CASE DIGEST CRIM LAW 1

PEOPLE vs. ADRIANO

FACTS:

Accused Appellant Rolly Adriano Samson is charged with Murder and Homicide for the death of Danilo
Cabiedes and Ofelia Bulanan, respectively, in Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija.

At around 8am on March 13, 2007, PO1 Matthew Garabiles and PO2 Alejandro Santos, in their civilian
attire, were on their way to Camp Olivas, Pampanga, when a speeding blue Toyota Corolla with plate
number WHK 635, overtook them and the car in front of them, a maroon Honda CRV with a plate
number of CTL 975

When the Corolla reached the CRV, the passenger on the front seat shot the CRV causing it to swerve
and fall in the canal embarkment. Four armed men alighted from the Corolla and started shooting the
driver of the CRV who was later identified as Cabiedes. During the shooting, a bystander, Bulanan, was
shot by a stray bullet.

Later, Cabiedes and Bulanan died from the fatal gun wounds. Cabiedes was pronounced dead on arrival
at Good Samaritan Generaln Hospital due to the 3 gunshot wounds in the left side of his chest while
Bulanan died on the spot for the gunshot on her head.

In the investigation conducted, the police learned that the Corolla used was registered under the name
of Antonio Rivera who owns a car rental business. But Rivera clarified that he owned the Corolla was
leased to Adriano. Later that day, Adriano arrived in Rivera’s shop where he was immediately arrested
and brought to Provincial Special Operations Group Headquarters in Cabanatuan City.

In examining the crime, one deformed fired bullet from a .45 caliber firearm and 5 cartridges from a .45
caliber firearm were recovered.

RTC ruled that Adriano was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder of Danilo Cabiedes and sentenced
with reclusion perpetua. Adriano was also indemnified to pay the heirs of Cabiedes with 50,000 and
222,482 for the actual damages.

Adriano was also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide for the death of Ofelia Bulanan and
sentenced with indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day, pricion mayor as minimum
to 17 years and 4 months, reclusion temporal as maximum and indemnify the heirs of Ofelia Bulanan
with 50,000.

CA affirmed with the RTC’s decision with modification that the award of 50,000 as civil indemnity to the
heirs of Cabiedes is increased to 75,000.

ISSUE:

Whether Adriano is guilty for the death of Bulanan who died from being shot of a stray bullet?

Whether Treachery be appreciated in Aberratio Ictus?

RULING:
The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the death of Bulanan.
Stray bullets, obviously, kill indiscriminately and often without warning, precluding the unknowing victim from
repelling the attack or defending himself. At the outset, Adriano had no intention to kill Bulanan, much less, employ
any particular means of attack. Logically, Bulanan's death was random and unintentional and the method used to
kill her, as she was killed by a stray a bullet, was, by no means, deliberate. Nonetheless, Adriano is guilty of the
death of Bulanan under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, 23 pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which
imposes criminal liability for the acts committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences
resulting therefrom. While it may not have been Adriano's intention to shoot Bulanan, this fact will not exculpate
him. Bulanan' s death caused by the bullet fired by Adriano was the natural and direct consequence of Adriano's
felonious deadly assault against Cabiedes.

Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act be different from that
which is intended. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally or logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. The rationale of the rule is found in the
doctrine, 'el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado ', or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused.26

Treachery may be appreciated in Aberratio Ictus.

Although Bulanan's death was by no means deliberate, we shall adhere to the prevailing jurisprudence pronounced
in People v. Flora,30 where the Court ruled that treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus. In Flora, the
accused was convicted of two separate counts of murder: for the killing of two victims, Emerita, the intended
victim, and Ireneo, the victim killed by a stray bullet. The Court, due to the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, qualified both killings to murder. The material facts in Flora are similar in the case at bar.
Thus, we follow the Flora doctrine.

Also, contrary to the defense's allegation that Bulanan' s death was not established, a perusal of the records would
reveal that Bulanan's fact of death was duly established as the prosecution offered in evidence Bulanan's death
certificate.31

Adriano is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the death of Danilo Cabiedes and Ofelia Bulanan.
PEOPLE vs. CAMPUHAN (Consummated Rape vs. Attempted Rape)

FACTS:

Primo Campuhan was a helper of Conrado Plata, Jr who was the brother of Corazon Pamintuan, the mother of 4-
year-old Chrystel Pamintuan, the victim.

