is not an
element of the crime, and as such does not have to be proved. In fact, lack of motive for
committing a crime does not preclude conviction. It is judicial knowledge that persons have been
killed or assaulted for no reason at all.
Even in the absence of a known motive, the time-honored rule is that motive is not essential to
convict when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit.40 Motive assumes significance
only where there is no showing of who the perpetrator of the crime was.41 In the case at bar,
since petitioner has been positively identified as the assailant, the lack of motive is no longer of
consequence.
2nd
Yes, the accused must be held liable of a crime of attempted homicide because having
commenced the criminal act by overt acts but failing to perform all acts of execution as to
produce the felony by reason of some cause other than his own desistance, petitioner committed
an attempted felony. Petitioner already commenced his attack with a manifest intent to kill by
shooting private complainant seven times, but failed to perform all the acts of execution by
reason of causes independent of his will, that is, poor aim and the swiftness of the latter. Private
complainant sustained a wound on the left arm that is not sufficient to cause his death. The
settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the
crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that
would have brought about death.
Source: G.R. No. 166479 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL

vs.
HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR
G.R. No. 155076 | February 27, 2006

Facts:
The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) is a legislative concessionaire for
the provision of local and international telecommunications services under Republic Law No.
7082. According to the law, the PLDT is authorized to establish, operate, administer, lease,
maintain and buy telecommunications systems, including national and international transmitting,
receiving and exchange stations. To do this, it has installed approximately 1.7 million telephone
lines nationwide. PLDT also provides other services authorized by the Certificate of Need and
Public Convenience (CPCN) officially issued by the National Telecommunications Commission
(NTC), and operates and maintains the International Gateway Facility (IGF). Therefore, the
PLDT network is mainly composed of the public switched telephone network (PSTN), the
telephone terminals and / or telecommunications equipment used by its users, the wires and
cables that connect the telephone terminals and / or telecommunications equipment, antennas,
IGF and other interconnection telecommunications equipment.
PLDT also discovered that Baynet was subscribed to a total of 123 123 PLDT lines / telephone
numbers. Based on a traffic survey performed by the number of calls that pass through the
Baynet ISR network that overlooks the Goll Center, PLDT has generated the estimated monthly
loss of P10. In the Securities and Exchange Commission, 185, 325.96. Restoration revealed that
BayNet has no permission to provide national or national long-term telephone services in Japan.
The following is the officer: Japan National (President, President). Gina C. Mukaida, Filipino
(President, Board of Directors). Luis Marcos P. Laurel, the Philippines (Member of the Board
and Corporate Secretary). Ricky Chan PE, Philippines (Member of the Board and Accounting);
and permanent (Member of the Board). With the complaints of PLDT for Baynet for network
scams, and the strength of two search warrant.

Issue/s: Whether intangible property could be the subject of a crime of theft.

Held:
No, intangible property couldn’t be the subject of a crime of theft because as a general rule is
that, only movable properties which have physical or material existence and susceptible of
occupation by another are proper objects of theft. According to Cuello Callon, in the context of
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

the Penal Code, only those movable properties which can be

taken and carried from the place they are found are proper subjects of theft. Intangible properties
such as rights and ideas are not subject of theft because the same cannot be “taken” from the
place it is found and is occupied or appropriated.
Thus, movable properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code should be distinguished
from the rights or interests to which they relate. A naked right existing merely in contemplation
of law, although it may be very valuable to the person who is entitled to exercise it, is not the
subject of theft or larceny. Such rights or interests are intangible and cannot be “taken” by
another.
Source:https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b9cc75b03a521f0ec000d00d4005
9004a/t/?o=False 34/34
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
CESARIO SANCHEZ
G.R. No. 118423 | June 16, 1999