Corazon went downstairs to make milo drinks for her children when she heard one of her daughters shouting
“Ayoko na! Ayoko na!” prompting her to run upstairs. Thereupon, she saw the accused Primo inside her children’s
room kneeling before Chrystel whose joggings pants were removed and panties were removed while his pants
were on his knees.

According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis inside Chrystel’s vagina. She started throwing blows against
Primo while Primo was pulling his pants up. He evaded her blows and pushed her aside when she was blocking his
path. Corazon ran outside and shouted for help. Her brother, cousin and other relatives answered her call and
apprehended Primo.

Physical examination results yielded negative results. There was no penetration as Chrystel’s hymen was still intact
and no extra-genital physical injury was noted.

Accused Prim was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for statutory rape and a penalty of indeterminate
sentence of death and was ordered to pay his victim 50,000 for moral damages, 25,000 for exemplary damages and
costs

ISSUE:

Whether the rape committed was consummated for Primo to be sentenced with death

RULING:

Primo Campuhan is guilty of statutory rape and the sentence and penalty are modified.

Attempted rape and sentenced with and indeterminate term in prison for 8 years 4 months and 10 days, pricion
mayor as minimum to 14 years 10 months and 20 days, reclusion temporal medium as maximum

The penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death for the
offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor below seven (7) years. Two (2) degrees lower
is reclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon the accused shall be taken from the
medium period of reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
(1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while the minimum shall be taken from the
penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor, the range of which is from six (6) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.
He is found guilty for attempted rape

The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12), as provided in
Art. 335, par. (3), of the Revised Penal Code. Crysthel was only four (4) years old when sexually molested, thus
raising the penalty, from reclusion perpetua to death, to the single indivisible penalty of death under RA 7659, Sec.
11, the offended party being below seven (7) years old.

Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, 16 and not merely for
the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching
the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the
slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be
no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.

SERRANO vs. PEOPLE (Frustrated Homicide vs. Attempted Homicide)

FACTS:

The case stemmed from a brawl involving 15 to 18 members of two (2) rival groups that occurred at the
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City (UP) on the evening of March 8, 1999. The incident
resulted in the stabbing of Anthony Galang (victim). Pinpointed as the victim’s assailant, the petitioner
was charged on March 11, 1999,5 with frustrated homicide in an Information that reads:

That on or about the 8th day of March 1999, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to
kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence
upon the person of one ANTHONY GALANG Y LAGUNSAD, by then and there stabbing him on the
stomach with a bladed weapon, thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the
crime of homicide, as a consequence but which nevertheless did not produce it, by reason of some
causes independent of the will of the accused; that is the timely and able medical assistance rendered to
said ANTHONY GALANG Y LAGUNSAD which prevented his death, to the damage and prejudice of the
said offended party.

RTC found Serrano guilty beyond reasonable doubt with Frustrated Homicide and sentenced with
imprisonment of 4 years 2 months 1 day prision correctional.

However, CA ruled that the crime is not frustrated but instead attempted on the ground that there
was no evidence that the injury that the victim sustained is sufficient to cause death.

ISSUE:

Whether the homicide committed by the accuse frustrated or attempted.

RULING:

Accused Giovanni Serrano committed Attempted Homicide.

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended defines the stages of a felony in the following
manner:

ART. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. – Consummated felonies, as well as

those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. [Emphasis and italics
supplied.]

The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound inflicted which must be supported by
independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause the victim’s death without
timely medical intervention.

The danger to life of any wound is dependent upon a number of factors: the extent of the injury, the
form of the wound, the region of the body affected, the blood vessels, nerves, or organs involved,
the entrance of disease-producing bacteria or other organisms into the wound, the age and
constitution of the person injured, and the opportunities for administering proper surgical treatment.

When nothing in the evidence shows that the wound would be fatal without medical intervention, the
character of the wound enters the realm of doubt; under this situation, the doubt created by the lack
of evidence should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Thus, the crime committed should be
attempted, not frustrated, homicide.
EDENETINO vs. PEOPLE

FACTS:

In November 5, 2001, in the Municipality of Maasin, Province of Iloilo, accused Eden Etino attacked,
aasaulted and shot Jesseriel Leyble with an unlicensed firearm, inflicting upon the victim gunshot
wounds on the different parts of the body of the victim.