Facts:
The prosecution’s evidence shows that on November 23, 1986, Hilario Miranda, Rene Alegre,
Jessie Pajimola, Rómulo Márquez, Freddie Miranda, Eladio Miranda and several others went to
his fish pond to celebrate their daughter’s birthday. Grace. At around 5:00 in the afternoon,
Hilario Miranda and his companions went to their home in Barangay Villanueva, Bautista,
southwest of Panga. When the group reached the Barangay Villanueva Provincial Highway, the
appellant Sánchez blocked the middle of Highway, while the other appellants José, Contawe,
Abayan, Robiños and Callo were about 20 to 25 meters behind him. 4 Contawe, Robiños, and
Callo took their fun; Jose hung his skittle on his shoulder, and Abayan held two number one
stones. The appellant Sanchez confronted Hilario Miranda, accusing Sanchez of stealing wood
and fish from ipilipil. After that, a controversy ensued.
Miranda's son-in-law, Renato Alegre, tried to appease Miranda, saying, "Enough, Manon." As
the dispute between Sánchez and Miranda escalated, Sánchez returned to his partner. Se, Carlo,
Robinos, Kontawi, and Abayan are all around, and then they surround the group of victims in a
way that no one can move. Freddie Miranda, the victim's son, asked Abayan, who was holding
two stones. "Why did you hit us with stones?" Abayan replied, "You are arrogant from the east."
José approached the victim. A colleague of the writer (Jesse Pagimola) told him in the Ilokan
dialect "Saan kayo nga makiramraman" ("Do not interfere"). José walked behind Hilario
Miranda and nodded to Sánchez. After seeing the signal, the appellant Sánchez pulled a knife
from the sleeve of his left arm and stabbed the victim in the abdomen. The victim's son, Freddie
Miranda, tried to hunt down Sánchez, but he (Freddie) was blocked by appellant José. José took
his bolo and said "Saan mon nga itutuloy ta sica ti sumaruno" (Do not continue, otherwise you
are the next one.” Other recurrent ones also kept their Polo in a hit position. Therefore, Freddie
had no choice but to return to his father, who was seriously injured but tried valiantly to remain
on his feet. Freddie drew his gun from his father's belly. The weapon was later turned over to
PFC. Rodolfo Tagulau, Jr., member of the National Integrated Police of Pangasan Bautista.
Freddie Miranda and Renato Alegre greeted a passing tricycle to take the victim to the hospital.
Unfortunately, the victim died on the way.

Issue/s:
1. Whether there was a conspiracy between the accused.
2. Whether self-defense is properly invoked.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Held:
1st
Yes, the accused found to had been conspired in killing the victim because the co-accused were
not merely present in the crime scene, they directly participated in the criminal design of the
appellant Sanchez by their concerted acts. Indeed, for collective responsibility among the herein
accused to be established it is not necessary or essential that there be a previous plan or
agreement to commit the assault; it is sufficient that at the time of aggression all the accused by
their acts manifested a common intent or desire to attack the victim, so that the act of one
accused became the act of all.
2nd
The justifying circumstance of self-defense "is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with
certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of
criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. 49 Where the accused has admitted that
he is the author of the death of the deceased, it is incumbent upon the appellant, in order to avoid
criminal liability, to prove this justifying circumstance (self-defense) claimed by him, to the
satisfaction of the court.
To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the
prosecution for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted the
killing. 50 And more so when his co-appellants themselves categorically testified that they saw
appellant Sanchez stab the victim, without corroborating his claim of self-defense. In addition,
the prosecution witnesses, in clear and concise language, positively and steadfastly maintained
that appellant together with his five companions, armed with bolo in striking position,
surrounded the victim and his companions, whereupon Sanchez stabbed the victim in the
stomach.
Source: G.R. No. 118423 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
ARMANDO SARABIA
G.R. No. 106102 | October 29, 1999