RTC charged Etino with frustrated homicide and sentenced with imprisonment of 2 years 4 months and 1
day, pricion correctional as minimum to 8 years and 1 days pricion mayor, as maximum. Accused was not
awarded for damages in favor Leyble as it found that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to file
the civil aspect of the case.

CA, on the other hand, affirmed RTC’s decision with a modification. Accused was ordered to pay Leyble
with 25, 000 for moral damages and 10,000 for temperate damages.

Petitioner filed for certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the accused is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt for homicide even if medical evidence was
not presented in the court
2. Whether the CA erred in finding the testimonies of the petitioner and his witnesses incredible and
unbelievable
3. Whether the CA erred when it disregarded petitioner's defenses, i.e., the lapse of unreasonable time for
Leyble to file the complaint against him, the failure of Leyble to positively identify him as the assailant, and
Leyble's motive in filing the case against him.

RULING:

There was no proof of the extent of the injury sustained by the victim.

The prosecution failed to present evidence to prove that the victim would have died from his wound without timely
medical assistance, as his Medical Certificate alone, absent the testimony of the physician who diagnosed and
treated him, or any physician for that matter, is insufficient proof of the nature and eh1:ent of his injury. This is
especially true, given that said Medical Certificate merely stated the victim's period of confinement at the hospital,
the location of the gunshot wounds, the treatments he received, and his period of healing.

The intent to kill was not sufficiently established

"The assailant's intent to kill is the main element that distinguishes the crime of physical injuries from the crime of
homicide. The crime can only be homicide if the intent to kill is proven."

In Rivera v. People,41 the Court ruled that "[i]ntent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by
direct or circumstantial evidence"42 which may consist of:

[a)] the means used by the malefactors;

[b)] the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
[c)] the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim;
[d)] the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and,
[e)] the motives of the accused,

Moreover, the Court held in Rivera that intent to kill is only presumed if the victim dies as a result of a deliberate
act of the malefactors.

Although it was sufficiently shown that a 12-gauge gunshot was fired by the petitioner, there was no other
evidence to prove that the petitioner has the animus interficendi or the intent to kill the victim. It is also noted that
the petitioner fired at a close-range but did not hit any vital part of the victim’s body based on the medical
certificate presented and he was able to fled from the scene of the shooting.

The Court affirmed CA’s decision but with modification. The Court found Eden Etino guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Serious Physical Injury and sentenced to suffer indeterminate sentence of 4 months of arresto mayor, as
minimum to 1 year and 8 months pricion correctional as maximum.

JACINTO vs. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner Gemma Jacinto, along with two other women, Anita Valencia and Jacqueline Capitle, were charged
with Qualified Theft.

Baby Aquino, a client of Mega Foam Inc., handed petitioner with a BDO check for the payment of her purchase
to Mega Foam amounting to 10,000 pesos. Somehow, the check was deposited in a Land Bank account under the
name of Generoso Capitle who was the husband of Jacqueline Capitle, sister of Anita Valencia and former
purchasing and inventory clerk of Mega Foam.

Meanwhile, Rowena Ricablanca, another employee of Mega Foam received a call from a customer Jennifer
Sanalila asking if she can issue check payable to the account of Mega Foam instead of check payable to cash
since apparently, Capitle instructed her to pay check payable to Cash to Mega Foam. Ricablanca, around that
time, received another call from an employee of Land Bank Valenzuela Branch who was looking for Generoso
Capitle to inform him that the BDO check deposited in his account was dishonored.

Ricablanca then called accused Valencia, former employee of Mega Foam, asking her on the call from Land Bank
regarding the bounced check. Valencia then told Ricablanca that the check came from Baby Aquino and
instructed her to tell Baby Aquino to replace the check to cash. She also told Ricablanca of the plan to take the
cash and divide it equally into 4 which was for herself, Ricablanca, petitioner Jacinto and Capitle.

Upon the advice of the Mega Foam’s accountant, RIcablanca reported the matter to John Dyhengco, owner of
Mega Foam.
Dhyengco asked Baby Aquino to confirm the matter which Aquino confirmed that she handed the BDO check to
the petitioner amounting to 10,000 for the purchase of Mega Foam. She further testified that she was informed
that the check bounced. But she clarified that she already paid 10,000 in cash in replacement of the check.

He then filed for a complaint to NBI and worked out for an entrapment operation where ten pieces of 1,000-peso
bills were marked by Dhyengco and dusted with fluorescent powder by the NBI. Ricablance was tasked to
pretend that she was going along with the plan of Valencia.

On August 15, 2007, Ricablanca and petitioner met at the latter's house. Petitioner, who was then holding the
bounced BDO check, handed over said check to Ricablanca. They originally intended to proceed to Baby Aquino's
place to have the check replaced with cash, but the plan did not push through. However, they agreed to meet
again on August 21, 2007.

On the agreed date, Ricablanca again went to petitioner’s house, where she met petitioner and Jacqueline
Capitle. Petitioner, her husband, and Ricablanca went to the house of Anita Valencia; Jacqueline Capitle decided
not to go with the group because she decided to go shopping. It was only petitioner, her husband, Ricablanca
and Valencia who then boarded petitioner's jeep and went on to Baby Aquino's factory. Only Ricablanca
alighted from the jeep and entered the premises of Baby Aquino, pretending that she was getting cash from
Baby Aquino. However, the cash she actually brought out from the premises was the ₱10,000.00 marked money
previously given to her by Dyhengco. Ricablanca divided the money and upon returning to the jeep, gave
₱5,000.00 each to Valencia and petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner and Valencia were arrested by NBI agents, who
had been watching the whole time.

Petitioner and Valencia were brought to the NBI office where the Forensic Chemist found fluorescent powder on
the palmar and dorsal aspects of both of their hands. This showed that petitioner and Valencia handled the
marked money. The NBI filed a criminal case for qualified theft against the two and one Jane Doe who was later
identified as Jacqueline Capitle, the wife of Generoso Capitle.

RTC found Gemma Jacinto, Anita Valencia, and Jacqueline Capitle guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Qualified
Theft and each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of FIVE (5) YEARS, FIVE (5)
MONTHS AND ELEVEN (11) DAYS, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND
TWENTY (20) DAYS, as maximum.

ISSUE:

Whether the worthless check be an object of Theft

RULING:

According to Article 308 in relation to Article 310 both from the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the crime
of Qualified Theft are:

1. the taking of personal property-as shown by the fact that petitioner, as collector for Mega
Foam, did not remit the customer's check payment to her employer and, instead,
appropriated it for herself

2. said property belonged to another-the check belonged to Baby Aquino, as it was her
payment for purchase, she made;
 3. the taking was done with intent to gain- this is presumed from the act of unlawful taking and
further shown by the fact that the check was deposited to the bank account of petitioner's
brother-in-law

4. it was done without the owner’s consent -petitioner hid the fact that she had received the
check payment from her employer's customer by not remitting the check to the company

5. it was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force
upon things-the check was voluntarily handed to petitioner by the customer, as she was
known to be a collector for the company

6. it was done with grave abuse of confidence-petitioner is admittedly entrusted with the
collection of payments from customers.

However, as may be gleaned from the aforementioned Articles of the Revised Penal Code, the personal property
subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This
is further bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused is
dependent on the value of the thing stolen.

Article 4(2). Criminal Responsibility. - Criminal responsibility shall be incurred:

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate to ineffectual
means.

The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or
property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible,
or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.

Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.

Petitioner is found guilty of an impossible crime.

VELASQUEZ vs. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioners Nicolas and Victor Velasquez pleaded for justifying circumstance on the criminal case filed against
him by the victim Jesus Del Mundo.

Jesus Del Mundo was assaulted and feloniously attacked by the petitioners together with 4 other men – Felix
Cabellada, Sonny Velasquez, Jojo Del Mundo and Ampong Ocumen. This stemmed from when Del Mundo saw
Ampong, one of the attackers, and Nora Castillo doing a sexual activity in Del Mundo’s nipa hut which in his view
is a defilement of his property. Del Mundo shouted invectives towards Ampong and Nora who both scampered
away. But he still pursued the two while his wife, Ana Del Mundo went to fetch their son.

While on his way back home, he was blocked by Ampong and his fellow accused.