Facts:
At about 11:00 in the evening, while Dolorosa and Lisa were in the office of the transfer station,
the appellant suddenly rushed into the room with a gun in his hand. Without warning, the
appellant chopped the unsuspecting Lisa twice, once on the head and once on the neck. Worried
about her life, Dolo Rosa instinctively ran out of the office and hid in the nearest shelter she
could think of: an old, enclosed sugar cane cart used to store sugar. This car is the favorite
resting place for employees at that transfer station.
When Dolorosa got in the car, she saw Raúl Villanueva and four other employees there. He
immediately told Villanueva what had happened. When they were about to get out of the car,
they saw the appellant, who was still holding a pole and screaming. "Who are the others?" So,
they decided to stay in the car for a while. When they were inside, they saw that the appellant
was being touched up by a subordinate of the stationmaster. The foreman took the appellant to
the city hall, when Dolorosa and the company got out of the car. They returned to the station
office.
Inside the station office, Dolorosa and Villanueva saw Liza dead and covered with blood. Liza's
neck was almost severed. They saw a hacked wound on the left portion of Liza's neck measuring
about three to four inches in length. Without touching the corpse, Dolorosa and Villanueva
contacted the Victorias Milling Company by radio and reported the incident. Then, policemen
arrived at the scene, followed by an investigator and photographer from the Victorias Milling
Company. Rolando Liza, father of the deceased-victim, also arrived at the station. Photographs
were taken of Liza's corpse and the interior of the station office. All these were identified by
Dolorosa in open court.
Issue/s:
Whether the accused must be accorded of justifying circumstances of self-defense.
Held:
No, in a catena of cases decided by the Supreme court, it was held that having invoked the
justifying circumstance of self-defense, the appellant is deemed to have admitted having killed
the victim and the burden of proof shifted to him to establish and prove the elements of self-
defense, to wit, "(a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (b) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself. Self-defense must be established with clear and convincing evidence.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

It has also been held by this Court that; unlawful aggression

is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. For unlawful
aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent
danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the appellant must present
proof of positively strong act of real aggression. Absent such unlawfu1 aggression, there can be
no self-defense.
All things studiedly considered in proper perspective; the Court finds the guilt of the appellant
proven beyond reasonable doubt. His allegation that he acted in self-defense has not been
substantiated. The prosecution was also able to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery
and the evident premeditation as generic aggravating circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt.
Source: G.R. No. 106102 (lawphil.net)
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

VS.
MARIVIC GENOSO
G.R. No. 135981 | January 15, 2004

Facts:

Ben Genosa returned to his home, which he shared with his wife Leyte, on November 15, 1995,
after participating in a cockfight. Ben discovered that his wife was missing from the house and
that she had gone to Isabel, Leyte to hunt for him. He didn't notice until his wife arrived, and a
witness, Arturo Basobas, claimed that he overheard the couple arguing. Arturo hadn't seen Be
since that day. The appellant had requested her friend to look after her pig and sell their
motorcycle the next day, but her friend was unable to do so since the intended buyer lacked
funds. On the same day, the appellant was seen boarding a bus to Ormoc with her children and
belongings.

The landlord, Steban Matiga, was notified of a terrible odor emerging from the residence on
November 18 of the same year, and he decided to pay the residence a visit. Because the gate was
locked, he smashed the padlock to gain access. Once inside, he went to Ben's room, where he
discovered him resting on his side in a bed covered in covers, only wearing his underpants. After
being captured, the appellant confesses to killing her husband. She did it out of self-defense,
according to her own account, after they got into a quarrel when the latter returned home from
gambling. The deceased allegedly threatened her with a knife and was ready to attack her, so she
ran to her bedroom, only to be overtaken by the deceased. Ben's clothes were subsequently
packed by the appellant because she wanted him out of the house. Ben supposedly became
enraged as a result of this. Another brawl erupted, culminating in the appellant's murder of her
husband. The appellant argued that she shot her husband, not strike him with the pipe as the
authorities thought when they arrived at the scene to investigate.

Issue:

Whether battered syndrome as justifying circumstances of self-defense could be invoked.

Held:

Yes, battered syndrome as justifying circumstances was properly invoked because the appellant
and the deceased had a difficult marriage, according to the evidence. It was no secret to anyone
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

who knew them as a marriage, as there had been numerous

instances of violent altercations and both spouses had suffered severe injuries as a result. The
Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense would not immediately relieve the appellant from
criminal accountability, as proof for injuring/killing the abusive husband in self-defense must
still be established.

The appellant must prove that she's already expected imminent harm from her abuser, that she
seemed to have no choice but to fight back in order to rescue herself and, in this case, her unborn
child and her children, based on expert views from the documents. In the matter at hand, the
appellant testified that the violence had already stopped and that her husband had gone to bed,
therefore he wasn't a threat to her at the moment. In these circumstances, the appellant's killing
of her spouse was not entirely justifiable. Nonetheless, considering Art. 13 par. 9 and 10, the
Court finds her situation to be mitigating.

Source: G.R. No. 135981 (lawphil.net)