Without provocation,

Nicolas Velasquez hit the left side of Jesus’ forehead with a stone.
Victor Velasquez hit Jesus’ left eyebrow with a stone.
Felix Cabellada hit Jesus above his left ear.
Sonny Velasquez struck Jesus with a bamboo rod hitting him on the back, right below his right shoulder.
Ampong hit Jesus on his left cheek.

The accused left Jesus bloodied on the ground. Jesus crawled and hid behind the grass and walk back home
staggering.

He was brought to the hospital where he went through an x-ray examination.

Results:

Positive Alcoholic Breath

3 ems lacerated wound fronto-parietal area left
1 cm lacerated wound frontal area left
Abrasion back left multi linear approximately 20 cm
Abrasion shoulder left, confluent 4x10 cm
Depressed skull fracture parietal area left.

Dr. De Guzman noted that the injuries Jesus sustained required medical attention for 4 to 6 weeks. He was also
advised to undergo surgery but he didn’t avail for it due to shortage of funds.

The petitioners filed a different version of the events where they assailed that they only acted in response to Del
Mundo’s aggressive behavior when he was hacking Victor’s door with a stone and vented his ire upon Nicolas
and his wife, Mercedes.
The Regional Trial Court Branch 41 of Dagupan City found petitioners and Felix Caballeda guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of attempted murder. The court also found Sonny Boy Velasquez guilty beyond reasorable
doubt of less serious physical injuries. He was found to have hit Jesus on the back with a bamboo rod. Jojo Del
Mundo was acquitted. The case was archived with respect to Ampong, as he remained at large.

Nicolas Velasquez, Victor Velasquez and Felix Cabellada were sentenced to suffer on indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years and one (1) day of Arrested Mayor in its maximum period as minimum to eight (8) years of Prison
Correctional in its maximum period to Prison Mayor in its medium period as maximum and to pay
proportionately to private complainant Jesus del Mundo the amount of Php55,000.00 as exemplary damages,
and to pay the cost of suit.

The Court likewise finds the accused SONNY BOY VELASQUEZ [guilty] beyond reasonable doubt of the [crime] of
Less Serious Physical Injuries defined and penalized under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code and pursuant
thereto, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Arresto Mayor on one (1) month and one (1) day to six
(6) months.

The petitioners filed an appeal on the Court of Appeals which modified the ruling of RTC finding that petitioners
and Caballeda were only liable for serious physical injuries because "first, intent to kill was not attendant
inasmuch as the accused-appellants, despite their superiority in numbers and strength, left the victim alive and,
second, none of [the] injuries or wounds inflicted upon the victim was fatal."

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioners may be held criminally liable for the harm inflicted to Jesus Del Mundo

Whether there is a sufficient evident to prove the justifying circumstance that exists in the case

RULING:

The Court denied the petition and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused must establish the requisites for justifying circumstances as
provided in Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

Article 11 in the Revised Penal Code provided the requisites for justifying circumstances.

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next
preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
Contrary to what a successful averment of self-defense or defense of a relative requires, petitioners offered
nothing more than a self-serving, uncorroborated claim that Jesus appeared out of nowhere to go berserk in the
vicinity of their homes. They failed to present independent and credible proof to back up their assertions. The
Regional Trial Court noted that it was highly dubious that Jesus would go all the way to petitioners' residences
to initiate an attack for no apparent reason.

NACNAC vs PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner SPO2 Lolito Nacnac, a public officer, then a member of Philippine National Police, was charged with
homicide for the killing of SPO1 Doddie Espejo.

The accused-appellant Nacnac, the victim and other police officers were on duty. Shortly before 10:00pm in the
evening, the victim together with SPO1 Eduardo Basilio took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds. When
the accused-appellant Nacnac saw this, he stopped the victim and his colleague from using the tricycle. The
victim told the accused-appellant that he needed the patrol tricycle to go to Laoag to settle a previous
disagreement with a security of a local bar.

Accused-appellant refused. He told the victim to stay at the station as he is needed there. It was not well-
received by the victim. He and SPO1 Basilio alighted from the tricycle. The victim took two steps when he drew a
.45 caliber gun which was tucked on a holster on the right side of his chest. Accused-appellant then fired his M-
16 armalite upward as a warning shot. Undaunted, the victim still drew his gun. Accused-appellant then shot the
victim on the head, which caused the latter’s instantaneous death. Accused-appellant later surrendered to the
station’s Chief of Police.

The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. The RTC held that the claim of self-defense by the
accused was unavailing due to the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. He was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, considering the mitigating circumstance, and sentences him to an indeterminate
penalty ranging from EIGHT YEARS of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN YEARS of reclusion temporal as
maximum. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased (1) P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, (2)
P100,000.00 as actual damages, (3) P50,000.00 as moral damages, and (4) P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Costs
against the accused.

The CA affirmed RTC’s ruling that the essential and primary element of unlawful aggression was lacking. It gave
credence to the finding of the trial court that no one else saw the victim drawing his weapon and pointing it at
accused Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Lolito T. Nacnac.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the CA erroneously held that the victim’s drawing of his handgun or pointing it at the petitioner is
not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression based on existing jurisprudence.

2. Whether the CA incorrectly appreciated the photo showing the victim holding his handgun in a peculiar
manner despite the fact that no expert witness was presented to testify thereto

3. Whether petitioner has met the second and third requisites of self-defense

RULING:
The Court acquitted accused-appellant SPO2 Lolito Nacnac.

The Revised Penal Code provides the requisites for a valid self-defense claim:

ART. 11. Justifying circumstances - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Unlawful Aggression

Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to conclude that
one’s life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was
about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of
aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression.

There is a difference between the act of drawing one’s gun and the act of pointing one’s gun at a target. The
former cannot be said to be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression requires an
actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude.

The facts surrounding the instant case must, however, be differentiated from current jurisprudence on unlawful
aggression. The victim here was a trained police officer. He was inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order in
order to settle a score with someone using a police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow police officer, his
superior, was left unheeded as he reached for his own firearm and pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was,
therefore, justified in defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague. Even if We were to
disbelieve the claim that the victim pointed his firearm at petitioner, there would still be a finding of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim.

Hence, it now becomes reasonably certain that in this specific case, it would have been fatal for the appellant to
have waited for SPO1 Espejo to point his gun before the appellant fires back.

Reasonable Means Employed

Supporting petitioner’s claim of self-defense is the lone gunshot wound suffered by the victim. 1âwphi1 The
nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important
indicia.

In the instant case, the lone wound inflicted on the victim supports the argument that petitioner feared for his
life and only shot the victim to defend himself. The lone gunshot was a reasonable means chosen by petitioner
in defending himself in view of the proximity of the armed victim, his drunken state, disobedience of an
unlawful order, and failure to stand down despite a warning shot.

Lack of Sufficient Provocation

The last requisite for self-defense to be appreciated is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself or herself. As gleaned from the findings of the trial court, petitioner gave the victim a lawful
order and fired a warning shot before shooting the armed and drunk victim. Absent from the shooting incident
was any evidence on petitioner sufficiently provoking the victim prior to the shooting.
PEOPLE vs. RUBISO

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Jimmy Rubiso was charged with Murder for the killing of Serafin Hubines Jr.

As per witness Alejandro Pulomeda, accused-appellant approached Hubines from behind while his left hand was
wrapped with a towel. As appellant walked closer to Hubines, he unwrapped his hand revealing a handgun of
unknown caliber, and shot Hubines. The latter still managed to stand but he was again successively shot by
appellant. The victim, Hubines, was brought to the hospital but was clinically dead.

Medico-legal Dr. Tito Doromal, the testified that he conducted a post-mortem examination on Hubines. He
found six (6) bullet wounds on the body of the victim. One bullet wound in the right forehead, another bullet on
the left side of the neck and four bullet wounds in the thoraco abdominal region. His findings led him to
conclude that two bullet wounds were inflicted by the assailant while standing behind the victim.

Accused-appellant in his defense, assailed that he was only defending his self when he and the victim started
grappling for the gun that allegedly the victim pointed at him and eventually killed the victim.

The trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder and sentenced
with reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:

Whether the trial court failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the three elements of self-defense
despite the fact that the accused proved the three elements.

RULING:

The Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court hereby finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Murder.

In invoking self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted having killed the victim and the burden of
evidence is shifted on him to establish convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on
his part.

Appellant insists that when the victim pulled out his gun, both grappled for its possession. They fell and there
were bursts of gunfire. He must have killed the victim but he was only defending himself.

Records show that he did not manifest any aggressive act which may have imperiled the life and limb of herein
appellant.

Another factor which militates against appellant’s claim of self-defense is the nature and number of wounds
suffered by the victim.

Dr. Tito Doromal, who conducted the autopsy examination, found that the victim’s body sustained six (6) bullet
wounds. One bullet wound was on the right forehead and another on the left side of the neck. Four (4) bullet
wounds were along the thoraco abdominal region.
The location and presence of gunshot wounds on the body of the victim eloquently refute appellant’s allegation
of self-defense. It is an oft repeated rule that the presence of a large number of wounds, their location and their
seriousness would negate self-defense. Instead, they indicate a determined effort to kill.

BAXINELA vs. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner-appellant Eduardo Baxinela was charged of homicide for the shooting of Ruperto F. Lajo at Poblacion,
Municipality of Kalibo, Province of Aklan thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds.

As per the autopsy report issued by Dr. Roel A. Escanillas, Medical Officer III, Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial
Hospital, Kalibo, Aklan, the victim sustained the following injuries:

A. EXTERNAL FINDINGS:

= .56 cm entrance gunshot wound proximal third lateral aspect left arm with fracture of the left
humerus.

= 1 cm exit wound proximal third medial aspect left arm.

= 1 cm entrance gunshot wound anterior axillary line 5th intercostals space left chest.

B. INTERNAL FINDINGS

= One liter of flood left thoracic cavity

= Perforated left diaphragm.

= One – two liters of blood in the abdominal cavity.

= 2 point perforation stomach

= Multiple perforation small, and large intestines and mesenteries.

= (+) Retroperitonial hematoma

DIAGNOSIS: Gunshot wound left of arm with fracture of the humerus, penetrating the (L) thoracic cavity
perforating the diaphragm, abdomen, stomach and, intestines and retroperitoneum with slugs lodging the
vertebral colum[n].

CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiopulmonary arrest

Secondary to severe bleeding

Secondary to gunshot wound.

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Homicide and considering the
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and provocation, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 4 years of prision correccional medium as
minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor medium as maximum.

The accused is further ordered to pay

a) the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Sgt. Ruperto F. Lajo;
b) then sum of P81,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages; and
c) the sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages; plus, costs of suit.

The Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s ruling with modification.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the justifying circumstances of self-defense or in the alternative,
the lawful performance of official duty under Article 11 Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the RPC.

RULING:

The Court affirmed the ruling with modification. The fulfillment of duty will be attributed as privileged mitigating
circumstance. The conviction of appellant Eduardo Baxinela for the crime of homicide is AFFIRMED but his
sentence is reduced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum. The awards of
damages are affirmed.

Justifying Circumstances

The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense. It is a condition sine qua non, without which
there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. 23 On this requisite alone, Baxinela’s defense
fails.
As the evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment. Just
before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was safely behind the victim and holding his arm. It was Lajo who was at a
disadvantage. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor when he grabbed Lajo’s shoulder and started
questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears that he was just turning around to face Baxinela and, quite
possibly, reaching for his wallet. None of these acts could conceivably be deemed as unlawful aggression on the
part of Lajo.

Fulfillment of Duty

Next, we consider the alternative defense of fulfillment of a duty. In order to avail of this justifying
circumstance, it must be shown that:

1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and
2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of a right or office.

While the first condition is present, the second is clearly lacking. Baxinela’s duty was to investigate the reason
why Lajo had a gun tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was what Baxinela was doing when he
confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety, edginess or the desire to take no chances,
Baxinela exceeded his duty by firing upon Lajo who was not at all resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be
considered due performance of a duty if at that time Lajo posed no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the
civilians in the pub.

Mistake of Fact

In examining the circumstances attendant in the present case, the Court finds that there was negligence on the
part of Baxinela. Lajo, when he was shot, was simply turning around to see who was accosting him. Moreover,
he identified himself saying "I am MIG." These circumstances alone would not lead a reasonable and prudent
person to believe that Baxinela’s life was in peril. Thus, his act of shooting Lajo, to the mind of this Court,
constitutes clear negligence.

PEOPLE vs. DELIOLA

FACTS: