Crim1 Compiled Digests

D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M.
Gutierrez III | 1
Art. 2. Applicability of provisions
US vs. Bull
Facts: H.N. Bull was master of steamship Standard, which transported 677 cattle and carabaos on 2 Dec 1909
without proper means of securing them or bedding, thus, a number were cruelly torn (ropes were tied on nose rings),
bruised, and killed. Ship route: Formosa-Phils.
Issue: WON Phil. laws apply, as there is no information regarding where this occurred.
Held: Yes; this was ongoing as the ship entered the Phil. territory, therefore, Phil. laws apply. - Feliciano
People vs. Wong Cheng
Facts: Wong Cheng smoked opium while aboard merchant vessel Changsa, anchored in Manila Bay 2.5 miles from
shore.
Issue: WON Philippines has jurisdiction over Merchant ships in its territory?
Held: Yes; smoking within territory allows substance to produce pernicious effects, which is against public order. It is
also an act of defiance of authority. -Feliciano
US vs. Look Chaw
Facts: Mrs. Jacks and Milliron found sacks of contraband substance opium on steamship Errol on 18 August 1910 in,
around 11-12 am. 3 sacks were found containing 49, 80 packs, (4) packs each; total = 129 packs to be sold, 4 for
personal consumption. The 129 were supposedly going to be sold in Mexico and Vera Cruz.
Issue: Was Look Chaw accountable, as he didn‘t bring down the opium from the ship and did not intend to sell within
Philippines?
Held: Yes; investigation showed that he did sell to a secret service agent while in the port. - Feliciano
US vs. Ah Sing
Facts: Ah Sing as onboard steamer Shun Chang which docked on Cebu from Saigon on 25 April 1917. He had
bought 8 cans of opium there, which were found on the ship, hidden in the ashes below the boiler of ship engine. No
evidence regarding intent to import was brought to court.
Issue: Is he guilty of importing when intent was not so proven?
Held: Yes, without reasonable doubt; it‘s illogical that he would transport from Saigon-Manila-Saigon for pleasure,
and he could not possibly need as much for just him. -Feliciano
US vs. Lol-lo and Saraw
Facts: 2 Dutch boats left Matuta on 30 June 1920, headed for Peta. First boat had 1 person aboard and the second
had 11 men, women and children. After a few days, at 7pm, the second boat arrived between the isles of Buang and
Bukid and was stopped by 6 vintas with 24 men, all armed. They asked for food, took cargo, hurt men, and raped
women. Then, 2 women were taken, the rest were put back on boat made to sink. Lol-lo raped one of the women on
the way to Maruro, where both women escaped.
Issue: Given that piracy is punishable in all jurisdictions, does Art. 153 still apply since is still says ―Spain…‖ instead
of ―Philippines…‖ etc?
Held: Yes; all laws still applicable in Philippines until so changed or repealed. -Feliciano
D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 2
Art. 3. Definition of felony
US vs. Ah Chong
Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in mess hall at Fort McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) and stayed there at Bldg. 27. One
night, he woke up to the sound of someone trying to force his way into the room. There was no way to know who it
was as it was dark and the room only had 1 door and 1 window, and vines covered the window; all he could do was
ask who it was. He asked twice, and then, when no response came, he threatened the attacker that if he continued,
he would be killed. He took a knife which he kept under his pillow because of the robberies occurring recently, and
when he was hit on the knee by a chair he uses to keep the door closed, he attacked and killed the man who turned
out to be his roommate, Pascal Gualberto. He called for help immediately but it was too late.
Issue: Is he liable for the crime?
Held: No; it was a mistake of facts. The act would have been lawful if the facts had been as he believed them to be.
-Feliciano
People vs. Oanis and Galanta
Facts: Under instructions to seize Balagtas (escaped convict), the two policemen went to a house where they
suspected Balagtas to be hiding. Upon finding a sleeping man inside, they shot him. He turned out to be Tecson, an
innocent man.
Issue: Are they liable?
Held: Yes; unlike in Ah Chong, facts did not show that they tried to ascertain that they had the right man. As they did
not exercise due precaution, they were guilty of murder. -Feliciano
Art. 4. Criminal Liability
People vs. Iligan
Facts: A brawl started and the defendant chases Asis and Lukban with a bolo. Later on, as the two were walking with
Esmeraldo Quinones, the 3 reappeared again. Macandog hit Quinones on the face with the bolo as the 2 ran away. It
is uncertain whether or not there was truly a vehicle that ran over Quinones.
Issue: Who is liable for the death?
Held: Iligan is guilty by virtue of their chase being the proximate cause of the death, if indeed a vehicle did run over
Quinones. -Feliciano
People vs. Mananquil
Facts: At 11pm, 6 March 1965, defendant bought 10c worth of gasoline from Esso gasoline station, put it in a coffee
bottle and went to her husband‘s guard post at NAWASA. She poured the gasoline on him and burned him. He died
of pneumonia, a complication caused by the burns (weakened immune system; he caught the pneumonia in the
hospital where he was being treated).
Issue: Is she liable for the death when all she intended to do was burn him?
Held: Yes; the death is a consequence of her act of burning him.

-Feliciano
US vs. Brobst
Facts: Saldivar had been fired from the mining company he was working for (he was a thief and was not welcome
among his colleagues). Brobst had been told not to let him back in. However, Saldivar came in with 3-4 friends,
looking for a job, and ignored Brobst‘s orders to leave. Brobst then struck him a blow which caused his own bolo to hit
him, and Saldivar staggered away to his sister‘s house. He arrived there 2 hours later and died on her doorstep. The
death was attributed to possible internal bleeding.
Issue: Is Brobst liable, given that it wasn‘t his intent to kill Saldivar, and he had a right to expel Saldivar from the
property?
Held: Guilty; even though no evidence was provided to ascertain that the ―blow‖ was strong enough to cause death,
no evidence was provided to show he intervened to help Saldivar either.
-Feliciano
Impossible crime
People vs. Balmores
Facts: Balmores was found guilty of attempted estafa through falsification of a government obligation. He attempted
to cash in a sweepstakes ticket that was obviously falsified (the ¼ ticket was split into ⅛, and the winning ticket
number written in ink at the bottom left part of the halved ticket). He presented his falsified ticket to a PCSO booth.
The PCSO employee manning the booth saw that the ticket was obviously falsified, and had Balmores arrested.
Balmores waived the right to counsel, and pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted estafa.
Issue: WON Balmores committed an impossible crime.
Held: No; The recklessness and clumsiness of the act of falsification did not make the crime an impossible one under
Paragraph 2 Article 4 of the RPC.1 The alteration of a losing sweepstakes ticket would constitute a crime only if an
attempt to cash it were done, which is what occurred in this case.
-Adapt
Intod vs. CA
Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They fired at her room. However,
she was in another city then thus they hit no one.
Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder?

Held: No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible crime—an act
which, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate would
constitute a felony against person or family. Its purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1)
legal responsibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an
impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime.
Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:
(1) The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
(2) There is no intention to perform the physical act;
(3) There is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent
consummation of intended crime.
Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the
circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality, the crime was impossible of
commission. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an
attempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime
impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to
make the act an impossible crime.
-Adapt:
1
Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the RPC reads: [Criminal Liability shall be incurred] 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 an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Art. 6. Stages of commission
US vs. Eduave
Facts: The accused rushed upon the girl suddenly and struck her from behind with a sharp bolo, producing a frightful
gash in the lumbar region and slightly to the side eight and one-half inches long and two inches deep, severing all of
the muscles and tissues there.
The accused was incensed at the girl for the reason that she had theretofore charged him criminally before the local
officials with having raped her and with being the cause of her pregnancy. He was her mother‘s querido and was
living with her as such at the time the crime here charged was committed
Issues: WON the crime murder or homicide if the girl had been killed, WON the stage of commission is attempted or
frustrated
Held: The crime committed was MURDER; The attack was made treacherously. Qualified by the circumstance of
alevosia (Sp. treachery, a-le-vo-SI-a), the accused making a sudden attack upon his victim partly from the rear and
dealing her a terrible blow in the back and side with his bolo. The stage of commission is FRUSTRATED; Not
attempted murder because defendant PERFORMED ALL OF THE ACTS which should have resulted in the
consummated crime and voluntarily desisted from further acts.
-Adapt
Art. 6: Rape
People vs. Orita
Facts: Victim: Cristina Abaya, 19 years old, freshman at St. Joseph‘s College in Borongan, Eastern Samar
At around 1:30 am, after attending a party, Abayan came home to her boarding house. As she knocked at the door,
Orita suddenly held her and poked a knife at her neck. She pleaded for him to let her go but instead of doing so, Orita
dragged her upstairs with him while he had his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand holding and
poking the balisong at the victim. At the second floor, he commanded Christina to look for a room. Upon finding a
room, Orita held her against the wall while he undressed himself. He then ordered her to undress. As she took off her
shirt, he pulled off her bra, pants and panty, and ordered her to lie on the floor. He then mounted her and, pointing the
balisong at her neck, ordered he to hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. In this position, only a portion of his
penis entered her, so he ordered Abayan to go on top of him. With him lying on his back and Abayan mounting him,
still, he did not achieve full penetration and only part of his penis was inserted in the vagina. At this instance, Abayan
got the opportunity to escape Orita because he had both his hands and the knife on the floor.
Abayan, still naked, was chased from room to room with Orita climbing over the partitions. Abayan, frantic and
scared, jumped out of a window and darted for the municipal building and was finally found by Pat. Donceras and
other policemen. Due to darkness though, the failed to apprehend Orita.
In the medico legal, Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude had the following findings: circumscribed hematoma at Ant. neck, linear
abrasions below left breas, multiple pinpoint marks at the back, abrasions on both kness, erythemetous areas noted
surrounding vaginal orifice, tender; hymen intact; no laceration fresh and old noted; examining finger can barely enter
and with difficulty; vaginal cavity tight, no discharges noted
Issue: Whether or not rape is consummated
Held: Rape was consummated. Perfect penetration is not essential. For the consummation of rape, any penetration of
the female organ by the male organ is sufficient to qualify as having carnal knowledge.
In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his purpose
and from that moment, the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished.
-Adapt
People vs. Campuhan
Facts: Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four year old Crysthel Pamintuan. Campuhan was caught by child‘s
mother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm in their house. Campuhan, helper of Corazon‘s brother was allegedly
kneeling in front of the child with both their pants downa dn child was crying ―ayoko, ayoko‖ while Primo forced his
penis into child‘s vagina
Issue: WON crime is rape?
Held: No. Modified to attempted rape

1. Consummated rape: perfect penetration not essential. Slight penetration is equivalent to rape. Mere
touching of external genitalia considered when its an essential part of penetration not just touching in ordinary sense
(People v. Orita). Labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated (People v. Escober)
2. Attempted – no penetration or didn‘t reach labia/mere grazing of surface
3. Failed to prove that penetration occurred. Mother‘s testimony questionable with regards to her position
relative to Primo and child. They failed to establish how she could have seen actual contact in her position
4. Man‘s instinct is to run when caught. Primo could not have stayed or to satisfy his lust even if .. seeing
Corazon
5. Child denied penetration occurred
People v. Villamor consummation even when penetration doubted: pain‘s felt, discoloration of inner lips of vagina or
red labia minora or hymenal tags not visible. Now seen in case, Medico legal officer, though penetration not needed
to prove contact, no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact. Hymen intact.
-Adapt
Art. 6: Theft
US vs. Adiao
Facts: Defendant: Tomas Adiao

 Adiao, a customs inspector, took a leather belt valued at P0.80 from the baggage of T. Murakami
 Adiao kept the belt in his desk at the Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees
 He was charged with the crime of theft in the Municipal Court of the city of Manila
 He was found guilty of frustrated theft
 He appealed to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila and the decision of the Municipal Court was
affirmed and he was sentence to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay the costs
 The defendant claimed in his appeal that the lower court erred in holding that he was guilty of the crime of
theft as disclosed by the facts appearing of record
Issue: WON the act of the defendant is frustrated theft
Held: No, the crime cannot properly be classified as frustrated. The defendant has performed all of the acts of
execution necessary for the accomplishment of the crime of theft. He has taken possession of the belt and this
already constitutes the crime of theft. ―The act of making use of the thing having been frustrated, which, however
does not go to make the elements of the consummated crime‖ (Decision of Supreme Court of Spain)
Note: The ponente referred to the decision of Supreme Court of Spain in its decision. It illustrated several situations
that constitute consummated theft.
-Adapt
Art. 6: Robbery
People vs. Lamahang
Facts: Aurelio Lamahang was caught opening with an iron bar a wall of a store of cheap goods in Fuentes St. Iloilo.
He broke one board and was unfastening another when a patrolling police caught him. Owners of the store were
sleeping inside store as it was early dawn. Convicted of attempt of robbery
Issue: WON crime is attempted robbery?
Held: No. Attempted trespass to dwelling. Attempt should have logical relation to a particular and concrete offense
which would lead directly to consummation. Necessary to establish unavoidable connection & logical & natural
relation of cause and effect. Important to show clear intent to commit crime. In case at bar, we can only infer that his
intent was to enter by force, other inferences are not justified by facts. Groizard: infer only from nature of acts
executed. Acts susceptible of double interpretation can‘t furnish ground for themselves. Mind should not directly infer
intent. Spain SC: necessary that objectives established or acts themselves obviously disclose criminal objective.
-Adapt
People vs. Salvilla
Facts:
 Petitioner: Bienvenido Salvilla
 April 12, 1986, at about noon time – Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed
Canasares), staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard
 They were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade
 On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita Habiero, an employee there who was on her way out
for her meal break, and informed her that it was a hold-up.
 They went inside the office and the petitioner pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two
daughters, Mary and Mimmie. They informed Severino that all they needed was money.
 Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the defense) and
handed it to the petitioner.
 Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and
Rodita were kept inside the office.
 According to the appellant, he stopped Severino from getting the wallet and watches.
 At about 2:00 of the same day, the appellant told Severino to produce P100,000 so he and the other
hostages can be released. Severino told him it would be hard to do that since banks are closed because it
was a Saturday
 The police and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. Major Melquiades Sequio, Station
Commander of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with the accused and appealed to them to surrender. The
accused refused to surrender and release the hostages.
 Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a coaster,
and some raincoats. Caram offered P50,000 instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and to
release Rodita to be accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. One of the accused gave a key to
Mayor Caram and with the key, Mayor Caram unlocked the door and handed to Rodita P50,000, which
Rodita gave to one of the accused.
 Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to the office.
 The police and military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still wouldn‘t budge after
more ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo
Canasares. Mary‘s right leg had to be amputated due to her injuries.
 The appellant maintained that the money, wallet and watches were all left on the counter and were never
touched by them. He also claimed that they never fired on the military because they intended to surrender.
Issues:
WON the crime of robbery was consummated
WON there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
Held:
 Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful ―taking‖ is complete.
o Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of the crime of robbery. The
respondent claimed that none of the items (money, watches and wallet) were recovered from them.
However, based on the evidence, the money demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch were within
the dominion and control of the appellant and his co-accused and thus the taking was completed.
o It is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber or that he should have
actually carried the property away, out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or that he
should have made his escape with it.
 No. The ―surrender‖ of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be considered in their favour to mitigate
their liability.
o To be mitigating, a surrender must have the following requisites: that the offender had not been
actually arrested, that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to his agent, and
that the surrender was voluntary. The ―surrender‖ by the appellant and his co-accused hardly
meets these requirements. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of.
Note: The nature of the linked offenses (robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention) was also
discussed. The detention in the case at bar was not only incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to
commit the same so the nature of the offense was affirmed.
-Adapt
Art. 6: Murder
People vs. Borinaga
Facts: Accused: Basilio Borinaga, associated with Juan Lawaan, a maker of fish corral
Victims: Harry H. Mooney, American, resident of Calubian Leyte
Prior to March 4, 1929, Mooney contracted with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral.
On March 4, despite the corral being only 2/3 finished, Lawaan, with some of his men, visited Mooney and attempted
to collect the whole amount in their contract. Upon Mooney‘s refusal to pay, Lawaan warned and threatened him that
something would happen to him (Mooney).
On the evening of the same day, Mooney was in the store of his neighbor, Perpetua Najarro, sitting in front of
Najarro, with his back towards a window. Suddenly, Borinaga, from the window, struck with a knife at Mooney. The
knife imbedded on the back of the seat though. Mooney fell off from the impact but was not injured. Borinaga left the
scene and ran for the market place, where he was heard prior to the incident to say he would kill Mooney, and now
saying that he apparently hit the chair instead of Mooney. After ten minutes, Borinaga returned to have another
attempt at Mooney but was warded off by Mooney and Najarro frightening him by turning a flashlight on him.
Issue: Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder.
Held: YES. The Court affirms the judgment of the RTC.
As an essential condition of a frustrated crime, Borinaga performed all the acts of execution, attending the attack.
There was nothing left that he could do further to accomplish the work. The cause resulting in the failure of the attack
arose by reason of forces independent of his will. Borinaga also voluntarily desisted from further acts. The subjective
phase of the criminal act was passed.
Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real:

“The acts of execution perfomed by [Borinaga] did not produce the death of Mooney as a consequence not could they
have produced it because the blow did not reach his body; therefore, the culprit did not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony. There was lacking the infliction of the deadly wound upon a vital spot of
the body of Mooney.”
What the back of the chair prevented was the wounding of Mooney, not his death. It is the preventing of death by
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, after all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a
consequence had been performed, that constitutes a frustrated felony, according to the law, and not the preventing of
the performances of all the acts of execution which constitute a felony, as in the present case.
Attempted murder only.

-Adapt
People vs. Sy Pio
Facts: Sy Pio shot three people early in the morning of September 3, 1949. Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian and Jose Sy.
Sy Pio entered the store at 511 Misericordia Sta Cruz Manila and started firing with a .45 caliber pistol. First to be
shot was Jose Sy. Upon seeing Sy Pio fire at Jose Sy, Tan asked ―what is the idea?‖ thereupon, Sy Pio turned
around and fired at him as well. Tan was shot at his right shoulder and it passed through his back. He ran to a room
behind the store to hide. He was still able to hear gunshots from Sy Pio‘s pistol, but afterwards, Sy Pio ran away.
Tan Siong Kiap was brought to the Chinese General Hospital where his wound was treated. He stayed there from
Septenber 3-12, 1949. He was released upon his request and against physician‘s advice and was requested to return
for further treatment which he did 5 times in a period of 10 days. His wound was completely healed; he spent P300
for hospital and doctor‘s fees.
Sy Pio was found by the Constabulary in Tarlac. Lomotan, a police from Manila Police Department went to Tarlac to
get Sy Pio. He admitted to Lomotan that he shot the victims and handed him the pistol used in the shooting.
According to Sy Pio‘s declaration, some months prior to the incident, he was employed in a restaurant owned by Ong
Pian. Sy Pio‘s wife, Vicenta was also employed by Ong Pian‘s partner. When he tried to borrow money from Ong
Pian fpr his wife‘s sick father, Ong Pian only lent him P1. his wife was able to borrow P20 from her employer.
Afterwards, defendant-appellant was dismissed from his work. Ong Pian presented a list of Sy Pio‘s debts and these
were deducted from his wife‘s monthly salary. Sy Pio could not remember incurring such debts. As such, he was
resentful of Ong Pian‘s conduct.
In Tan Siong Kiap‘s case, a few months before Sept3, Sy Pio was able to realize the sum of P70 and he put his
money in a place in his room. The next day, Sy Pio found that his money was gone. Tan tolf Sy Pio that he had
probably given the money to his wife. Thereafter, Sy Pio could hear that he had lost his money gambling. ASo early in
the morning of Sept 3, while Ngo Cho, a Chinaman who has a pistol was away, he got his pistol and went to a
restaurant in Ongpin where Ong Pian worked and shot him. Afterwards he went to Sta Cruz and shot Jose Sy and
Tan.
Issues:
Trial court erred in not finding that Tan received the shot accidentally from the same bullet that had been
fired at Jose Sy.
The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction.
Lower court erred in sentencing him to pay an indemnity of P350.
Defendant-appellant should only be found guilty of less serious physical injuries instead of frustrated murder.
Held:
1. Sy Pio had to turn around to shoot Tan Siong Kiap.
2. There is sufficient proof. (Uncontradicted testimony of the victim, admissions made to Lomotan, testimony of
physician, etc.)
3. Assignment of error must be dismissed. Offended party spent P300 for the hospital fees.
4. The fact that he was able to escape which appellant must have seen, must have produced in the mind of the
defendant-appellant that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital part of the body. The defendant appellant
knew that he had not actually performed all acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the subjective phase of the acts of execution had been completed.
-Adapt
People vs. Ravelo
Facts: The accused-appellants are members of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) stationed at a checkpoint
near the airport of Tandag. At approximately 6:30 PM of May 21, 1984, accused-appellants allegedly kidnapped by
means of force one Reynaldo Gaurano. They then detained Gaurano at the house of Pedro Ravelo, one of the
accused. Thereafter, they assaulted, attacked, and burned Gaurano, with the intent of killing the latter. Reynaldo
Gaurano died on May 22.
At about 1AM of May 22, the accused-appellants also kidnapped by means of force Joey Lugatiman. The latter was
also brought to Ravelo's house where he was tortured. At 5AM, Lugatiman was transferred to the house of accused-
appellant Padilla. There he was tied to the wall with a nylon line and was told he would be killed at 9AM. Shortly after,
accused-appellants had to attend to Gaurano; Lugatiman was thus left alone. He was able to escape.
He reported what happened to him and to Gaurano to the police authorities. RTC convicted the accused-appellants of
murder of Gaurano and frustrated murder of Lugatiman.
In this appeal, counsel for the accused aver that the lower court erred in finding that accused-appellants are guilty of
frustrated murder. Counsel further contends that there can be no frustrated murder absent any proof of intent to kill,
which is an essential element of the offense of frustrated murder. The trial court merely relied on the statement of the
accused-appellants stating they would kill Lugatiman to establish intent to kill.
Issue: Whether the statement by the accused stating that Lugatiman would be killed is sufficient proof of intent to
convict a person of frustrated murder
Held: No
Ratio: In a crime of murder or an attempt of frustration thereof, the offender must have the intent or the actual design
to kill which must be manifested by external acts. A verbal expression is not sufficient to show an actual design to
perpetrate the act. Intent must be shown not only by a statement of the aggressor, but also by the execution of all
acts and the use of means necessary to deliver a fatal blow while the victim is not placed in a position to defend
himself.
Tying the victim on 2 by piece of wood and leaving him inside the house of the accused are not acts that would result
in death.
Notes: Under the circumstances, accused-appellants could not even be convicted of an attempt to commit murder.
There was no commencement of the criminal act by overt acts which have a direct connection with the crime of
murder intended to be committed. Accused-appellants, therefore, are not guilty of frustrated murder but only of the
crime of slight physical injuries.
-Adapt
Art. 11: Justifying Circumstances – Self-defense
People vs. Boholst-Caballero
Facts: Cunigunda Boholst Caballero seeks reversal of the judgment of the CFI of Ormoc City finding her guilty of
parricide—she allegedly killed her husband, Francisco Caballero, using a hunting knife. The couple was married in
1956 and had a daughter. They had frequent quarrels due to the husband's gambling and drinking and there were
times when he maltreated and abused his wife. After more than a year, Francisco abandoned his family. In 1958,
Cunigunda went caroling with her friends and when she was on her way home she met her husband who suddenly
held her by the collar and accused her of going out for prostitution. Then he said he would kill her, held her by the
hair, slapped her until her nose bled then pushed her towards the ground. She fell to the ground, he knelt on her and
proceeded to choke her. Cunigunda, having earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco's belt line while holding unto his
waist so she wouldn't fall to the ground, grabbed the hunting knife and thrust it into her husband's left side, near the
belt line just above the thigh. He died 2 days after the incident due to the stab wound. Then she ran home and threw
the knife away. The next day, she surrendered herself to the police along with the torn dress that she wore the night
before.
Issue: WON Cunigunda, in stabbing her husband, acted in legitimate self-defense
Held: Yes, she did. Acquitted
Ratio:
1. Burden if proof of self-defense rests on the accused. In this case, the location and nature of the stab wound
confirms that the said victim, the husband, was the aggressor.
With her husband kneeling over her and choking her, accused had no other choice but to pull the knife tucked in his
belt line and thrust it into his side.
The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity where the knife was drawn from is a strong indication of the truth of the
testimony of the accused. Based on the re-enactment of the incident, it was natural for her to use her right hand to
lunge the knife into husband's left side.
2. Three requisites of legitimate self-defense are present

Unlawful aggression. The husband resorting to pushing her to the ground then choking her just because she was
out caroling at night constitutes unlawful aggression, There was imminent danger of injury.
Reasonable necessity of means employed. While being choked, Cunigunda had no other recourse but to take hold
of the knife and plunge it into husband's side in order to protect herself. Reasonable necessity does not depend upon
the harm done but on the imminent danger of such injury.
Lack of sufficient provocation. provocation is sufficient when proportionate to the aggression. In this case, there
was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused (Cunigunda) to warrant the attack of her husband. All that
she did to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband was to be out caroling at night.
-Adapt
US vs. Mack
Facts: The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet back from the street in the town of Tacloban, Leyte, in an open
space some 3 or 4 feet in width between the tienda of a woman named Olimpia and another building.
- The deceased, with another policeman, approached the place and directed Olimpia to close her tienda;
ordered the accused and another soldier to go to their quarters
- The accused did not obey such order.
- Some words may have passed between them, which angered the deceased.
- The deceased dragged himself free from his companion and attacked the accused, at the same time
drawing his bolo and brandishing it in a threatening manner.
- Accused got up, drew his revolver, and the deceased having then approached within a distance of from
3 to 6 feet, the accused fired three shots, one hit the left breast the left breast of the deceased, another
in the back of his head.
- Trial court held that the defendant adopted a mode of defense which was not ―reasonably necessary‖
- accused was taller than the deceased
- deceased was perhaps under the influence of liquor
- shot a vital part
Issue: Whether there was a ―reasonable necessity‖ for the use of the means employed by accused to defend himself
Held: Yes; Mere physical superiority is no protection to an unarmed man, as against assailant armed with a large bolo
If it be true that the deceased was under the influence of liquor when he that attack, his intoxication probably
rendered him the more dangerous, unless he was so drunk as to be physically helpless, which is not suggested in the
evidence.
It was dark, the reasonable and natural thing for the accused to do was to fire at the body.
The shots were fired in rapid succession in order to repel the attack; it could not be said that these were unnecessary.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the appellant acquitted of the crime.
-Adapt
People vs. Genosa
FACTS: Marivic and Ben Genosa, who knew each other since elementary and were 3rd cousins, were married in
November 19, 1983 in Ormoc City. Their marriage, save for the first year where, according to Marivic, she lived
happily with Ben, had been tumultuous and unhappy because of the many and frequent quarrels of the couple which
usually resulted in the cruel treatment of Marivic by Ben. This went on for about 10 or 11 years, occurring around
thrice a week when everytime the latter got drunk.
On the evening of November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas, his co-worker, after having collected their salary,
went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO where they stayed for 3 hours and drank 2 bottles of beer, each. They then
went to the Genosa residence but Marivic was not there because, as she explained, she was out with her cousin
looking for Ben, knowing that it was a payday and that he was probably out to gamble again. Upon arriving later at
the Genosa residence and finding Ben drunk ―because of his staggering walking,‖ Marivic asked Ecel to sleep in the
house because she was scared that Ben might again beat her, but Ecel declined for fear of a repetition of an incident
a year ago.
Ben was in his usual unruly behavior, nagging and yelling at Marivic, even cutting the antenna wire with a bolo to
keep her from watching TV. There were basically 2 incidents of ―attack‖ made by Ben: 1) he whirled Marivic, causing
her to fall on the bedside, and two hours later when 2) he dragged her out of the room towards the drawer, holding
her neck. He tried opening the drawer, failed, so reached for a blade instead in his wallet. At this point, she was
aware that he was going to kill her so she smashed his arm, causing the wallet and blade to fall. She also
subsequently smashed him with a metal pipe before running to the children‘s room, where she felt overwhelming self-
pity and felt nauseous.
Marivic admitted killing her husband, however, by shooting him later on. She had ―distorted‖ the drawer where the
gun was and shot him. The RTC charged Genosa with parricide, giving her the death penalty.
ISSUES: 1) WON Marivic acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus (invoking BWS)
2) WON there was treachery in the killing of Ben Genosa
HELD: 1) No, but with 2 mitigating circumstances

2) None
RATIO: 1) Crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the offense—
she must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed that killing him would save her
life. Here, there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him.
The reality or even imminent danger he posed ended altogether the moment he apparently ceased his attack and
went to bed, notwithstanding the Court‘s recognition of this special case that requiring the battered person to await an
obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life ―would amount to sentencing her to ‗murder by installment‘‖ and
that threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger. Aggression, if not
continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression, there can be no self-defense—
complete or incomplete—on the part of the victim.
 Mitigating circumstance 1: Par. 9 and 10 of Art. 13 of the RPC
 the cyclical nature of the BWS and repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in
her psychological paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her will power without
depriving her of consciousness of her acts
 Mitigating circumstance 2: passion and obfuscation
 this state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked
by prior unjust acts or a legit stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason, with 1) there is an unlawful and sufficient
act to produce such condition and 2) no considerable length of time when the accused might recover her normal
equanimity, as requisites.
2) There is no showing of the victim‘s position relative to appellant at the time of the shooting, nor that Marivic
chose a specific means of attacking her husband which does not pose as a risk to her. Besides, treachery cannot be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel.
JUDGMENT: Conviction of parricide affirmed, with 2 mitigating circumstances. Penalty reduced.
-Adapt
Art. 11: Defense of Honor
People vs. De la Cruz
Facts:
 Evening of February 18, 1934, the defendant Remedios de la Cruz, with Francisco Ramos and his wife,
Vrigida Vistada; his sister Baltazara Ramos; and a woman named Consuelo or Natividad Santoyo went to a
wake in honor of one Sion.
 At about 9 pm, the defendant and her friends started home.
 They were followed about 5 minutes later by the deceased Francisco Rivera who was accompanied by
Enrique Bautista.
 Rivera and Bautista overtook defendant‘s party.
 When they reached a narrow part of the path, Rivera went ahead of Bautista. At that time, the members of
the defendant‘s party were walking in single file. Baltazara Ramos was in the lead and the defendant was
the hindmost. The defendant was about 2 brazas from the person immediately ahead of her.
 Defendant‘s testimony: a man suddenly threw his arms behind, caught hold of her breasts and kissed her,
and seized her in her private parts; that she tried to free herself, but he held her and tried to throw her down;
that when she felt weak and could do nothing more against the strength of the man, she got a knife from her
pocket (she was engaged in selling fruits), opened it and stabbed him in defense of her honor. That the man
who attacked her did not say anything; that she asked him who he was but he did not answer; that when she
was assaulted she cried for help; that when she was with her assailant during the struggle she could
scarcely recognize his face.
 Francisco Ramos heard someone cry out ―Aruy, Dios mio.‖ He went back and found that Francisco Rivera
had been stabbed under the right breast. According to Ramos, it took him 2 minutes to go back towards the
house of mourning. He overtook her. She had a knife in her hand. When they reached the house, the
defendant struck the knife into a table and said that she stabbed Rivera because he embraced her.
 The wounded man was taken to the hospital, where he died the next afternoon.
 It should be noted that the deceased had been making love to the defendant and also to another girl.
Issue: Whether or not De la Cruz‘ killing of Rivera may be justified by defense of honor.
Held: Yes.
 She was justified in making use of the pocket-knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her
honor since she had no other means of defending herself.
 Mistake of Facts: A person is not criminally responsible when, by reason of a mistake of facts, he does an
act for which he would be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but would constitute murder
if he had known the true state of facts at the time, provided that the ignorance or mistake of afct was not due
to negligence or bad faith.
*** The finding of the trial court that Rivera and defendant were engaged, that she was madly in love with him and
was extremely jealous of Felicisima Sincaban is not sustained by the evidence of record.
The appellant stabbed the deceased only once, although she retained possession of the knife, and
undoubtedly could have inflicted other wounds if she had desired. In other words, she desisted as soon as he
released her.
-Adapt
People vs. Juarigue
Facts: Amado Capiña, the deceased, was pursuing Avelina Jaurigue but the latter never showed interest in him.
There was an incident of Amado stealing a handkerchief bearing Avelina‘s nickname, ―Aveling‖. (about 1 month
before the incident)
Then there was also the time when he professed his love for her but still she refused him. But her refusal did not stop
Amado from suddenly embracing and kissing her and even touching her breasts. His actions prompted Avelina to
slap him and give him fist blows. Since that incident she started carrying around a long fan knife for protection.
(September 13, 1942)
About midnight, two days after the previous incident, Amado secretly entered the room where Avelina was sleeping
with the intention of abusing her. He felt her forehead (which probably awakened her). She then immediately
screamed for help. Avelina‘s parents immediately came to their daughter‘s aid. Amado came out from under a bed
in Avelina‘s room and kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue, asking for forgiveness. On the other hand, Avelina‘s
mother wanted to beat Amado up but she was prevented by Nicolas. The following morning, Nicolas Jaurigue went
to Casimiro Lozada, the barrio lieutenant, and to Amado‘s parents, who apologized for the misconduct of their son.
(September 15, 1942)
On September 20, Avelina was informed that Amado had been falsely boasting in their neighborhood of having taken
liberties with her person. He was even saying that she wanted to elope with him or else she would commit suicide
(poison). In the afternoon of the same day, she again was informed of his bragging.
At around 8 o‘clock in the evening of September 20, 1942, Avelina entered the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists
(across the provincial road from his house) shortly after her father (treasurer) to attend religious services. The chapel
was lighted by electric lights. Amado Capiña was at the other side of the chapel. But upon seeing Avelina Jaurigue
he sat beside her and without saying a word placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. This prompted her to
take out her fan knife with her right hand from the pocket of her dress with the intention of punishing Amado‘s
offending hand. Amado seized her right hand but she was able to grab her fan knife with her left hand and stabbed
Amado once at the base of the left side of his neck, inflicting upon him a mortal wound about 4 ½ inches deep.
Amado died from the wound a few minutes later.
Barrio Lieutenant Casimiro Lozada approached Avelina to ask her why she killed Amado. She placed herself at his
disposal. Avelina and her father were advised to stay home. At 10 o‘clock of the same night, three policemen
questioned them about the incident. Avelina surrendered her knife and informed the policemen of what happened in
the chapel and of the previous acts and conduct of the deceased.
Avelina Jaurigue was found guilty of homicide in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. She then appealed to the
Court of Appeals of Southern Luzon. (I don’t know how the case reached the Supreme Court.)
Issues:
1. WON Avelina acted in the legitimate defense of her honor and that she should be completely absolved of all
criminal responsibility.
2. WON there are mitigating circumstances in Avelina‘s favor.
3. WON there is the aggravating circumstance of having committed the crime in a sacred place.
Held:
(1) No. When Amado sat beside Avelina and placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh they were
seated on a bench near the door of the barrio chapel. Moreover, there were already around 10 people in the
chapel, Avelina‘s father and the barrio lieutenant included. The chapel was also said to be lighted by electric
lights. There was and there could be no possibility of her being raped. (The second requisite is not
present.)
(2) Yes. The court acknowledged 3 mitigating circumstances in this case: (a) She had acted in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense committed against her moments before. This produced in her a temporary
loss of reason and self-control. Another mitigating circumstance is the fact that (b) Avelina immediately and
voluntarily surrendered and admitted stabbing the deceased. And finally, (c) she had not intended to kill the
deceased. She just wanted to punish his offending hand with her knife.
(3) No. There was no evidence that Avelina had murder in mind. She is not a criminal by nature.
JUDGMENT: The appellant was found to have committed the crime of homicide with no aggravating circumstances
and at least 3 mitigating circumstances.
Judgment modified; penalty reduced.

-Adapt
Art. 11: Defense of property
People vs. Apolinar
Facts:
 Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias Atong was at that
time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by Joaquin Gonzales in Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan,
Pangasinan.
 Armed with a shotgun, Atong was looking over said land when he observed that there was a man carrying a
bundle on his shoulder.
 Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the defendant called his attention but he ignored him.
 The defendant fired in the air and then at the person.
 The man, identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get back to his house and consequently narrated to
Angel Natividad, the barrio chief, that he had been wounded in the back by a shotgun.
 He then showed the two wounds - one in each side of the spinal column - which wounds were circular in
form and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch, according to the medical report of Dr. Mananquil.
 Petras died of the wounds he sustained.
 The defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident and gave a sworn statement
(Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on December 23, 1936.
Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defense of property
Held: No; the right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked as a
justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.
-Adapt
US vs. Bumanglag
Facts: On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag noticed that 40 bundles of palay which were kept in his
granary were missing. He searched for the missing palay the following morning and found them in an enclosed field
which was planted with sugar cane, at a distance of about 100 meters from his granary. For the purpose of
ascertaining who had done it, he left the palay there, and that night, accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio
Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, he waited near the said field for the person who might return to get the palay.
Guillermo Ribis appeared and attempted to carry the palay away him, but at that instant Bumanglag, Bundoc, and
Ribao assaulted the presumed thief with sticks and cutting and stabbing weapons; as a result of the struggle which
ensued, Ribis fell down and died instantly.
Issue: WON there is defense of property.
Held: NO.
Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person
of one entrusted with said property. (People v. Apolinar)
The bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging from his waist. It can not be concluded that the
deceased even intended to assault his murderers with his bolo either before he was attacked by them or during the
fight. Without unlawful aggression and the other requisites which would exempt the accused from criminal
responsibility, the appellant and his two companions assaulted Ribis with sticks and cutting and stabbing arms,
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds, and therefore, the said accused is guilty of the crime of homicide as
co-principal by direct participation, fully convicted, together with his codefendants who are already serving their
sentence.
-Adapt
People vs. Narvaez
Facts: In the afternoon of August 22, 1968, GRACIANO JUAN, JESUS VERANO, CESAR VERANO, CESAR
IBANEZ, GEORGE FLEISCHER and FLAVIANO RUBIA were fencing the land of George Fleischer, situated in
MAITUM, SOUTH COTABATO. At the place of fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant MAMERTO
NARVAEZ. At that time appellant was sleeping and was awakened by the sound of the chiseling of the walls of his
house. He then arose and saw the fencing. If the fencing continued appellant would be prevented from entering his
house and rice mill bodega. So he addressed the group, through Rubia to stop and talk things over. To which
Fleischer answered no and continued the fencing. At this instance, appellant lost his equilibrium and got his gun and
shot Fleischer, hitting him. Rubia ran towards the jeep, and knowing that there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at
Rubia likewise hitting him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died
Issue: WON the aggression was unlawful
Held: YES, it was unlawful. The angry order of Fleischer to continue the fencing would have resulted in the further
chiselling of the wall of appellant‘s house as well as the closure of the access to and from his house and rice mill is an
aggression against appellant‘s property rights. However, when the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing
his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. The third element is also present. There was no
provocation on the part of the appellant, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise produced
by the victims and laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk things over with him was no
provocation at all. Appellant‘s act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements for justification
are present.
The crime committed is HOMICIDE on two counts mitigated by the privileged extenuating circumstance of
incomplete self defense as well as by two generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation.
He was sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment and considering that appellant has been under detention for
14 years since his voluntary surrender, his immediate release was ordered.
-Adapt
Art. 11: Defense of reputation
People vs. Chua Hiong
Facts: Cesario Gocheco, nephew of Federico Chua Hiong (accused-appellant), published an article in the Manila
Chronicle on February 11, 1952 entitled ―Doubtful Citizenship‖ questioning the latter‘s citizenship. Aside from that,
Gocheco also filed various charges against the appellant with different government agencies. To answer this, on
February 21, 1952, Chua Hiong published an article in the Manila Chronicle accusing Cesario Gocheco of
persecution mania and sending the appellant a threatening letter under the pseudonym Benito Solipco. Chua Hiong
also alleged that Gocheco was trying to damage his reputation to retaliate. In an earlier case, Gocheco and his family
lost 2/3 of the inheritance left by his father. Chua Hiong was behind the prevailing parties, helping them with the
expenses of the case.
Thus, for the article, Chua Hiong was charged with and found guilty of the crime of libel.
Issue: Whether or not the appellant was justified by virtue of defense of reputation when he published article in the
Manila Chronicle dated the February 21, 1952 containing libelous material
1. Held: ―In a physical assault, retaliation becomes unlawful after the attack has ceased, because there would
be no harm to repel. But that is not the case when it is aimed at a person‘s good name. Once the aspersion
is cast, its sting clings and the one defamed may avail himself of all necessary means to shake it off. He
may hit back with another libel, which, if adequate, will be justified.” (emphasis supplied)
Note: However, it is justified as self-defense only when it is clearly intended to explain or deny what was previously
said of the one making the libelous statement. (People vs. Pelayo)
Appellant acquitted with costs de-officio.

-Adapt
People vs. Pelayo
Facts: On Nov.15, 1956 Pelayo told Atty. Clapano in his office and within hearing distance of three other people that
upon his investigation about the existence of gambling in the community, a Chinese operator named Lim Peng told
him that then Gov. Alejandro Almendras (now Senator) used to receive from him P500 protection money. The
following day, Pelayo delivered a privileged speech in city council session wherein he did not directly mention but
insinuated through his interpellations that the governor was receiving ―tongs‖. Pelayo admits having the said
conversation with Clapano.
Issues:
(1) WON the conversation was said in confidence and covered by the rule on privileged communication
(2) WON the crime charged which is serious slander should only be intriguing against honor
(3) WON words were uttered in Self Defense to what the governor had said about him previously
Held:
(1) NO – this contention of confidence is inconsistent with contention of self-defense, there were others who
heard the remarks he made to Clapano thus could not have given the communication in confidence.
(2) NO - it cannot be Intriguing against honor because the source of the information can be pin-pointed= Lim
Peng. When the source can be determined and the information was passed for the purpose of causing
dishonor, the act is slander
(3) NO – even if on a previous occasion the governor made derogatory remarks against Pelayo, the retaliation
with scurrilous words cannot be self-defense. It will only exist of the defendant did not go beyond explaining
what was previously said of him for the purpose of repairing the effect of the damage caused to him. There
is no justification for him to hit back of make the same imputation of accusation because this is not an act of
defense but an aggression itself
-Adapt
Art. 11: Avoidance of a greater evil
People v. Hernandez
Facts: Complainant’s version:
Vivencio Lascano, 19, started courting Maria Norma Hernandez sometime in August 1954. Appellant accepted
Vivencio on January 6, 1955. On the same date, appellant requested Vivencio to bring his parents with him to her
house and ask her hand for marriage before her parents.
On February 6, 1955 Vivencio‘s parents and aunts brought about 30 chickens and goats to appellant‘s house. The
parents of both parties agreed to the marriage, to be held on March 19, 1955.
On February 21, 1955, appellant and Vivencio applied to the municipal treasurer for marriage. On March 5, 1955
marriage license was issued. Vivencio, his parents, appellant and her parents went to the parish priest of Taal,
Batangas to arrange the proclamation of marriage.
Appellant‘s wedding gown was delivered to her house on March 16, 1955; but there was no one in the house so it
was just left in the balcony.
The parents of Vivencio cleaned the appellant‘s yard and did other chores on March 16, 17 and 18, 1955. On March
18, they constructed a temporary wedding shed and a temporary stove for the feast; they likewise slaughtered goats,
chickens and pigs and served around 90 guests.
March 19 came and they served around 70 guests. Vivencio and his parents waited for appellant until twelve
midnight but she was nowhere to be found. She never showed up thus causing them great shame and humiliation.
Appellant’s version:
She never honestly loved Vivencio. She was coerced by her parents and her uncle Agapito Mortel to accept him.
She ―felt a sense of torture‖ and so on March 11, 1955 she left for a cousin in Calapan, Mindoro where she stayed
until April of 1955 when she was fetched by a cousin because she was under arrest.
She denied receiving a wedding gown.
Vivencio and his parents did not go to their house on March 17 and 18 and there was noshed constructed and no
food were prepared by them.
Issue: Whether or not Maria‘s failure to fulfil the marriage agreement by not attending the celebration constituted
slander by deed.
Held: No; there is no malice, a requisite of slander. She was merely exercising her right not to give her consent to the
marriage after mature consideration. Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless
marriage pursuant to Art. 11, paragraph 4 of RPC.
Regina vs. Dudley
Facts:
1. Two Defendants together with one Brooks and the deceased, Richard Parker (between 17-18 y/o) was cast
away in a storm on high seas, 1600mi from Cape of Good Hope on July 5, 1884. All were able-bodied
English seamen of an English yacht.
2. They had no food and no fresh water except for 2 1lb. tins of turnips which they ate for 3days and stock up
rain water.
3. On 4th day, they caught a turtle & ate it up to the 12th day. For the next 8 days they ate nothing.
4. On 20th day, petitioners spoke to Brooks about sacrificing one in order to save the others. Brooks disagreed.
Parker, deceased was not consulted. A proposal to cast lots was raised but was never carried out because
brook disagreed (July24). They talked about their families implying and suggesting that boy was in a better
position to be killed than all of them because he has no family of his own. Dudley proposed that if no vessel
appears the next day (July 25) the boy should be killed.
5. July 25, still no vessel and defendants helping each other while distracting Brooks, sought to kill the boy.
Deceased was at the moment, lying at the bottom of the boat quite helplessly and extremely weakened by
famine that he is unable to put up any resistance. Dudley, after telling him what is about to come, struck a
knife in his throat killing him.
6. The three fed on his body and blood for the next four days. On the fourth day they were rescued.
Issue: WON killing of deceased is justifiable.
Decision: Modified. No legal justification of Homicide but willful Murder.
Held/Ratio: NO. Extreme necessity of hunger does not justify killing of the boy.
 Self-defense along justifies the taking of life of another. It is a general assumption that one ought rather to
die himself than to kill an innocent.
 No jurisprudence supports any of the defendant‘s contentions (That they would have died of hunger within
the four days before they were rescued of they did not feed on the body of the deceased, or that the boy,
being of weaker health was most probable to die first under the circumstances)
 Lord Baron commenting on maxim of ―Necessity carrieth a privilege in itself‖ highlights 3 kind of necessity:
(1) necessity of conservation of life, (2) necessity of obedience, and (3) necessity of act of God or of a
stranger. The first kind being of closest resemblance to the case it hand cannot be applied. “The
temptation to the act was not what the law has ever called a necessity.” A man has no right to
declare temptation to be an excuse.
―There is no absolute or unqualified necessity to preserve one‘s life.‖ It cannot be compared to man‘s duty of a
necessity to conservation of life in times of war as in the latter, it a duty imposed by the Sovereign on a soldier to
defend his country. There is no such excuse of necessity in the deliberate killing of this ―unoffending & unresisting
boy‖. The crime is undeniably, willful murder.
Though law and morality are not the same, and many things immoral are not necessarily illegal, the absolute divorce
of law from morality (as will be the result if the temptation to murder in this case is upheld by law), will have fatal
consequences.
-Rosales
Ty vs. People
Facts: Petitioner Vicky C. Ty filed the instant Petition for Review, seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of
Appeals, promulgated 31 July 2001. The decision affirmed with modification the judgment of the RTC of Manila,
dated 21 April 1997, finding her guilty of seven (7) counts of violation of B.P. 22, the ―Bouncing Checks Law.‖
Criminal Cases No. 93-130459 to No. 93-130465 corresponds to the seven instances for violation of BP. 22.
(Quoted from Criminal Case No. 93-130465) 30 May 1993, petitioner made, drew and issued to Manila Doctors‘
Hospital to apply to account or for value to Editha L. Vecino a Metropolitan Bank Check dated May 30, 1993 payable
to Manila Doctors Hospital in the amount of P30, 000.00, said accused knowing that at the time of the issue she did
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment.
The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. At her arraignment, Ty pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the
prosecution shows that Ty‘s mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the Manila Doctor‘s Hospital from 30 October
1990 until 4 June 1992. Being the patient‘s daughter, Ty signed the ―Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment‖
in the Contract of Admission dated 30 October 1990.‖
As of 4 June 1992, the Statement of Account shows the total liability of the mother in the amount of P657, 182.40.
Ty‘s sister, Judy Chua was also confined at the hospital from 13 May 1991 until 2 May 1992, incurring hospital bills in
the amount of P418, 410.55. The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to P1, 075,592.95. On 5 June
1992, Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed the payment of the obligation in installments. To assure
payment of the obligation, she drew several postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital.
The seven checks, each covering the amount of P30, 000.00 were all deposited on their due dates. But they were all
dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency of funds, with the ‗Account
Closed‖ advice.
For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of an ―uncontrollable fear of a greater injury.‖ She
averred that she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her mother whom the hospital inhumanely and
harshly treated and would not discharge unless the hospital bills are paid.
She alleged that her mother was deprived of room facilities such as the air-condition unit, refrigerator and television
set, and subject to inconveniences such as the cutting off of the telephone line, late delivery of her mother‘s food and
refusal to change the latter‘s gown and bed sheets. She also bewailed the hospital‘s suspending medical treatment of
her mother.
The ―debasing treatment,‖ she pointed out, so affected her mother‘s mental, psychological and physical health that
the latter contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged from the hospital. Fearing the worst for her mother,
and to comply with the demands of the hospital, Ty was compelled to sign a promissory note, open an account with
Metrobank and issue the checks to effect her mother‘s immediate discharge.‖
21 April 1997, the trial court rendered a Decision finding Ty guilty of seven counts of violation of BP 22 and sentenced
to suffer penalty of imprisonment of Six Month per count or a total of 42 months. Against this decision Ty reiterated
her defense that she issued the checks ―under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in
avoidance of a greater evil or injury.
In its decision dated 31 July 2001, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with modification. It set
aside the penalty of imprisonment and instead sentenced Ty ―to pay a fine of sixty thousand pesos (P60, 000.00)
equivalent to double the amount of the check, in each case.‖ The Court of Appeals rejected Ty‘s defenses of
involuntariness in the issuance of the checks and the hospital‘s knowledge of her checking account‘s lack of funds. It
held that BP. 22 makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check punishable, regardless of the purpose and terms
and conditions relating to its issuance.
Petitioner appeals to the Supreme Court alleging the same issues but raising errors ascribed to CA on the following
grounds:
1. There is clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was forced to or compelled in the opening of the account
and the issuance of the subject checks.
2. The checks were issued under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater
evil or injury.
3. The evidence on record patently shows absence of valuable consideration in the issuance of the subject checks.
4. It is an undisputed fact that the payee of the checks was fully aware of the lack of funds in the account.
5. The honorable court of appeals, as well as the honorable trial court, should not have applied criminal law
mechanically, without due regard to principles of justice and equity.
In its memorandum, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that a check issued as an evidence of debt,
though not intended to be presented for payment, has the same effect as an ordinary check, it falls within the ambit of
BP. 22. What the law punished is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
The Court finds the arguments a rehash of the arguments unsuccessfully raised before the trial court and
the Court of Appeals. The Court, likewise, discerns no compelling reason to reverse the factual findings arrived at by
the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. They find the petition to be without merit and accordingly sustain
Ty‘s conviction.
Issue: Whether the defense of uncontrollable fear is tenable to warrant defendant exemption from criminal liability.
 Held: No; For this exempting circumstance to be invoked the ff. requisites most concur: 1. existence of an
uncontrollable fear, 2. the fear must be real and imminent, and 3. the fear of an injury is greater than or at least
equal to that committed.
 In this case fear was not uncontrollable or insuperable as to deprive her of all volition and to make her a mere
instrument without will, moved exclusively by the hospital‘s threats and demands.
 The fear evoked on Ty was not real and imminent either but speculative, expected and anticipated; as for fear
that her mother‘s health might deteriorate further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital, or worse commit
suicide.
 Ty also failed to satisfy the last criteria because the Court is not convinced she was left with no choice but to
commit the crime. She did not take advantage of the many opportunities available to her to avoid committing
one. Therefore, the defense of state of necessity is also non-existent. By her very own words, she admitted that
the collateral or security the hospital required prior to the discharge of her mother may be in the form of
postdated checks or jewelry. She even testified her counsel advised her not to open an account nor issue
postdated checks. In all these, she failed to give evidence of coercion and compulsion from the hospital.
Furthermore, a defense of state of necessity requires that the injury expected is not brought about by negligence,
imprudence, and the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, the issuance of bouncing checks was brought
about by Ty‘s own failure to pay her mother‘s hospital bills.
 BP 22 does not make any distinction as to whether the checks within its contemplation are issued in payment of
an obligation or to merely guarantee an obligation. The Thrust of the law (BP. 22) is to prohibit the making of
worthless checks and putting them into circulation. The law itself creates a prima facie presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds. Deceit is not an essential element of an offense penalized by BP. 22.
-Marcaida
Art. 11: Fulfillment of duty
People vs. Delima
Facts: Lorenzo Napilon is a convict who escaped from jail and defendant, Felipe Delima was policeman tasked to
look for him. Delima found him in the house of one Jorge Alegria. The fugitive was armed with a pointed piece of
bamboo in the shape of a lance while the defendant with a revolver. The latter demanded his arrest but the former
answered instead with a stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged it and to impose his authority, fired his revolver
but did not hit Napilon. When the criminal ran away, defendant pursued him and fired another shot that which hit and
killed Napilon. CFI Samar convicted defendant with homicide.
Issue: WON defendant is justified in killing Napilon in performance of his duty.
Held: YES. The killing was done in performance of a duty. The deceased being under the obligation to surrender had
no right to assault and commit disobedience against police officer. The resistance of deceased compelled defendant
to apply extreme means which although fatal is justified by circumstances.
-Rosales
People vs. Belbes
Facts:
 Accused together with Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned to maintain peace and order at the prom of Pili Brgy.
High School.
 At 9:00 pm, two students approached them and their teacher saying someone was making trouble.
 Accused and Pat. Pabon who were armed with an armalite and .38 caliber respectively, responded forthwith.
 Meanwhile, Fernando Bataller and two of his company. Bataller was drunk and was vomiting and holding on
to the bamboo wall of the school‘s temporary building when the bamboo‘s broke.
 At this instance, the accused and Pat. Pabon appeared and without warning Accused fired his gun.
 Bataller fell and the two patrolmen fled.
Accussed version of the facts:
 Upon responding and arriving at the scene: Bataller was a little tipsy but not vomiting. They introduced
themselves as policemen but Bataller didn‘t mind them.
 Bataller then stabbed Pabon with a knife which accused said he knew because he saw the glint of the blade
and he was only 1 meter away from Pat. Pabon. The latter unfortunately was not hit.
 After two more thrusts were made towards him, Pabon retreated but accused was stabbed in his lower left
shoulder.
 The accused firearm was slung over his shoulder. As Bataller made another thrust, Accused gave a shot,
which after doing so, Bataller suddenly grabbed the firearm.
 Bataller‘s two other companions had also ganged up on him.
 They struggled with each other and the gun went off. It was semi-automatic, so one squeeze at the trigger
would fire a shot.
 After the armalite went off, Bataller fell. He took the knife and that was the time people started to gather.
 They went to the police station and turned over the knife.
 Pat. Pabon‘s testimony corroborated with the accused‘ except the part when accused fired a warning shot
and the deceased‘ companions ganging up on accused.
 Accused pleaded not guilty invoking self-defense in the performance of his official duty
Issue:
Was the trial court correct in holding accused-appellant guilty of murder?
Held: No. It was modified to HOMICIDE.
Ratio;
 To prove self-defense, the accused must show with clear and convincing evidence that (1) he is not the
unlawful aggressor, (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part, and (3) he employed reasonable
means to prevent or repel the aggression.
 It is incumbent upon an accused who has admitted to inflict fatal injuries to prove the justifying circumstance
claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence in order to avoid criminal liability.
 Appellant offers no material evidence to sufficiently support his claim of self-defense on the face of
mortal danger while on police duty
 the knife used by the deceased was not even subjected to fingerprinting
 The accused wound was only examined after 21 hours making self-infliction a possibility
 If it was true that accused and Bataller grappled face to face, then the victim should not have been
hit sideways
 TIME FACTOR! It took only about 6 seconds from the time the accused left his seat until the
gunshots were heard
 There are two requisites to invoke self-defense in the fulfillment of a duty:

(1) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right
(2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such
right or office
 The first requisite is present for it was admittedly a performance of his duty. However the second
one is lacking for the killing need not be a necessary consequence on the performance of his duty.
He exceeded his duty which is only to maintain peace and order when he fired his armalite without
warning. Thus, it would account only as an INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE.
 ON MURDER: Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing
itself. For it to be a qualifying circumstance, 2 conditions must concur:
(1) the employment of means, method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the
malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given the
latter to defend himself or to retaliate
(2) the means, method or manner of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender
 None of the two conditions were committed. Likewise, suddenness of an attack does not necessarily
imply treachery. Thus, ruling our murder.
 Homicide resulting from reckless imprudence is not recognized either.
Decision: Accused-appellant is found guilty of the crime of homicide mitigated by the incomplete justifying
circumstance of fulfillment of duty.
-Belderol
Art. 11: Lawful order of superior
People v. Beronilla
Facts: The accused was a military major of La Paz , Abra in 1941. He received an order form the regional
commander of an infantry of the Philippine Army, operating as a guerrilla unit, to prosecute Arsenio Borjal for treason
and to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen. The jury found Borjal guilty of the charge and the recommendation of the jury
was approved by the Headquarters of the guerrilla unit. For the execution of Borjal, the accused was prosecuted for
murder.
The accused acted upon orders of superior officers which turned out to be illegal.
Issue: WON Beronilla can be considered to be acting upon a call of duty and thus, covered by justifying
circumstances which would warrant acquittal
Held: Yes; Criminal intent not established; he was acting pursuant to orders of his superiors in the City
(orders given through letters/telegrams). As a military subordinate, he could not question the orders of his superior
officers. He obeyed the orders in good faith without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on
his part.
-J. Garcia
Art. 12: Exempting circumstances – Insanity
People v. Bonoan
FACTS
The accused was charged with the murder of Carlos Guison. Bonoan stabbed the latter when he refused to
pay the P50 debt he owed the former, and this was evidenced by the testimony of a police officer who witnessed the
event. Bonoan‘s arraignment and subsequent trial were delayed a few times because the accused was mentally
deranged and at the time confined in the Psychopatic Hospital. The accused had also been confined in the insane
deparment of the San Lasaro Hospital (suffering from dementia praecox) in 1922 and in 1926.
ISSUE
WON there is sufficient evidence to acquit the defendant on the ground of insanity in accordance with par. 1
of article 12 of the RPC
HELD
Yes
Ratio
1. Dementia precox is covered by the term insanity
When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox, homicidal attack
is common because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property is being taken. During
the period of excitement, such person has no control whatever of his acts.
The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental disease or a mental defect, producing an
―irresistible impulse,‖ as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will which would enable
him to prevent himself from doing the act.
Here, an irresistible homicidal impulse was considered to embrace the term ―insanity.‖
2. It has been proven that defendant suffered from dementia four days before the commission of the
crime, which, according to experts, is a symptom of dementia praecox which might have revived itself
even after years of being dormant or stable

In order to ascertain a person‘s mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to
receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and
after that time. Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of derangement
essential to establish insanity as a defense. Mind can be known only by outward acts.
 Thereby, we read the thoughts, the motives and emotions of a person and come to
determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. To prove
insanity, therefore, circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice.
A person who has been adjudged inane, or has been committed to a hospital or any asylum for the insane, is
presumed to be insane.
-J.Garcia
People vs. Ambal
Facts:
 In the morning of 20 January 1977, the barangay captain found Felicula (Feling), 48 and married to
Honorato Ambal, under some flowering plants near the couple‘s house in Barrio Balbagon, Mambajao,
Camiguin. She was mortally wounded, having 7 incised wounds in different parts of her body. She asked for
drinking water and medical assistance. She was placed in an improvised hammock and brought to the
hospital. She died 40 minutes later.
 Honorato admitted to killing his wife. After leaving their child to a neighbor, he went to the house of the
barangay captain and told the latter‘s wife that he had killed Feling. Then, he took a pedicab, went to the
municipal hall and surrendered to a policeman, again confessing that he killed his wife. The policeman
confiscated his long bolo, the tip of which was broken. His shirt was torn, he was bespattered with blood,
and he appeared to be weak.
 The two had been married for 15 years, and quarreled and bickered a lot. Feling sometimes didn‘t stay in
the home and spent the night in the poblacion of Mambajao. They had 8 children. The immediate
provocation for the assault was a fight, because Feling had not bought medicine for Honorato, who then had
influenza. She told him that he was better off dead (―Mas maayo ka pang mamatay.‖) so he attacked her.
 He was charged with parricide on 27 January 1977 in the municipal court, and was elevated to the CFI on 4
March 1977. He pleaded not guilty. His defense was insanity.
 Two doctors were brought to the stand:
o Dr. Maximino Balbas, Jr., the municipal health officer, found him to be have suffered from
―‘psychosis‘ due to short frustration tolerance‖ during the commission of the crime but was normal
before and after the commission. He also said that Ambal was a ―passive-aggressive, emotionally
unstable, explosive or inadequate personality.‖
o Dr. Cresogono Llacuna, who undertook a 2-month observation of mental cases and treated around
100 cases of mental disorders, said that Ambal suffered from a minor psycho-neurosis, a
disturbance of the functional nervous system which is NOT INSANITY. He was normal but nervous,
and HAD NO MENTAL DISORDER.
 Ambal said that he knew that his wife was dead because he was informed of it, but that he didn‘t know that
he had killed his wife because at the time of the killing, he didn‘t know what he was doing, not being in full
possession of his normal mental faculties. He said that his wife was irritable and they used to quarrel a lot,
and that he remembered riding on a tricycle when he surrendered on the day of the killing. He remembered
that a week before the incident, he got wet while plowing, and that‘s how he got sick.
 Trial court concluded that his behavior immediately after the incident showed he wasn‘t insane and that he
acted like a normal human being.
Issue: Should Ambal be exempted from criminal liability by reason of insanity?
Held and Ratio: No; Trial Court‘s decision is affirmed.

 ―Courts should be careful to distinguish insanity in law from passion or eccentricity, mental weakness or
mere depression resulting from physical ailment. The State should guard against sane murderers escaping
punishment through a general plea of insanity.‖ (People vs. Bonoan)
o Imbecile: ―person marked by mental deficiency‖; ―must be deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.‖ (People vs. Formigones)
o Insane person: ―one who has an unsound mind or suffers from a mental disorder‖; ―there must be
complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or that the accused acted without
the lease discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability.‖
(People vs Cruz, People vs. Renegado)
o Insanity: ―a manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less
permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality, functional or organic, and
characterized by perversion, inhibition, or disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective
faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition.‖ (Revised Administrative Code). ―The popular
meaning of the word ‗crazy‘ is not synonymous with the legal terms ‗insane‘, ‗non compos mentis‘,
‗unsound mind‘, ‗idiot‘, or ‗lunatic.‘‖ (US vs. Vaquilar) Passion and motives of anger, hatred, etc, is
not insanity either. Neither is being weak-minded.
 Brief history lesson on pleading insanity given: In medieval times, insanity wasn‘t a defense. ―Gradually,
insanity was allowed, but only witin narrow limits. … Then the limits of the defense were expanded … The
killer was excused if the disease of the mind was such that he was incapable of appreciating the difference
between right and wrong … not the right and wrong of particular case, but right or wrong generally or in the
abstract, the difference … between good and evil. Later, this was modified in favor of the prisoner so that
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong generally would not charge with responsibility
if there was no capacity to understand the difference in relation to the particular act, the subject of the
crime.‖
 The court presumes that a person is of sound mind unless there is positive proof stating otherwise. In this
case, no such proof has been given.
Barredo, J, concurring: Agrees with decision based on jurisprudence.
Abad Santos, J, concurring: Adds the observation that Feling was a shrew, and that ―the worst thing that can happen
to a person is to have an unbearable spouse.‖ She was also neglectful and even ―had the gall‖ to tell him that he was
better off dead. This, plus the mental disorder, should entitle him to two additional mitigating circumstances:
obfuscation and illness. But under the circumstances, appellant is deserving of executive clemency, and so he
recommends it.
-Feliciano
People vs. Puno
Facts:
 Ernesto Puno, 28, is a jeepney driver. At about 2pm of 8 Sept 1970, he entered a bedroom in the house of
Francisca Col (Aling Kikay), 72, who is a widow. The house is in Little Baguio, Barrio Tinajeros, Malabon,
Rizal. Aling Kikay was in bed.
 He said ―Mangkukulam ka, mambabarang, mayroon kang bubuyog‖ then slapped her and struck her several
times on the head with a hammer until she was dead.
 There were two witnesses: Hilaria de la Cruz, 23, and Lina Pajes, 27. According to them, his eyes were red,
and his look was baleful and menacing. He threatened the two and told them not to go to the police. He then
went to his parents‘ house in Barrio Tugatong, then to his second cousin‘s (Teotino Puno‘s) house in Barrio
San Jose, Calumpit, Bulacan. (It was flooded there then; records don‘t show how he got there).
 Lina went to the police anyway and told Corporal Daniel B. Cruz what happened. He found her body, took
the statements of the witnesses down at the police station. Autopsy showed that Aling Kikay had lacerated
wounds on her right eyebrow and contusions on the head caused by a hard instrument. COD: intracranial,
traumatic hemorrhage.
 Puno‘s father surrendered him to the police. He was brought to National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong on
10 Sept 1970. He was charged with murder in the municipal court and was indicted in the Circuit Criminal
Court at Pasig on 21 Oct 1970. Court cited as aggravating circumstances evident premeditation, abuse of
superiority and disregard of sex.
 Puno testified that he didn‘t remember killing Aling Kikay. He believes that there are mangkukulam,
mambabarang and mabubuyog and that one harmed by a mambabarang might have a headache or a
swelling nose and ears and can be cured only by an herbolaryo. It is also necessary to kill the mangkukulam
and mambabarang.
 Zenaida Gabriel, his wife, 30, testified that on the night before the murder, his eyes were reddish and that he
complained of a headache. The following day, while he was feeding pigs, he said that a bumblebee was
coming towards him and he warded it off with his hands, but Zenaida didn‘t see any bee. Puno then went
upstairs and got the cord of the religious habit of his mother, then asked for another rope when Zenaida told
him not to use it. Puno tied their dog to a tree and repeatedly boxed it. Aida Gabriel, who saw this happen,
also said that his eyes were bloodshot and he had a ferocious expression about him.
 According to Teotimo, when Puno came to his house on 8 Sept, he was cuddling a puppy that he called
―Diablo‖ and when asked to eat, didn‘t eat but fed the puppy instead. Puno introduced him to the puppy and
sang an English song, and refused to change his clothes (which were wet because of the flood). Later, he
tried on Teotimo‘s father‘s clothes and when told that Teo‘s father had been dead for a couple of years, he
just stared at Teotimo. While lying down, he started singing again, then made a moaning sound until he fell
asleep. In the morning, he was awakened by the sound of people in the flood, and Ernesto thought they
were his fellow cursillistas.
 Defense brought 3 psychiatrists, who all testified that Puno acted with discernment:
o Dr. Araceli Maravilla from the Psychiatry Section of Dr. Jose R. Reyes Memorial Hospital: Puno
was an outpatient who could very well live with society although he was afflicted with
―schizophrenic reaction‖, Puno knew what he was doing and that he had psychosis.
o Dr. Reynaldo Robles of National Mental Hospital: symptoms were ―not socially incapacitating‖ and
that he could adjust to the environment. Agrees with Maravilla.
o Dr. Vicente: not suffering from any delusion and was not mentally deficient. He wouldn‘t have
reached third year HS if he were.
o The report of the three doctors submitted on 14 Dec 1970 said that he is ―presently free from any
social incapacitating psychotic symptoms. The … amnesia of several isolated accounts … do not fit
the active pattern of a schizophrenic process. [Schizophrenics] may retain some residual symptoms
impairing their judgment but not necessarily their discernment of right from wrong of the offense
committed.‖
 Trial Court said he knew what he was doing at the time and that he would be punished for it, which was why
he threatened the witnesses. If he were truly insane at the time, he would‘ve killed the two witnesses as well.
Puno was convicted of murder and sentenced him to death.
Issue: Was Puno insane at the time of the commission, given that he had been suffering chronic schizophrenia before
the crime was committed?
Held and Ratio: No. Death Penalty set aside to Reclusion Perpetua.
 Insanity, to be pleaded, must be characterized by ―total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality
of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.‖ (People vs. Ambal) Puno was not legally insane when
he killed Aling Kikay, and he was not completely deprived of reason and freedom of will, as shown by the
facts and findings of the psychiatrists.
 Murder is correct because there was abuse of superiority (as in, ang nasabi na lang ni Aling Kikay ay ―Diyos
ko.‖ ) There wasn‘t any premeditation proven, nor disregard of sex, therefore, penalty should only be in
medium terms.
Makasiar, J, dissenting:
 Appellant had been ailing with a psychotic disorder medically known as chronic schizophrenia even before
he committed the crime. The said ailment is characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and
reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions.
 Articles cited by Makasiar shows that ‗social recovery‘ is not the same as being ‗cured‘: ―By this it is meant
that the patient is able to return to his previous social environment and to previous or equivalent occupation,
but with minor symptoms and signs…‖
 What happened was a relapse. ―For chronic schizophrenia, the patient does not recover fully in two months‘
time. His condition may simply be ―in remission‖ which term means ―social recovery.‖ His records never
showed that he was cured, only that he was ―improving‖ and ―treatment not completed.‖
 According to Dr. Vicente, his power of control over his will to commit a crime is affected in such a way that
―one who has the impulse to kill will kill‖ when he is affected by such an ailment. Vicente also said that he
could‘ve been suffering from an onset of the schizo reaction at the time. It was also barely a month and 15
days since his last attack, so the interval was not sufficient time for his full recovery.
 He was convinced that a mangkukulam was inflicting harm on him, so he killed her in self-defense. ―The
victim was a mere consequence of his mental delusion. He killed the ―mangkukulam‖ as personified by the
victim; he did not kill Aling Kikay herself.‖
-Feliciano
People vs. Dungo
Facts: On March 16, 1987 between 2:00 and 3:00pm, the accused went to Mrs. Sigua's office at the Department of Agrarian
Reform, Apalit, Pampanga. After a brief talk, the accused drew a knife from the envelope he was carrying and stabbed Mrs. Sigua
several times. After which he departed from the office with blood stained clothes, carrying a bloodied bladed weapon. The autopsy
report revealed that the victim sustained 14 wounds, 5 of which were fatal.
Rodolfo Sigua, husband of the deceased, testified that sometime in February 1987, the accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him
why his wife was requiring so many documents from him. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR.
The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense:
 Two weeks prior to March 16, 1987, Rosalino's wife noticed that he appears to be in deep thought always, maltreating their
children when he was not used to it before. There were also times that her husband would inform her that his feet and head
were on fire when in truth they were not.
 On that fateful day, Rosalino complained of stomachache but they didn't bother to buy medicine as the pain went away
immediately. Thereafter, he went back to the store. But when Andrea followed him to the store, he was no longer there. Worried,
she looked for him. On her way home, she heard people saying that a stabbing occurred. She saw her husband in her parents-
in-law's house with people milling around. She asked her husband why he did the act, to which Rosalino answered, "That's the
only cure for my ailment. I have cancer of the heart. If I don't kill the deceased in a number of days, I would die.‖ That same day,
the accused went to Manila.
Dr. Santiago and Dr. Echavez of the National Center for Mental Health testified that the accused was confined in the mental
hospital, as per order of the trial court dated Aug. 17, 1987. Based on the reports of their staff, they concluded that Rosalino was
psychotic or insane long before, during and after the commission of the alleged crime and classified his insanity as an organic
mental disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke. But Dr. Balatbat who treated the accused for ailments secondary
to stroke, and Dr. Lim who testified that the accused suffered dorm occlusive disease, concluded that Rosalino was somehow
rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment in their clinic.
Issue: WON the accused was insane during the commission of the crime charged.
Held: No. For insanity to relieve the person of criminal liability, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act, that he acts without the least discernment and that there be complete absence or
deprivation of the freedom of the will.
Under Philippine jurisdiction, there's no definite test or criterion for insanity. However, the definition of insanity under
Sec 1039* of the Revised Administrative Code can be applied. In essence, it states that insanity is evinced by a
deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties, which is manifested in language or conduct. An insane
person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequence of his act.
Evidence of insanity must refer to the mental condition at the very time of doing the act. However, it is also
permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition for a reasonable period before and after the time of the act in
question. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts.
It is not usual for an insane person to confront a specified person who may have wronged him. But in the case at
hand, the accused was able to Mrs. Sigua. From this, it can be inferred that the accused was aware of his acts. This
also established that the accused has lucid intervals.
Moreover, Dr. Echavez testified to the effect that the appellant could have been aware of the nature of his act at the
time he committed it when he shouted (during laboratory examination) that he killed Mrs. Sigua. This statement
makes it highly doubtful that the accused was insane when he committed the act.
The fact that the accused was carrying an envelope where he hid the fatal weapon, that he ran away from the scene
of the incident after he stabbed the victim several times, that he fled to Manila to evade arrest, indicate that he was
conscious and knew the consequences of his acts in stabbing the victim. (This was taken from the trial court's
decision).
Judgment: questioned decision AFFIRMED.

-scribd
People vs. Yam-id
Facts: Accused/Appellant: Erlindo Yam-Id

 Victim: Jerry Tejamo, 6 yrs old
 April 1, 1994, 2:00 PM – Julius Cantutay was sent by his grandmother, Amanda Ceniza to Bgy. Tutay,
Pinamungajan, Cebu to deliver benignit to his aunt Bebing Dequiado.
o Jerry Tejamo was with Julius
o They passed by the house of the accused who greeted them, ―Good Evening‖ and after the
greeting, the accused unsheathed a long bolo and ran after the two
o Julius pushed Jerry and told him to run but Jerry was eventually overtaken by Julius
o Appellant caught up with Jerry and stabbed him on the left portion of his back, then held him by the
hair and hacked him on the nape. As Jerry fell to ground, the appellant further stabbed him on the
right side of his back then the appellant knelt over the prostrate body of Jerry and sucked the blood
from his neck
o Julius ran towards the house of Jerry to the latter‘s father, Danilo Tejamo. He informed Ancieta
Tejamo, wife of Danilo, who thereafter told Danilo
o Ancieta and Danilo ran to the site of the incident but before reaching the place they were met by
the appellant
o After Danilo asked the appellant where his son was, appellant answered, ―I will kill all of you,‖ and
immediately hacked Danilo
o Danilo was able to dodge the attack but he fell to the ground. Appellant struck at Danilo who got hit
on the bridge of his nose. Danilo tried to stand by appellant hacked him again and hit him in the
head
o The tip of the bolo hit appellant‘s stomach when he held Danilo by the collar to finish him off.
Appellant then ran towards his house and threw the bolo to the ground.
o Danilo regained consciousness and sought treatment
 The appellant denied killing Jerry during the trial and pleaded self-defense for his assault at Danilo
 At the automatic review at the Supreme Court, the appellant admitted to killing Jerry and pleaded insanity as
his defense which contends that he has schizophrenia. The defense of insanity is anchored on the
testimony of Dr. Antonio Yapha who said that the testimony of the appellant that he was shot by Danilo is
improbable as a gunshot would not have caused a prolapse (intestine slipping out of the usual place). In
addition, they claimed that the appellant‘s gruesome action of sucking Jerry‘s blood after he killed him is
further proof of insanity
Issue: Whether or not the appellant can use the defense of insanity in killing of Jerry Tejamo
 Held: No. Insanity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be existing before or at the very moment the
crime was committed, by whoever invokes it as a defense
o Defense failed to discharge its burden of proving that accused-appellant was insane at the time of
the commission of the crime. No medical certificate was presented to substantiate the claim of
insanity and no expert testimony was proffered to support the allegation.
Also, no evidence was presented that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime and the fact
that the defense of insanity was not even raised during the trial of the case gives the impression that is but an
afterthought.
-Adapt
People vs. Belonio
Facts: RTC found Randy Belonio y Landas guilty of the murder of Ramy Tamayo and sentenced him to death. On
January 6, 2000, Jennifer Carampatana‘s grandmother was buried and there was a wake in their house in the
evening. Her first cousin, the late Ramy Tamayo, arrived in their house with his wife around 10:00 P.M.
Jennifer invited Ramy to talk outside of their house. Before they could sit on a nearby bench, Ramy decided to buy
cigarettes from a store only a few meters away. The store was furnished with a small opening for the store-keeper to
attend to the customers and Ramy was occupying that space in front of the opening to pay when the accused Randy
Belonio arrived. Randy tried to force his way in front of the opening and as a consequence, he bumped on Ramy.
Jennifer saw that Randy gave Ramy a long and hard look.
Jennifer and Ramy sat and talked on the bench. The accused came over and sat on the other end of the bench.
Then the accused asked Ramy for the latter‘s cigarette lighter and conversed with him.
The accused left but after a few minutes he returned, Jennifer, who was facing the direction of the approaching
accused, saw him and noticed that he was wearing long sleeves. Ramy Tamayo could not see the accused as he
was facing sideways to Jennifer. Without saying a word and without warning, the accused delivered a stabbing blow
with a dagger which was concealed in his hand. Ramy was hit on the right chest, Jennifer stood up and ran towards
her house shouting for help. There at the gate of the fence of her house, she heard another thudding sound of a
stabbing blow. When Jennifer entered her house, she announced that Ramy was stabbed.
The accused ran away towards the back of the barangay hall but was later arrested from one (1) of the houses near
the barangay hall where he took refuge.
Randy Belonio raised the defense of insanity, an exempting circumstance, and relied on the expert assessment of his
witness, Dr. Antonio Gauzon, who certified thus: ―This is an individual who is suffering from (Schizophrenia), Chronic
Undifferentiated and probably triggered by (s)ubstance abuse of Shabu and Marijuana.‖
RTC found appellant guilty of Murder and that he had full control of his mental faculties.
Issue: Whether or not appellant‘s defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance is tenable.
Held: Judgment of the lower court AFFIRMED. Appellant is found GUILTY of murder.
Ratio:
Whoever invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. In the case at bar, the defense utterly
failed to discharge its burden of proving that appellant was insane. The evidence adduced by the defense is sorely
insufficient to establish his claim that he was insane at the time he killed Tamayo.
In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Proof
of the existence of some abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability, if it can be shown that the
offender was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence. Belonio, after giving the victim a hard and resentful
look, sat near the latter, lighted his cigarette and conversed with him. Afterwards, he left and came back armed with a
dagger with which he stabbed Tamayo. Immediately thereafter, he escaped and went into hiding. These acts tend
to establish that Belonio was well aware of what he had just committed, and was capable of distinguishing
right from wrong. Otherwise, he would not have attempted to escape and go into hiding.
The only other evidence of insanity that appellant pointed to is the medical certificate prepared by Dr. Antonio
Gauzon stating that Belonio was suffering from schizophrenia. Dr. Gauzon testified that based on his interview with
Belonio on October 25, 2000 (around nine months after the stabbing incident) the latter was suffering from
schizophrenia. However, the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of the offense may be accorded weight
only if there is also proof of alleged abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of
the crime. Dr. Guazon‘s report was silent as regards the incidents occurring prior to or during the circumstance for
which Belonio stands trial.
The story narrated by the doctor was a mere life and family history of Belonio. There was no showing that he was
actually suffering from schizophrenia during his juvenile years. To demonstrate that he had been suffering from this
condition, the doctor pointed to the fact that he has already killed three (3) persons, including the present incident.
However, such conclusion is non sequitur and, at best, a circuitous argument. Further, the veracity of these findings
is belied by the fact that the accused did not raise this defense during his prosecutions for the other killings. No other
circumstances evincing its existence were presented during trial.
-Marcaida
Art. 12: Somnabulism
People vs. Taneo
Facts: Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his parent's house in Dolores, Ormoc. On January 16, 1932, a fiesta
was being celebrated in the said barrio and guests were entertained in the house, among them were Fred Tanner
and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the
room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounded her in the abdomen. He also attacked
Fred and Luis and tried to attack his father, after which, he wounded himself. Potenciano's wife, who was 7 months
pregnant at that time, died five days later as a result of the wound.
The trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime, the defendant had a quarrel over a
glass of "tuba" with Collantes and Abadilla, who invited him to come down and fight. When he was about to go down,
he was stopped by his wife and his mother. On the day of the commission of the crime, it was noted that the
defendant was sad and weak, had a severe stomachache that's why he went to bed in the early afternoon. The
defendant stated that when he fell asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadila
held his feet. That's why he got up and it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down; he armed
himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded.
Then, he fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to
multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way.
Issue: WON defendant acted while in a dream.
Ratio: Yes. The defendant acted while in a dream & his acts, therefore, weren‘t voluntary in the sense of entailing
criminal liability.
The apparent lack of motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none, but that
simply they are not known to us. Although an extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a
real motive but just for the sake of committing it. In the case at hand, the court found not only lack of motives for the
defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of (read: he loved his wife dearly, he tried to attack his father in
whose house the lived and the guests whom he invited), but also motives for not committing the acts.
Dr. Serafica, an expert witness in the case, stated that considering the circumstances of the case, the defendant
acted while in a dream, under the influence of a hallucination and not in his right mind.
The wife's wound may have been inflicted accidentally. The defendant did not dream that he was assaulting his wife,
but that he was defending himself from his enemies.
Judgment: defendant not criminally liable for the offense. It was also ordered that he be confined in the government
insane asylum and will not be released until the director thereof finds that his liberty would no longer constitute a
menace
-Adapt
Art. 12: Minority
People vs. Doquena
Facts: Between 1-2 pm of Nov. 19, 1938, Juan Ragojos and Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of
their school in Sual, Pangasinan. Valentin Doquena, the accused, intercepted the ball, and threw it a Ragojos, who
was hit in the stomach. Miffed, Ragojos chased Doquena, and upon catching him, slapped Doquena on the nape,
and punched him in the face. After doing this, Ragojos went back to Rarang to resume playing volleyball. Insulted,
Doquena looked for something to throw at Ragojos, finding none, he got his cousin's (Romualdo Cocal) knife, and
confronted Ragojos. Ragojo's denied Doquena's request for a fight and resumed playing. Doquena stabbed the
unaware Ragojos in the chest, thereby killing the latter. The court held that in committing the act, the accused acted
with discernment and was conscious of the nature and consequences of his acts, therefore his defense that he was a
minor was untenable (given that the Doquena was a 7th grade pupil, one of the brightest in his class, and was an
officer in the CAT program), and thus convicted him of the crime of homicide. The court ordered him to be sent to the
Training School for Boys until he reaches the age of majority. Thus, the appeal by the accused, stating that to
determine whether or not there was discernment on the part of the minor, the following must be taken into
consideration:
a) The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed.
b) The state of mind at the time the crime was committed
c) The time he had at his disposal
d) The degree of reasoning of the minor
Issue: WON the accused acted with discernment
Held: Decision affirmed. Yes, the accused acted with discernment. Accused mistakes the discernment for
premeditation, or at least for lack of intention, as a mitigating circumstance. However, the DISCERNMENT that
constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years but over nine, who commits
an act prohibited by law, is his MENTAL CAPACITY to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such
capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of
said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.
-Adapt
Art. 12: Accident
People vs. Bindoy
Facts: On May 6, 1930, Donato Bindoy offered some tuba to Tibay, Faustino Pacas' wife. She refused and Bindoy
threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas stepped in to defend his wife and attempted to take away from
Bindoy the bolo he carried. The disturbance attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam. In the course of the
struggle, Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter's hand, with such
violence that the point of the bolo reached Omamdam's chest, who was then behind Bindoy. The trial court held that
Bindoy was guilty of the crime of homicide. Bindoy appealed, alleging that the death of Omamdam was caused
accidentally and without malicious intent.
Issue: WON the crime of which Bindoy was found guilty of can be mitigated on the ground of accident.
Held: Yes. Decision is reversed. Bindoy is acquitted according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Revised Penal Code
Ratio:
1. There is no evidence to show that Bindoy deliberately and intentionally killed Omamdam.
 No evidence that Omamdam took part in the fight between Bindoy and Pacas.
 No evidence that Bindoy was aware of Omamdam's presence.
 No evidence that there was disagreement or ill feelings between Bindoy &
Omamdam. On the contrary, they were nephew & uncle, & were on good terms with each other.
2. The witness for the defense corroborates the defendant to the effect that Pacas and Bindoy were actually
struggling for the possession of the bolo, and that when the latter let go, the former had pulled so violently
that it flew towards Omamdam, who was therefore hit in the chest, without Bindoy's seeing him, because
Omamdam had passed behind him. The testimony of this witness was not contradicted by any rebuttal
evidence adduced by the fiscal.
3. If, in the struggle, the defendant had attempted to wound his opponent, and instead of doing so, had
wounded Omamdam, he would be liable for his act, since whoever willfully commits a felony or a
misdemeanor incurs criminal liability, although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended.
This is not the case here. Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas. He was only trying to defend his possession of the bolo,
which Pacas was trying to wrench away from him. His conduct was perfectly lawful.
-Adapt
US vs. Tanedo
Facts: On January 26, 1909, Cecilio Tanedo, a landowner, went with some workers to work on the dam on his land,
carrying with him his shotgun & a few shells. Upon reaching the dam, the accused went on his way to hunt for wild
chickens, meeting the victim, Feliciano Sanchez, the latter's Mother & Uncle. The accused went into the forest upon
the recommendation of the deceased to continue his search for the elusive wild chickens. Upon seeing one, Tanedo
shot one, but simultaneously, he heard a human cry out in pain. After seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo
ran back to his workers and asked one, Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the body, which they did by putting it
amidst the tall cogon grass, & later burying in an old well. Only 1 shot was heard that morning & a chicken was killed
by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were found at the scene of the crime. There was no enmity between the
accused and the deceased. Prior to the trial, the accused denied all knowledge of the crime, but later confessed
during the trial. The lower court found the accused guilty of homicide, having invited the deceased into the forest &
intentionally shooting him in the chest. Accused was sentenced to 14 yrs, 8 mos & 1 day of reclusion temporal,
accessories, indemnifications & costs. The accused appealed.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty
Held: No. The idea that Tanedo intended to kill Sanchez is negated by the fact that the chicken and the man were
shot at the same time, there having only one shot fired. Also, according to:
 Article 1 of the Penal Code: Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and omissions punished by law…
 Article 8: He who while performing a legal act with due care, causes some injury by mere accident without
liability or intention of causing it.
 Section 57 of Code of Criminal Procedure: A defendant in a criminal action shall be presumed to be innocent
until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt that his guilt is satisfactorily shown he shall
be entitled to an acquittal.
In this case there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the accused, nor is it disputed that the accused was
engaged in a legal act, nor is there evidence that the accused intended to kill the deceased. The only thing suspicious
is his denial of the act and his concealment of the body.
The court quoted State vs. Legg: "Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused is not required to
prove such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence, because there is a denial of intentional killing, and the
burden is upon the state to show that it was intentional, and if, from a consideration of all the evidence, both that for
the state and the prisoner, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the killing was accidental or intentional,
the jury should acquit."
Court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of conviction.
Decision: Judgment of Conviction is reversed, the accused acquitted, and discharged from custody.
-Adapt
Pomoy vs. People
Facts:
 Victim: Tomas Balboa, teacher at Concepcion College of Science and Fisheries in Concepcion,
Iloilo.
 January 4, 1990, 7:30 AM: policemen arrived at Concepcion College to arrest Balboa, allegedly in
connection with a robbery. Balboa was taken to Headquarters and detained in the jail thereat.
 Later that day, a little past 2:00 PM: petitioner Pomoy, a police sergeant, directed Balboa to come
out of detention for tactical interrogation at the investigation room.
 At that time, petitioner had a gun (.45 caliber pistol) tucked in a holster which was hanging by the
side of his belt; gun was fully embedded in its holster, with only the handle of the gun protruding
from the holster
 As he was holding the doorknob with his right hand to open the door, the victim suddenly
approached him and grabbed his gun; he held the handle of his gun with his left hand, released his
right hand from the doorknob and, with that right hand, he held the handle of his gun; Tomas
Balboa was not able to take actual hold of the gun because of petitioner‘s efforts in preventing him
(Balboa) from holding the handle of his gun; he used his left hand to parry the move of Balboa;
after he held the handle of his gun with his right hand, in a matter of seconds, he felt somebody
was holding his right hand; he and Balboa grappled and in two or three seconds the gun was
drawn from its holster as both of them held the gun; more grappling followed and five
seconds after the gun was taken from its holster it fired, the victim was to his right side
when the attempt to grab his gun began and was still to his right when the gun was drawn
from its holster until it fired, as they were still grappling or wrestling;
 His gun was already loaded in its chamber and cocked when he left his house, and it was locked
when it fired; during the grappling he used his left hand to prevent Balboa from holding his gun,
while the victim used his right hand in trying to reach the gun; after the gun fired, they were
separated from each other and Balboa fell and died as a result
Issue: 1.Whether the shooting of Tomas Balboa was the result of an accident
2.Whether petitioner was able to prove self-defense.
Ruling: 1. Yes, it was the result of an accident.
2.He was not; however, it was unnecessary for him to do so
Ratio:
1. Presence of All the Elements of Accident
a) accused was at the time performing a lawful act with due care
 At the time of the incident, petitioner was a member of the PNP
o it was in lawful performance of his duties as investigating officer that he fetched the
victim from the latter‘s cell for a routine interrogation.
o Also in the lawful performance of his that petitioner tried to defend his possession of
the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it from his holster
b) resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and
 Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised all the necessary precautions to
prevent his service weapon from causing accidental harm to others. He had kept his service
gun locked when he left his house; he kept it inside its holster at all times, especially within the
premises of his working area
c) on the part of the accused, there was no fault or no intent to cause the injury.
 At no instance during his testimony did the accused admit to any intent to cause injury to the
deceased, much less kill him. Nicostrato Estepar, guard in charge of the detention of Balboa,
did not testify to any behavior on the part of petitioner that would indicate the intent to harm the
victim while being fetched from the detention cell.
 consequences of circumstances beyond the control of petitioner.
 Petitioner not in control of gun when it fired during the scuffle.
- deceased persistently attempted to wrest the weapon from him, while he resolutely tried to thwart those attempts
- in the course of grappling for the gun, both hands of petitioner were fully engaged – his right hand was trying to
maintain possession of the weapon, while his left was warding off the victim.
 Release of the gun’s safety lock and firing of the gun both accidental
- though .45 caliber service pistol was equipped with a safety lock that, unless released, would prevent the firing of
the gun, a semi-automatic pistol is prone to accidental firing when possession thereof becomes the object of a
struggle.
- two shots fired: a caliber .45 semi-automatic pistol, when fired, immediately slides backward throwing away the
empty shell and returns immediately carrying again a live bullet in its chamber. Thus, the gun can, as it did, fire in
succession. Verily, the location of, and distance between the wounds and the trajectories of the bullets jibe perfectly
with the claim of the petitioner
2. Self-Defense
 Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident (no intent to kill)
 Since the death of the victim was the result of an accidental firing of the service gun of petitioner a
further discussion of whether the assailed acts of the latter constituted lawful self-defense is
unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision REVERSED. Petitioner is ACQUITTED.
-Adapt
Art. 12: Irresistible force/uncontrollable fear
US vs. Caballeros
Facts:
Four American schoolteachers were murdered and buried. Robert Baculi and Apolonio Caballeros were convicted as
accessories to the crime of assassination or murder, having buried the corpses of the victims to conceal the crime.
They were allegedly coerced. Roberto Baculi, one of the accused and it appears that he took part in the burial of the
teachers because he was compelled to do so by the murderers. According to a witness named Teodoro Sabate,
Baculi was not a member of the group and that he was in the banana plantation gathering some bananas when
Damaso and Isodoro called Baculi and by by striking him with the butts of their guns forced him to bury the corpses.
Another accused by the name of Apolonio Caballeros confessed by the promise that nothing would be done to them.
Issue: WON the defense under Art12(5) is tenable
Held: Yes. Not only is Baculi‘s confession that he only assisted in the burial of the corpses because he was
compelled by the murderers, but this was corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime, Sabate. Sabate said that
he was present when the Americans were killed; that Baculi was not a member of the group of murderers but he was
in the banana plantation gathering some bananas; that when he heard the shots he began to run; that he was,
however, seen by Damaso and Isidro, the leaders of the band; that the latter called to him and striking him with the
butts of their guns forced him to bury the corpses. As for Caballeros, there was no proof that he took any part in the
execution of the crime; there was conclusive proof to the contrary. Sabate and Baculi declared that Caballeros did not
take any part in the burial of the aforesaid corpses, nor was he even in the place of the occurrence when the burial
took place. Their failure to report the crime is not an offense punished by the Penal Code.
-Rosales
US vs. Exaltacion
Facts: On March 26, 1903, Liberate Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco were charged with rebellion – willfully
and illegally bound themselves to take part in a rebellion against the government of the US, swearing allegiance to
the Katipunan Society (whose purpose was to overthrow the government by force of arms). Exaltacion and Tanchinco
claim that they were captured by armed bandits and were compelled to sign documents (containing oath taken in the
name of God and a covenant to carry out superior orders of the Katipunan Society and never disobey them until their
death in the defense of the mother country) under threat of death. Exaltacion and Tanchinco reported the incident to
the governor, lieutenant of volunteers and the president of Meycauayan. Witnesses testified to this fact as well.
Issue: Having signed the said documents, are the defendants guilty of the crime of rebellion? Or did defendants incur
criminal liability when they signed the documents?
Held: No. The evidence for the prosecution and the documents signed by the accused is not sufficient to prove the
guilt of the latter or to justify the imposition upon them of the penalty inflicted by the judgment of the court below. The
facts, established by the evidence, that the defendants were kidnapped by brigands who belonged to the Contreras
Band, and that they signed the said documents under compulsion and while in captivity, relieve them from all criminal
liability from the crime of rebellion of which they are charged. The conduct of the defendants in presenting themselves
to the authorities as soon as they were released is corroborative of their innocence. Guilt of defendants was not
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment: Decision of the lower court REVERSED. Defendants ACQUITTED

-Rosales:
Art. 12: Insuperable cause
People vs. Bandian
Facts: One morning, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor, Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket apparently to respond to
the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes stained with blood both in the
front and back, staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able to support herself. Rushing to her aid, he
brought her to her house and placed her on the bed. He called on Adriano Comcom to help them Comcom saw he
body of a newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before. She
claimed it was hers. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house and three her
child into the thicket to kill it. The trial court gave credit to this opinion.
Issue: WON Bandian is guilty of infanticide
Held: No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be committed willfully or consciously, or at
least it must be the result of a voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. The evidence does not show that the
appellant, in causing her child‘s death in one way or another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did so willfully,
consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to death, because her affair with a
former lover, which was not unknown to her second lover, Kirol, took place three years before the incident; her
married life with Kirol—she considers him her husband as he considers him his wife—began a year ago; as he so
testified at the trial, he knew of the pregnancy and that it was his and that they‘ve been eagerly awaiting the birth of
the child. The appellant, thus, had no cause to be ashamed o her pregnancy to Kirol.
Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable, due to her
debility or dizziness, which cause may be considered lawful or insuperable to constitute the 7th exempting
circumstance, to take her child from the thicket where she had given it birth, so as not to leave it abandoned and
exposed to the danger of losing its life. If by going into the thicket to pee, she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to
her child in that same place and later abandoning it, not because of imprudence or any other reason than that she
was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not be blamed because it all happened by mere
accident, with no fault or intention on her part. The law exempts from liability any person who so acts and behaves
under such circumstances (RPC A12(4)). Thus, having the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances in her favor,
she is acquitted of the crime that she had been accused of.
-Adapt
Art. 12: Instigation and entrapment
People vs. Lua Chu
Background of Case: On Nov. 1929, Uy Se Tieng, was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium coming from
Hongkong, who represented agents of the real Owners of Shipments of Opium containing 3,252 tins. He
collaborated w/ Samson & Natividad of the Customs by paying them an amount of P6K for the opium to be released
safely from Customs.
On Dec. 1929, upon arrival of the Shipment of Opium in the ports of Cebu, Uy Se Tieng informed Samson that the
former consult the real owners on how to proceed the payment of P6K & will come over to Samson house on Dec.
17, 1929 to inform the decision of the owners.
On the same day Samson informed the Constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo & the Provincial Fiscal
requesting a stenographer to take down the conversation between Samson & Uy Se Teung.
On the night of Dec. 17, 1929, Captain Buencosejo and a stenographer named Jumapao from a law firm and hid
themselves behind the curtains in the house of Samson to witness the conversation between Samson, Uy Se Teung
and Lua Chu.
Captain Buencosejo & Jumapao noted the ff. important facts:
1. Uy Se Teung informed Samson that Lua Chu was one of the owners of the Opium.
2. Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him, there were co-owners named Tan and another located in
Amoy.
3. Lua Chu promised to pay the P6,000 upon delivery of the opium from the warehouse of Uy Se Tieng.
4. A Customs Collector had a conversation before when Samson was on vacation in Europe, with Lua Chu and
agreed on the business of shipping the Opium.
The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers to Samson & Captain Buencosejo
showed up & caught them in the act & arrested the two Chinese. The Constabulary then arrested Lua Chu &
confiscated P50K worth of Opium (3,252 tins).
Facts of Case: An Appeal was made by Uy Se Tieng & Lua Chu & made 10 assignments of errors made by the TC
in its judgment.
Appelant’s Point of Defense Held

Juan Samson induced the defendants 1. A public official shall be involved in the crime if:
to import the opium.  He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain
 Does not take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the
crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits
in mind.
 He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does
take the necessary steps seize the instrument of the crime & to
arrest the offenders.
2. Even though Juan Samson smoothed the way for the introduction of the
prohibited drugs, the ff should be noted that held Samson not guilty for
the crime:
 The accused have already planned and actually ordered the opium
without the consent or participation of Juan Samson.
 Did not help the accused to successfully implement there plan rather,
Samson assured the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of
the smugglers.
Trial judge refusal of exclusion of Juan Not one of the means prescribed in section 342 of the Code of Civil
Samson in the witness stand Procedures
eventhough he was already dismissed
from the Customs secret service
In accepting the transcript taken down 1. The transcript contains certain admissions made by the defendants.
by Jumapao as the true & correct 2. Stenographer attested that it was faithfully taken down.
conversation between Juan Samson & 3. Corroborated by statement of Juan Statement in the court.
Uy Se Tieng
Concluding Remarks:
Entrapment
1. The practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions
2. It is a scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by being in the actual crime scene.
3. The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if he have done the following:
a. He does not induce a person to commit a crime for personal gain or is not involved in the planning
of the crime.
b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders
before he obtained the profits in mind.
Instigation: This is the involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following manners:
a. He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain
b. Doesn‘t take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders
before he obtained the profits in mind.
He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps seize the instrument of the
crime and to arrest the offenders.
-Adapt
US vs. Phelps
Facts
Phelps was charged and found guilty for violating the Opium Law (Act No. 1761). He was instigated by Smith, an
employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, into procuring opium and providing for a venue in which to smoke the
opium. Immediately upon Phelp‘s commission of the crime under Smith‘s inducement, Smith reported Phelps and had
him arrested.
Issues
1. W/N Phelps is criminally liable for having smoked opium
Held Decision: No
Ratio: Phelps was induced by Smith into making arrangements for the two of them to smoke opium. Smith not only
suggested the commission of the crime but also expressed his desire to commit the offense in paying the amount
required for the arrangements. Such acts done by employees of government in encouraging or inducing
persons to commit a crime in order to prosecute them are most reprehensible, and should not be encouraged
by courts. Smith‘s acts do not deserve credit, and Phelps cannot be held guilty of the crime.
Judgment: Judgment reversed; defendant acquitted.

Note: Difference between instigation and entrapment (Reyes)

In instigation, instigator (who is either a public officer or a private detective) practically induces the would-
be accused into the commission of the offense. Instigation is an ebsolutory cause.
In entrapment, ways and means are used in order to catch the lawbreaker in the act of committing the
offense.
Entrapment cannot be used as a defense.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
They are based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on the lesser perversity
of the offender.
CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. ORDINARY MITIGATING
- Those mentioned in subsections 1 to 10 of Art. 13.
2. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
Par. 1: INCOMPLETE DEFENSE

(1) Self-defense: (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it, (c) lack of sufficient provocation
(2) Defense of relatives
(3) Defense of strangers
(4) State of necessity: (a) evil exists, (b) evil  injury caused, (c) no other practical means or less harmful way to
prevent
(5) Performance of a duty: (a) performance of or lawful exercise of a duty, (b) injury caused is a necessary
consequence or due performance thereof
(6) Obedience to an order of a superior: (a) order has been issued, (b) lawful purpose, (c) means used is lawful
(7) Minority: (a) 9 age  15, (b) NOT with discernment
(8) Causing injury by mere accident: (a) lawful act, (b) due care, (c) injury caused by mere accident, (d) without
fault or intention [if without due care and with fault/intent, then there is negligence or imprudence]
(9) Uncontrollable fear: (a) fear was of an evil  injury caused, (b) evil was of such GRAVITY and IMMINENCE
that a normal person would have succumbed to it
Par. 2: OFFENDER’s AGE: (a) 9 age  15, aced with discernment, (b) 15  age  18, (b) age  70.
Par. 3: LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG

 There must be a notable DISPROPORTION between the means employed by the offender compared to that
of the resulting felony.
 If the resulting felony could be EXPECTED from the means employed, the circumstance does not avail.
 The circumstance does not apply when the crime results from negligence, or culpa.
 Judge by considering (1) the weapon used, (2) the injury afflicted, and (3) the attitude of mind when the
accuser attacked the other.
Not applicable when the offender employed brute force.
-Adapt
Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstances – Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong
People vs. Ural
Facts: Ural was convicted of murder by the Zamboanga CFI sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and orderinh im to
indemnify the heirs of Felix Napola, in the sum of P12K and to pay the costs. The judgment of conviction was based
on the testimony of Brigido Alberto, former detention prisoner who witnessed what happened. Ural, a policeman,
boxed the deceased, Felix Napola, a detention prisoner, inside the jail. As a consequence of the fistic blows, the
deceased collapsed on the floor. The accused stepped on the prostate body and left. After a while he returned with a
bottle poured its contents on the recumbent body of the deceased, ignited it with a match and left the cell again. As a
consequence, the victim later on died of the burns. The crime committed by appellant Ural was murder by means of
fire (incendio) (Art 248(3), RPC)
Held: The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position (Art 14(1), RPC) but it failed
to appreciated the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed." (Art.13(3),
RPC). The intention, as an internal act, is judged not only by the proportion of the means employed by him to the evil
produced by his act, but also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body. Thus, it may
be deduced from the proven facts that the accused had no intent to kill the victim, his design being only to maltreat
him, such that when he realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the victim to secure
medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance of abuse of his official
position. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty
for murder (Arts 64(4) and 248, RPC)
Par. 4: SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ACT

 Provocation must be: (1) sufficient, (2) originate from the offended party, (3) immediate to the act
 Sufficient: adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must be accdgly proportionate to its
gravity. Depends on: (1) act constituting the provocation, (2) the social standing of the person provoked, (3)
time and place provocation took place.
Immediate: If there was an interval of time, the conduct could not have excited the accused to the commission of the
crime, he heaving had time to regain his reason and to exercise self-control. But the threat should not be offensive
and positively strong. If this is the case, then it gives rise to self-defense, a justifying circumstance.
-Adapt
Art. 13: Immediate vindication of a grave offense
US vs. Ampar
Facts: During a fiesta, an old man 70 years of age asked the deceased, Patobo, for some roast pig. In the presence
of many guests, the deceased insulted the old man, saying: "There is no more. Come here and I will make roast pig
of you." A little later, while the deceased was squatting down, the old man came up behind him and struck him on the
head with an ax.
Held: While it may be mere trifle to an average person, it evidently was a serious matter to an old man, to be made
the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. The accused was given the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. In this case, the age of the accused and the place were considered in
determining the gravity of the offense.
-Adapt
Art. 13: Passion or Obfuscation
US vs. Hicks
Facts: For about 5 years, the accused and the deceased lived illicitly in the manner of husband and wife. Afterwards,
the deceased separated from the accused and lived with another man. The accused enraged by such conduct, killed
the deceased.
Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted with obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating circumstance
cannot be considered in his favor because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control
are such which originate from legitimate feelings, and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy and immoral
passions.
-Adapt
US vs. De la Cruz
Facts: The accused, in the heat of passion, killed his common-law wife upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal
communication with a common acquaintance.
Held: In this a case, the accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. The facts in
this case must be distinguished from the case of U.S. vs. Hicks where it was found that the accused, deliberately and
after due reflection resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another man. With a clean and well-prepared
weapon, he enetered the house, disguising his intention and calming her by his apparent repose and tranquility,
doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his criminal design. In this case, the cause of the alleged passion and
obfuscation of the accused was his vexation, disappointment and anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to
continue to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect right to do. In the present case, however, the
impulse was caused by the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in flagrante in the
arms of another.
Judgment: Modified by a finding that the commission of the crime was marked with the extenuating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation, penalty is reduced from 14 yrs 8 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal to 12 yrs and 1 day of
reclusion temporal.
-Adapt
Art. 13: Illness
People vs. Javier
FACTS:
o If Sir Barry asks where they lived, say Tubod, Sto. Tomas, La Union. :P
o On June 15, 1996, between 2AM and 3AM, Consolacion Javier Panit (Javier‘s daughter who lived near
them) heard her mother shouting, ―Your father is going to kill me.‖ After hearing her mom scream for help,
Consolacion rushed out of her house and met her sister, Alma (Javier‘s daughter who lived with them), who
told her that their parents were quarrelling. So the sisters went to their brother‘s house (which was also
conveniently near the parents‘ house), and together the three of them went to their parents‘ house. Upon
entering, Manuel, the brother, found his mother, dead, and his father, wounded in the abdomen.
o The mom was found dead in the bedroom, drenched in her own blood.
o Manuel told his sisters that their mother was dead, and that their father had confessed to him that he had
killed his wife and then stabbed himself.
o SPO1 Rotelio Pacho testified that he had received a call for assistance from the barangay captain because
Javier had allegedly killed his wife. Pacho also testified that Manuel had told him that his father had
confessed to killing his wife. Manuel then surrendered to him the supposed murder weapon, a bolo covered
with blood, which had been found in the bedroom.
o Medical findings: Florentina Javier suffered from multiple injuries and her neck was almost cut off from her
body.
o Eduardo Javier admitted to killing his wife in their bedroom with the use of a sharp bolo. He also said that
he‘d killed his wife because he had been unable to sleep for almost a month. He claimed that when the
killing took place, his mind went totally blank, and he didn‘t know what he was doing. He claimed insanity, at
the time of the incident.
o The RTC rejected the defense of insanity and found him guilty of parricide. RTC gave him the death
penalty.
o In the SC appeal, Javier said the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty, considering the presence of 2
mitigating circumstances: illness, and passion and obfuscation. He says he should be given a lower penalty,
because at the time of the incident, he had been suffering from loss of sleep over a prolonged period of time,
and this caused him to commit the crime. In addition to this, he had a suspicion that his wife was having an
illicit relationship with another man. This, aggravated by his illness, goaded him to kill his wife.
OSG said that Javier cannot claim the mitigating circumstance of illness, in the absence of medical findings to
support his claim. No sufficient evidence, either, for the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation
Held: SC held:
o The RTC had rejected the defense of insanity for failure of the defense to prove that Javier was indeed
insane at the time of the incident. No medical records, no psychiatrists were ever presented to validate the
insanity claim. The defense never alleged the mitigating circumstances during the trial, either.
o The mitigating circumstance of illness has the following requisites:
o illness must DIMINISH the exercise of willpower of the offender
o illness should NOT DEPRIVE the offender of CONSCIOUSNESS of his acts
o Mitigating circumstance attempt is FAIL, because:

o no medical finding was presented regarding Javier‘s mental condition at the time of killing
o no clear and convincing evidence was shown that Javier was suffering an illness which diminished
his willpower
o Plus:
o Javier was aware of the acts he committed. The fact that he remembers things from the
time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the hospital shows he was in full control
of his mental faculties. This means that if he was suffering from an illness, it was not the
kind of illness that diminished the exercise of his willpower.
 he remembered killing his wife in the bedroom with a bolo, where he mangled her neck
twice
 he remembered being brought to the hospital
o Mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation doesn‘t apply either, because the following elements
were not proven to exist in the instant case.
o Elements:
 there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind
 said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time
No aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Decision modified: reclusion perpetua.

-Reyes
Art. 13: Analogous circumstances
Canta vs. People
FACTS:
1. Narciso Gabriel acquired a cow upon its birth on March 10, 1984
2. Narciso left it with his sister in law Erlinda Montes, then he left it with Generoso Cabonce, then with Maria
Tura, and then with Gardemo Agapay.
3. Agapay took the cow up a mountain for grazing and it was gone when he came back for it
4. Hoof prints led him to Valejos house and he was told that Canta had taken it.
5. Narciso instructed Maria Tura to get the cow. She met Canta who said that he gave it to his father, the
barangay captain. They went to father‘s house and Tura recognized cow. Canta said he will consult with his
father on what to do and call her about it later.
6. Canta didn‘t call so Narciso reported it to police
7. In the investigation Canta admitted he took cow, but he contended that it was his cow. He lost it Dec 3 1985.
He produced 2 certificates of ownership dated March 17, 1986 and Feb 27, 1988.
8. Narciso presented certificate of ownership dated Mar 9 1986 signed by municipal treasurer. I contained a
description of the cow including identifying marks (cowlicks on the head, back and legs; coloring). 4 previous
caretakers certify that this is the cow they took care of.
9. Canta said that he got the baby cow as payment for taking care of Pat. Villanueva‘s cow. It was born on Dec
5, 1984 and was lost Dec 2 1985. He reported loss to Padre Burgos.
10. His uncle said he saw the cow under the care of Agapay. Canta went to the Agapay‘s grazing place with the
mommy cow to see if the baby cow would drink its milk, it did so Canta assumed the baby cow was his.
11. He brought it to his father and Maria tried to get it but Canta‘s father refused and asked Narciso to come by
so they can discuss. Narciso never came by. Canta took cow to Padre Burgos.
ISSUES:
1. Canta‘s Certificate of Ownership
a. It was not filed by the municipal treasurer, but by Canta‘s friend Franklin Telen who was a janitor at
the municipal treasurer‘s office. Telen issued certificate on March 24, 1986 but he antedated it Feb
27, 1985 at the request of Canta who assured Telen that he owned the cow. No registration
recorded in municipal records.
b. Trial Court said: Obviously Canta took the cow using strategy and stealth considering Agapay was
separated by a hill and couldn‘t see him. Canta tries to justify taking the cow with a certificate of
ownership but Telen said he antedated the certificate.
c. It is clear Canta falsified and manipulated the certificate of title. He only got it after the incident
happened on March 14, 1986. His claim has no leg to stand on. CA agrees.
2. Petitioner Canta claims good faith and honest belief in his right to the cow
a. Brought mother cow and calf suckled its milk

b. Compared marks on the cow to the recorded marks on his certificate. Match.
c. He turned over cow to barangay captain, and later to police when the dispute began
d. Filed complaint against Nicolas for cattle rustling.
3. Cattle Rustling requisites
a. Large cattle is taken
b. It belongs to another
i. No question cattle belongs so Narciso Gabriel
c. Taking without consent of owner
i. Canta tok cow from Agapay even if he knew Agapay was holding it for Narciso.
d. Taking done by any means method or scheme
i. He falsified certificate of ownership, a scheme
e. Taking is with or without intent to gain
i. Canta concocted a ploy to obtain ownership so he had an obvious intent to gain
f. Taking without violence or intimidation
i. No violence
g. Fact that Canta went to barangay captain does not prove good faith. He already committed a crime,
also the barangay captain was his father.
h. Calves suckle on strange cows. It don‘t have to be the mom.
4. Petitioner says that even if his certificate of ownership is ―not in order‖ it does not mean he did not believe in
good faith that the cow was his. Merely mistake of fact.
a. His certificate was FRADULENT. Negates good faith.
b. If he had been responsible he could have verified ownership of cow first. He was negligent
c. He was NOT justified to take cow, tried to take law into own hands
5. MITIGATING circumstances
a. Analogous with voluntary surrender, which has the ff elements
i. Offender not actually arrested
1. In the case: Canta not yet arrested. There was no complaint filed against him
when he surrendered cow. The intent to unconditional submission was there.
Also there was intent to save authorities the trouble of search and capture.
2. He voluntarily took cow to municipal hall of Padre Burgos and put it in custody of
authorities.
3. Can be considered analogous to voluntary surrender
ii. Offender surrenders to authority
iii. Surrender is voluntary
b. PD 533 Anti-Catte Rustling Law is not a special law. It‘s penalties are discussed in RPC.
DECISION: One mitigating circumstance equals the case be fixed in minimum period. CA decisions lessened. 4 yrs.
2 mos. (minimum) 10 yrs 1 day maximum.
-Escueta
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances – Insult to public authorities
People vs. Rodil
FACTS:
April 24, 1971 around 1:00 pm
1. Floro Rodil was found guilty of the crime of murder by the Circuit Criminal Court for the death of Lt. Masana
of the Philippine Constabulary.
2. Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Coast Guard Ricardo Ligsa and policeman Felix Mojica was
having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the Indang Market.
3. While they were eating, their attention was called by Rodil who was outside blowing his whistle.
4. Masana, in civilian clothing, accompanied by Fidel went outside and asked Rodil, after identifying himself as
a PC officer, whether the gun that was tucked under his shirt had a license.
5. Instead of answering, Rodil attempted to draw his gun but Fidel grabbed the gun and gave it to Masana.
6. The three went inside the restaurant and Masana wrote a receipt for the gun on a coupon bond paper and
he asked Rodil to sign it. Rodil refused to do so.
7. Masana refused to return the gun to Rodil and as Masana was about to stand up Rodil pulled out his double
bladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times on the chest and stomach causing his death after several
hours.
8. While the stabbing incident was taking place, the three companions of Lt. Masana who were all seated at a
separate table about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters away from the table, stood up to assist him.
9. But Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang, Cavite, who happened to be taking his lunch in the same
restaurant, was quicker than any of them in going near the combatants and embraced and/or grabbed the
accused from behind, and thereafter wrested the dagger from the accused-appellant.
10. Immediately thereafter, the Chief of Police brought the accused to the municipal building of Indang,
CaviteVersion of the defense
11. Rodil is claiming self-defense.
RODIL’s VERSION
12. Rodil together with his wife was eating inside the restaurant. While they were waiting for their food, Masana
approached and inquired whether he was a member of the Anti-smuggling Unit. Rodil answered in the
affirmative and Masana invited him to join him in his table, where he sat drinking, alone.
13. Rodil accepted the invitation. During their conversation, Masana asked for identification of Rodil and the
latter showed his ID. Masana told Rodil that his ID was fake and Rodil insisted that it was genuine. Masana
was demanding that Rodil surrender his ID to him but Rodil refused. When Rodil refused, Masana pulled
out his gun and hit the accused on the head with its handle 2 times and as a result blood gushed out from
his head and face. Rodil pulled out his dagger and stabbed Masana and then ran out of the restaurant. Rodil
went to the direction of the Municipal building where he intended to surrender. While on his way, he met the
Chief of Police and he was accompanied to the municipal building and was given first aid treatment.
ISSUE:
1. WON self-defense can be availed by Rodil
2. WON the crime committed was murder or homicide merely or murder or homicide complexed with assault upon an
agent of authority.
3. WON the AC disregard of rank should be appreciated
RULING:
1. NO. Self-defense must be proven by clear, sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence
Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.
Having admitted the wounding or killing of the victim, the accused must be held liable for the crime unless he
establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of legitimate self-defense. Court cannot perceive how the refusal of
the accused to give his ID could have provoked or enraged the deceased to the extent of initiating the aggression by
drawing his pistol and hitting the accused with its butt. It is the accused who had every reason to be resentful of the
deceased and to be enraged after the deceased refused to heed his plea that his gun be returned.
2. Crime committed was only homicide (No complex crime but there is a general aggravating
circumstance)
- No treachery – assailant and victim was face to face. Attack wasn‘t treacherous because the victim was able
to ward off the attack with his hand. In fact, the force of warding off the attack was so strong that the
accused bumped his head on a table nearby, causing a wound on his head (one Rodil later claimed he got
from the Masana hitting him with a gun). But prosecution failed to show that the accused made any
preparation to kill his victim so as to insure the commission of the crime and making it impossible or hard for
the victim to defend himself or retaliate.
o Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
- Assault upon person of authority – the Information does not allege the fact that the accused then knew that,
before or at the time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority.
o Such knowledge must be expressly and specifically averred in the Information; otherwise, in
the absence of such allegation, the required knowledge would only be appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance.
o It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked was a person in
authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties, because the accused must have the intention to
offend, injure, or assault the offended party as a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority.
3. YES. Whenever there is a difference in social condition between the offender and the offended party, this
aggravating circumstance is present.
- Masana identified himself as a PC officer and the accused is merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit
and therefore inferior to both in rank and social status.
- Rank – refers to a high social position or standing
- Cases wherein the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank was appreciated
a. People vs. Benito – clerk murdered assistant chief of the personnel transaction division
b. People vs. Torres – murder of Col. Salgado and injuries to Gen. Castaneda
c. People vs. Valeriano – murder of district judge
- Chief of Police (Panaligan) was present during the incident. Panaligan was the one who wrested the
dagger from Rodil and the accused knew him to be the chief of police. Chief of police is considered
a public authority or a person in authority for he is vested with jurisdiction or authority to maintain
peace and order and is specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the law.
>> I think the point was, Rodil shouldn’t have committed a crime (much less kill someone) knowing that the
Chief of police was there. Parang, you shouldn’t buy pirated DVDs infront of Edu Manzano. Hahaha <<
DISPOSITIVE:
With two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the appellant should therefore be condemned
to suffer the maximum period of reclusion temporal the penalty prescribed for homicide.
WHEREFORE, HAVING BEEN FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF HOMICIDE AGGRAVATED
BY CONTEMPT FOR OR INSULT TO A PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE
OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK, APPELLANT FLORO RODIL IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO
SUFFER AN INDETERMINATE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT RANGING FROM 12 YEARS OF RECLUSION
TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM.
DISSENT: Melencio-Herrera
Contempt of, or which insult to public authorities to be considered as aggravating, it is essential that:
o Crime is committed in the presence of a public authority, not a mere agent of the authorities
o Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions and is not the person against whom the crime is
committed.
- Masana is not a public authority nor a person in authority he is a mere agent of a person in authority
Disregard of the respect due to rank
oThere must be a difference in social condition of the offender and the offended party
o Offender and offended are of the same rank the aggravating circumstance does not apply
o Difference in rank between a lieutenant and officer of anti-smuggling unit is not such of a degree as to justify
consideration of disrespect of rank due to the offended party.
-Baer
Art. 14: Dwelling

People vs. Daniel
FACTS: 13-yr old Margarita Paleng filed complaint against Amado Daniel alias ―Amado Ato‖ for the crime of rape.
On Sept 20, 1965, Margarita, a native of Mt Province, arrived in Baguio City from Tublay in a Dangwa bus. She was
then en route to her boarding house in Guisad as she was a high school student at the Baguio Eastern High School.
While she was waiting inside the bus, the accused Daniel came and started molesting her by inquiring her name and
getting hold of her bag. She did not allow the latter and instead called the attention of the bus driver and the
conductor but was merely shrugged by them. It seemed that they were also afraid of the accused. Despite the rain,
she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some 100meters away. The accused followed her and rode and sat
beside her. When Margarita alighted in Guisad, she was again followed by the accused. Reaching her boarding
house, she opened the door and was about to close it when the accused dashed in and closed the door behind him.
He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and threatened her saying, ―If you will talk, I will kill you.‖ Because of her fear,
Margarita fell silent. She was then forced to lie down w/ the accused placing a handkerchief in her mouth and holding
a dagger to her neck. Her attempts to flee was to no avail as she was only 4 ft 8 inches tall & 95 lbs while Daniel was
5 ft 7 inches tall and weighed 126 lbs. The accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of Margarita.
Thereafter she lost consciousness. When she recovered, Daniel had already gone.
For his defense, Daniel asserts that he and Margarita have known each other since 1963 and this was in fact the 2nd
time he had carnal knowledge of her. Also, he alleges that he promised to marry Margarita and was actually
surprised the she filed the complaint against him. Medico-Legal report indicated that Margarita was a virgin before the
incident complained of.
HELD: The crime committed by Daniel is rape w/ the use of a deadly weapon w/ the aggravating circumstance of
having been committed in the dwelling of the offended party. Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a
boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a ―dwelling‖ as the term is used in Art 14 (3) RPC.
It is not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder,
or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of w/c the law seeks to protect and uphold.
The correct penalty is death pursuant to Aft 335 RPC. However, for lack of the necessary number of votes, the
penalty next lower in degree is to be applied. Daniel is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordered to indemnify Margarita Paleng by way or moral damages of PhP12K.
-Adapt
Art. 14: Nighttime
People vs. Bermas
FACTS: Lower court ruling: Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla were found guilty of Multiple Murder and Multiple
Frustrated Murder, “with evident premeditation, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with treachery,
taking advantage of nighttime, with the use of high powered firearms, and with intent to kill.”
Rustom Bermas worked in a mining firm and was a councilman for Brgy. Liguan while Galma Arcilla was a member of
the PC Company, with the position of Asst. Detachment Commander, and was in possession of an Armalite M-16.
On April 20, 1985, at around 8:30 in the evening, at the sea of Albay, Arturo, Abion, Antonio Abion, Renato Abion,
Teodoro Cas, Jesus Lotera, Catalino Bellen, and Expedito Bonaobra (barangay captain) were aboard a fishing boat
named ―Sagrada Familia‖, owned by the Abion family, for the purpose of catching fish.
The accused Rustom Bermas and a masked companion, which the courts held to be Galma Arcilla, approached the
party through a small paddled boat. They circled the fishing boat Sagrada four times which gave survivors/witnesses
Bonaobra and Renato Abion opportunity to recognize Bermas as the one paddling the boat. Bonaobra asked Arturo
to remove the shade of the gas lamp so they could recognize Bermas‘ companion but they still could not due to the
mask he was wearing. Bonaobra asked Bermas if they were fishing. The accused said yes, and that they were
looking for somebody. He then asked Bonaobra who owned the fishing boat and Bonaobra told him it was Jose
Abion. The two accused pretended to paddle away. When they were about 7 meters away, Bermas‘ companion fired
his Armalite m16 rifle at Bonaobra and his companions. They heard 2 volleys fired at them. They lay down but could
not avoid the attack. After 5 minutes, Renato, upon instruction from his father Arturo, crawled to turn off remaining
pressure gas lamp and loosen the anchor. He then lost consciousness. The boat was carried away by the currents of
the sea and into the shore, where they were found by Jose, Rudy, and Santiago Abion the following morning. Arturo
Abion and Catalino Bellen were already dead. Renato Abion, Jesus Lotera, and Bonaobra were seriously wounded,
such that had they not received medical attention, they would have died from said wounds. Antonio Abion was also
injured though not as grave. Teodoro Cas was missing, and his body was found 3 days later in a neighboring town in
Albay. Santiago found 2 slugs inside the fishing boat, which he surrendered to the police.
Prior to the night in question, the following events happened:

October 13, 1984 – at a public dance at Namanday, Albay, Arcilla was involved in a fistfight with Leopoldo Abion. He
boxed Leopoldo in the chest leaving him writhing in pain on the ground. Thereafter, the Abion brothers arrived to get
even with Arcilla and Daniel Abion was able to hit appellant on the face with a piece of wood. Rustom Bermas, the
usual confederate and companion of accused, arrived to seek revenge for Arcilla, but Daniel had already left.
October 14, 1985 – Galma Arcilla, with a group of armed men forced open a window in Santiago‘s house looking for
the latter. Santiago‘s pregnant wife was so scared, she miscarried.
April 4, 1985 – Rustom Bermas pounded on a table and said to Santiago, ―I will bring home the Baraka‖. Baraka is
the appellation (title/label) of the Abion family. This was considered a death threat to the family.
On appeal: Defendants‘ defense was alibi, insisting that they were at a different place at the time of the crime in
question. Arcilla further contends that lower court erred in ruling it was he who was the masked companion since
none of the witnesses identified him as the masked man who fired at the victims. There was also that question of the
firearm, and that the one used to commit the felony was not the same one he was issued with, and that the firearm he
owned was not in his possession that night. Bermas claims he had no motive to kill and that conspiracy was not
proven.
SUPREME COURT RULING:

Alibi is the weakest of all defences because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Defendant‘s defense of alibi
easily crumbles in the weight of evidence presented against them.
Although the witnesses were unable to identify the masked man, it is of no moment because there were enough
circumstantial evidence on which the ruling could be based on. The facts established are enough to warrant a finding
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Physical
evidence speaks more eloquently than all the witnesses put together.
The firearm used in the felony was found to be exactly the one issued to Galma Arcilla. That he allegedly left his gun
in the custody of another person was dubious because the military requirement is to leave firearms at the
headquarters where it would be safer. He also failed to satisfactorily explain where and how the missing ammunitions
were used.
In sum, court held that Arcilla had been lying in order to exculpate himself.
With regard to Bermas‘ contention that he had no ill motive since the quarrel was between Arcilla and the Ambions,
court held that proof of ill motive becomes irrelevant in the face of positive identification. Bermas was positively
identified by Bonaobra and Renato Ambion.
Conspiracy is proven by the specific acts done with such closeness and coordination with the one who executed the
criminal act. In this case, Bermas‘ act of paddling to and from the boat, as well as his silence while the victims were
being gunned down by his companion, was enough to warrant a conspiracy. He must be equally liable as co-
principal. It was also a well-known fact that he was a close companion of his co-accused and they were frequently
seen together, as testified by other witnesses.
Treachery was appreciated in this case because it satisfied the requirements that a) malefactor employed means of
execution to ensure his safety from retaliatory acts of the victim b) said means were deliberate. Essence of treachery
is in the swift and unexpected attack on unsuspecting and unarmed victims.
Nighttime was not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case. The mere fact that the offense happened
at night was not enough to sustain a finding of nocturnity. It only becomes an aggravating circumstance when the
following requisites are present: 1. It was specially SOUGHT by the offender 2. It was TAKEN ADVANTAGE by him,
or 3. It FACILITATES commission of the crime by insuring immunity from capture.
In this case, nothing suggests that it was consciously resorted to.
Disguise, however, was appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because of appellant‘s use of a mask.
DECI: Lower court decision AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Guilty of 3 crimes of murder, 3 crimes of frustrated
murder, and 1 crime of attempted murder. Civil indemnity increased to 50,000. Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
-A. Garcia
Art. 14: Evident premeditation
US vs. Macalinde
FACTS
 Juan Igual, a Spaniard, was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa‘s store in Cotabato, Moro Province,
when he received a head wound from the behind. It was delivered with a kris. This happened between 2-
3PM.
 The aggressor, the Moro Macalinde, ran away. A Chinese named Choa was putting down his load along the
street when he was also attacked with a kris by Macalinde. The wound was on the left shoulder and caused
his death, while there was no more news about Igual‘s wounding.
 Macalinde was arrested and pleaded guilty, whereupon he was charged with murder. He said that his wife
had just died a hundred days before and he had come from his hometown Catumaldu. Datto Rajamudah
Mupuck instructed him to go juramentado in Cotabato and to kill somebody, because the former had
grievances against two military men. If Macalinde was successful, Datto Mupuck promised him a pretty
woman in return. But if captured, he was told to pass the blame on Datto Piang.
 Macalinde admitted to agreeing to this proposition, arming himself with a kris and wrapping it in banana
leaves. When he arrived in Cotabato he wounded two people, a Spaniard and a Chinese.
ISSUE
 Was the crime of murder appreciated properly?
Macalinde said that he just went juramentado because of the order of said datto, and that if he had done it on his own
he would have killed more people instead of just two victims. It is inexcusable because killing anyone without any
motive or reason is against the law of the nations.
It is plain from Macalinde‘s actions that he had deliberately and carefully considered how best to carry out his
mission, that he knows the consequences of his actions, and that he provided himself with the means to do what he
was told. Macalinde showed firm intent in carrying out his duty and it is immaterial whether he did by order of Datto
Mupukc or not.
Two aggravating circumstances are appreciated: (1) promise of reward and (2) evident premeditation.
Judgment affirmed
-Mesina
Art. 14: Treachery
People vs. Sangalang
Facts:
 June 9, 1968, 6 a.m.: Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut in Silang, Cavite to gather tuba from a nearby
coconut tree. His wife Flora Sarno was left inside the hut. While on top of the tree, Cortez was struck
by a valley of shots. He later on fell to the ground at the base of the coconut tree. Flora went outside
& was supposed to help his husband but the five persons each armed w/a long firearm fired at her
too. She went back to the hut for cover but she was able to recognize the 5 as Conrado Gonzales,
Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel, Eleuterio Cuyom & Laureano Sangalang. The latter was known to
Flora & her bro Ricardo since childhood. The five left after about 5mins & when she returned to her
husband, he was already dead. 
 Ricardo Sarno, Flora‘s bro who lived nearby, heard the gunshots too. He went out & saw Sangalang
shooting Cortez w/a Garand carbine. He was supposed to help Cortez but he was fired upon by the
men too.
 Sarno & Flora executed sworn statements & based on these, a complaint against the 5 offenders
was filed. Only Sangalang was arrested. CFI convicted him of murder & was sentenced to RP.
 Defense: Sangalang claims that during that time, he was in Sampaloc, Manila to borrow money from
a certain Gatdula for the tuition fees of his children. He likewise impugns the credibility of Mrs. Cortez
& Ricardo.
Issues & Ratio:

1. WON Sangalang’s alibi is admissible
 NO. Discrepancies in the testimonies of Sarno & Mrs. Cortez are not glaring and instead these
strengthen their credibility & show that they did not rehearse their testimonies.
 Cortez & Sarno clearly & consistently testified that Sangalang was among those who shot Ricardo.
Their unwavering identification negates Sangalang‘s alibi.
 Although motive for killing was not proven, it was not shown either that Cortez & Sarno were impelled
by malicious desires to falsely incriminate Sangalang.
2. WON the qualifying AC of treachery (alevosia) should be appreciated.

 YES. When the crime happened, victim was on top of a coconut tree. He was unarmed &
defenseless. The assault was unexpected. He didn‘t give any immediate provocation. Deliberate &
surprise attack insured victim‘s killing w/o any risk to the offenders arising from any defense w/c the
victim could have made. Thus, offense is murder.
 Treachery absorbs the AC of band.
 Evident premeditation, though alleged, was not proven.
Held: CFI affirmed.

-Adapt
Art. 14: Ignominy
People vs. Torrefiel
Facts:
 December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m. Torrefiel and Ormeo were on their way to the USSAFE headquarters in the
mountains.
 They passed by Eady’s residence and talked to him at the balcony to ask for khakis.
o Eady had none except what he had on.
 Ceferina Cordero also came to the balcony and inquired about their mission.
o She scolded Torrefiel and Ormeo because all their belongings have been looted by USSAFE soldiers.
o Torrefiel threatened her with slapping; brought out revolver.
 Eady and Cordero were charged with being fifth columnists as they refused to give aid to them.
Subsequently they were taken to the USSAFE headquarters.
o Torrefiel: Eady and Ormeo: Cordero
o Their hands were free but were blindfolded.
o Cordero called to Eady every now and then to know if he was following. After a while Eady did not
respond anymore so they stopped to wait for them.
 Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so he went back to a guardhouse & left Eady there.
o He tried to find a way to overtake Ormeo and Cordero but was unsuccessful.
o At the guardhouse, he discovers Eady had escaped.

o Torrefiel followed a different route enabling him to find Ormeo and Cordero.
 Ormeo rushed back to the guardhouse upon discovering that Eady had escaped; Cordero was left with
Torrefiel.
 As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and carried her to a log and laid her on it and
raped her.
o Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants and wound cogon leaves around her genitals.
o It was visible to Cordero as her blindfold had fallen down a little.
o Pressing her neck so she would remain silent, Torrefiel proceeded to have intercourse with her.
o Ormeo taking advantage, also had sex with her.
 The soldiers desisted from bringing Cordero to their headquarters and returned her to their house.
o Servant informed Cordero that Eady had gone away.
o Upon Eady‘s return, Cordero informed him that she was abused by Torrefiel.
Issues:
1) WON rape was committed./ WON witness is credible.
2) WON there are any aggravating circumstances.
Held/Ratio:
1) YES to both.
a. The court sees no incongruity between the affidavit and testimony of complainants. The testimony
sufficiently proves Torrefiel‘s guilt.
i. Cordero recognized Torrefiel by his voice even though she was blindfolded because it was
falling.
ii. Back at Eady‘s house, the soldiers‘ roaming inside the house is proven by the sound of
their footsteps.
iii. Pants vs. Overalls: same thing
b. Exertion of force or violence is implied in the term ―rape.‖
o Pushing down victim proves force.
o Although for Ormeo, use of force may still be doubted.
o Cordero was not hostile towards him after crime.
2) YES.
a. Trial Court erred in accepting the aggravating circumstance of NOCTURNITY
o Entirely unexpected as the ordeal started early in the afternoon.
o The opportunity just presented itself.
o Nocturnity not taken advantage of by offender to be free from molestation.
b. IGNOMINY is present.
o The novelty of the act of winding cogon grass on his genitals before raping the victim
augmented the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding moral disgrace thereto.
-Adapt
People vs. Alfanta
Facts: At around midnight, while Nita Fernandez was asleep in the residence of a friend in Fort Bonifacio. Rolando
Alfanta, whom Nita had not seen before, suddenly entered the house where she was sleeping (in the sala), pulled her
and boxed her jaw and put his hand on her mouth, and told her that if she will not obey him, he will kill her.
She was forced to climb a fence. Because of fear, as he was holding a bolo, she followed. Alfanta instructed her to go
to the vacant house and she was told to undress, she did because of fear.
Thereafter, he molested her. She was instructed to lie down and he then inserted his genitals to her vagina. After
that, she was told to lie face down, she complied. Thereafter, he inserted his penis to her anus. After inserting his
penis, he instructed her to turn around face up, he inserted his fingers to her private part. Then after all these
acts, he told her to lie beside him as he was going to take a rest.
Noticing that Alfanta was already sleeping, she suddenly took the bolo and hacked him several times. She went to
the police station to report the incident. The policemen brought Alfanta to the hospital and he survived.
ISSUE: WON ignominy and nighttime be appreciated as aggravating circumstances of the crime of rape [YES]
RULING:
As to ignominy, the accused did not only use the missionary position, i.e.. male superior, female inferior; but
also the same position as dogs do (entry from behind). The means employed added ignominy to the natural
effects of the act as it added disgrace to the injury caused by the crime.
The silence and darkness of the night has been taken advantage by the accused in facilitating the commission of the
crime by insuring the offender's immunity from capture and by ensuring his impunity from his illegal acts.
RTC decision affirmed but modified penalty by lowering it from death to reclusion perpetua.
-Ranola
Art. 15: Alternative circumstances – Intoxication
People vs. Camano
Facts: Mandatory review of death sentence, killing of Godofredo Pascua and Mariano Buenaflor by Filomeno
Camano
1. In Nato, Camarines Sur between 4 and 5 pm, Filomeno Camano had been drinking. He then stabbed
Godolfredo Pascua with a palas (or bolo) when Pascua was walking along barrio street almost in front of
Buates‘ store. There were 2 wounds.
2. After Pascua, Camano went to seashore where Mariano Buenaflor was leaning on the gate in front of his
house. Camano hacked him on the head. The victim rolled on the ground. Camano continued to hack him
until he was prostrate, then Camano stabbed him in the left side of the chest above the nipple. There were 8
wounds 2 of them mortal wound (chest and neck).
3. After killing the 2 men he went home. He was arrested by police there. When he was being investigated he
admitted bolo was hidden under table in his house. When bloodied bolo was recovered, he admitted bolo
was his and admitted to the killings. Refused to sign statement.
4. 3 years prior the 2 victims had misunderstanding with Camano. Pascua and Buenaflor refused to tow his
fishing boat and Camano was very offended.
5. Camano held a grudge. With Pascua he pretended to be friendly and drank with him. But He openly
detested Buenaflor; refused to associate with him, and when he was drunk he would challenge Buenaflor
and say he wanted to kill him.
6. Camano‘s version: he went fishing and Buenaflor asked for a percentage for the fishery commission,
Camano refused. Later on Buenaflor, Pascua and a 6 of their friends were drinking in Buates‘ store. Pascua
then suddenly boxed him. Buenaflor too. Pascua was about to bolo him, but he grabbed bolo. Pascua then
fell and others ran away except Buenaflor. Buenaflor had bolo, but Camano hit him so B ran away. C ran
after him because B had a gun at home. C hit him on the head.
7. Trial Court: Camano‘s testimony is not tenable. Just the rambling of a desperate man. No evidence at all. 8
men fought him, 2 had bolos and he wasn‘t injured? Court searched for evidence but there was none, it is
obviously a lie. Also his only witness was Nemesio Camano, no one else would testify for him (public
condemnation for the horrible act he committed?) Also their testimonies keep changing. So, the undeniable
facts of the case point to Camano killing the 2 men in cold blood.
8. Appeal: guilty of homicide not murder, reduction of penalty
ISSUES:
1. No evidence of premeditation, it was all ―spur of the moment‖.
a. No proof of preconceived plan, or time which elapsed before such plan took place.
b. Trial court based premeditation on the incident with the boat towing 3 years prior and the fact that
Camano was unfriendly and violent towards Pascua and Buenaflor after that. This does not
establish a decision to commit crime, merely motive.
c. Challenged Buenaflor to a fight when drunk, no showing that in between utterance of threats and
consummation of crime the appellant made plans to kill Buenaflor.
2. Treachery?
a. Witness states that Camano attacked Pascua from behind. Corroborated by entry of wound, it was
below left armpit near the back
b. Mariano attacked while his head was down and he was kneeling by his fence.
3. Counsel of accused erred in applying intoxication as an aggravating circumstance.
a. No proof, says accused, of Camano‘s intoxication except one witness Payago saying he saw
Camano drinking in his house 30 meters away. No police report or doctor certification he was
drunk. Not shown that accused purposefully became drunk to facilitate crime. Intoxication should
be a mitigating circumstance because it diminished his capacity to comprehend the consequences
of his act.
b. SC: Contention meritorious. Intoxication can be mitigating if it is accidental NOT habitual or
intentional (not subsequent to plan to commit crime).
i.Intoxication is aggravating when- intentional or person is habitually given to intoxication by

excessive drinking. Habit should be confirmed. Doesn‘t need to b daily. Lessens
resistance to evil thoughts and undermines will power.
c. Camano not given to excessive drinking according to testimony
i. Payago testified he‘s only seen Camano drunk 5 times in 3 years. He saw Camano drink
liquor immediately before the killings.
ii. Intoxication not habitual and he was intoxicated at time of felony. So intoxication is
MITIGATING.
4. Death penalty is cruel, says counsel for accused. SC says it‘s not cruel.
DECISION: Murder, mitigated by intoxication. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10
years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum,
in each case
-Escueta
Art. 17: Principals – Principals by inducement
People vs. Ong Chiat Lay
Facts: Appellant, Ong Ban Hua and Kua Sing were charged by the provincial fiscal of Zamboanga with having
feloniously burned a building in which was located a store belonging to the applicant. They entered a plea of not
guilty. Ong Ban Ha and Kua Sing were acquitted while appellant was found guilty of the crime of arson and
sentenced to imprisonment and to pay damages.
Issues on Appeal:
1. The lower court erred in holding that the evidence presented against the accused s sufficient to establish the
corpus delicti, namely, that the crime of arson had been committed.
2. The lower court erred in holding that the evidence presented against the accused is sufficient to establish his guilt
of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
Held: Appeal granted. Appellant acquitted.
In the instant case, it is not claimed that the appellant had taken a direct part in the burning of the building. He was
prosecuted on the theory that he induced his said codefendants to set fire to the building. Hence, the three were
charged jointly on an information alleging conspiracy among them. This allegation however has been negative by the
acquittal of appellant‘s codefendants. The same may be said with regard to the theory that the appellant induced his
codefendants to commit the crime for it seems clear that one cannot be held guilty of inducing the commission of the
crime without showing that the crime was indeed done by another.
A conviction for the crime could not be had unless corpus delicti is first established. It may be proved by
circumstantial evidence. There must be from all the circumstances a combination of evidence which in the ordinary
and natural course of things, leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. The acquittal of his
codefendants is not only consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is innocent but is inconsistent with the
hypothesis that he is guilty.
-Adapt
US vs. Indanan
Facts:
 Panglima Indanan, accussed is the headman of Parang.
 On Mar. 24, 1912, Indanan ordered the killing of Sariol to his men Akiran, Kalyakan & Suhuri in the
Chinese Cemetary asserting that Indanan had an order to that effect from the governor.
 The CFI found Indanan guilty of the crime of murder & sentencing him to be hanged.
Issues: WON Indanan is guilty of murder by inducement?

 YES. A13(2), of the Penal Code declares those to be principals in a crime "who directly force or
induce others to commit it."
 Commenting upon this paragraph, Viada says:
 They force another to commit a crime who physically by actual force or grave fear, for example, with
a pistol in hand or by any other threatening means, oblige another to commit the crime. In our
commentary on par. 9 of A8 (page 28), we have already said that he who suffers violence acts w/o
will & against his will, is no more than an instrument, & therefore is guilty of no wrong. The real
culprits in such case, the only guilty persons, are those who use the violence, those who force the
other to commit the crime.
 One is induced directly to commit a crime either by command, or for a consideration, or by any other
similar act w/c constitutes the real & moving cause of the crime & w/c was done for the purpose of
inducing such criminal act & was sufficient for that purpose. We‘ve already seen in our commentary
on par. 12 of A8 that the 1 who physically commits the crime may escape criminal responsibility by
showing that he acted w/ due obedience to an order; in such case the criminal responsibility falls
entirely upon the 1 who orders, i.e., upon him who by his commands has directly induced the other to
commit the act. But in case the obedience of the inferior isn‘t due to the superior & thus not
necessary, & doesn‘t, thus, exempt him from criminal responsibility as the physical author of the
crime, he who thus, by his command, directly induced him to the criminal act is considered by the law
also as principal in the crime.
 The pacto by virtue of w/c 1 purchases for a consideration the hand w/c commits the crime makes
him who gives, promises, or offers the consideration the principal in the crime by direct inducement,
because w/o such offer or promise the criminal act would never have been committed. But this
doesn‘t mean that the 1 who actually commits the crime by reason of such promise, remuneration or
reward is exempted from criminal responsibility; on the contrary, such circumstance constitutes an
aggravation of his crime.
We have heretofore said that in addition to the precepto & the pacto there are similar means by w/c another may be
induced to commit a crime w/c also make the 1 who offers the inducement the principal in the crime by virtue of the
provisions of A13(2). But it must be borne in mind that these acts of inducement do not consist in simple advice or
counsel given before the act is committed, or in simple words uttered at the time the act was committed. Such advice
& such words constitute undoubtedly an evil act, an inducement condemned by the moral law; but in order that, under
the provisions of the Code, such act can be considered direct inducement, it is necessary that such advice or such
words have a great dominance & great influence over the person who acts; it is necessary that they be as direct, as
efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as violence itself.
-Adapt
People vs. Kiichi Omine
FACTS: Defendants appeal from a decision of the CFI finding them guilty of frustrated homicide, w/ the AC that
advantage was taken of their superior strength, & sentencing them each to suffer an IS from 6 yrs of prision
correccional to 12 yrs of prision mayor.
Defendants Eduardo Autor, Luis Ladion and Agapito Cortesano were working under co-defendant Kiichi Omine, the
overseer or manager of the hemp plantation owned by Angel Pulido. The 4 defendants lived together in a house on
the plantation. Kiichi Omine asked Angel Pulido permission to open a new road through the plantation. Acdg to
Omine, Pulido did give his permission that‘s why he began working on the new road. But acdg to Pulido, he refused
to grant this request because there was already an unfinished road.
As Pulido and his son along w/ 2 others were returning home from a cockpit, they noticed that a considerable number
of hemp plants were destroyed by the construction of the new road. Angered by this, they went to the defendants‘
house and there happened a violent altercation resulting to the owner Pulido‘s death from a wound by a bolo struck in
his breast.
HELD: Although it is alleged that Kiichi Omine uttered words of inducement to Eduardo Autor, it would be insufficient
to make him a principal by induction. Eduardo Autor though working under the direction of Omine was still being paid
by Pulido. Moreover, it is necessary that inducement be made directly w/ the intention of procuring the commission
of the crime and that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime. It must be precede
the act induced and must be so influential in producing the criminal act that w/o it the act wouldn‘t have been
performed. Moreover, as words of direct inducement, it is essential that such advice or words have great dominance
and great influence over the person who acts, that they be as direct, as efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral
coercion or as violence itself.
Hence, the 3 co-defendants of Autor are not responsible for the injury inflicted by him on Angel Pulido. Judging from
the nature of the wound, w/c was abt 11 inches in length, it is probable that it was caused by the point of the bolo on
a downward stroke. It was not a stab wound, and was probably given during a commotion and w/o being aimed at
any particular part of the body. Moreover, as Autor struck the offended only once, it is indicative that it was not his
intention to take the offended party‘s life.
Wherefore, Eduardo Autor is guilty of lesiones graves w/ a sentence of 1yr 8 mos & 21 days of prision correccional,
since the offended party was incapacitated for the performance of his usual work for a period of more than 90 days,
and not of frustrated homicide. The rest of the co-defendants are acquitted.
-Adapt
Art. 18: Accomplices
People vs. Nierra
Facts:
 Accused: Felicisimo Doblen, Vicente Rojas, the spouses Paciano Nierra and Gaudencia Nierra and Gaspar
Misa
 Paciano Nierra is the brother in law of the deceased Julianna Nierra. The two were competitors in the
businesses of launch transportation and the sale of soft drinks. Paciano sold Pepsi and Juliana sold coca-
cola; Paciano was the owner of two launches, Sylvania I and II, while Juliana was the owner of Elsa I & II.
 In order to monopolize the competition, Paciano conceived the idea of killing Juliana.
 July 4, 1969: Felicimo Doblen, cousin in law of Paciano, introduced Gaspar Misa, a convicted murderer who
escaped from Davao Penal Colony, to Paciano.
 Misa agreed in killing Juliana in consideration of P3,000 from Paciano. The arrangement was done in front
of Gaudencia Nierra and was confirmed by her as well.
 July 6: Doblen delivered to Misa a package containing a calibre.38 with five pistols
 Misa contacted his friend Vicente Rojas to act as lookout on the night of the killing
 July 8: the killing was perpetrated
o Rojas posted himself at the Bernadette store, 27 steps away from the scene of the crime
o Gaudencia was stationed near the house of Maning Desinorio, 18 steps away from the scene
o Paciano was near the house of Juanito Desinorio, 27 steps away from the scene (houses of
Desinorios were separated from the house of Juliana by an alley)
o Misa was near a warehouse about 5steps from the scene of the crime near the back of Juliana‘s
house where, as Misa observed some nights before, she used to answer the call of nature
o Between 7 to 8 that night, Juliana went to the beach where she was accustomed to void and when
she squatted, Misa unexpectedly appeared behind her, held her hair, thus tilting her face, and while
in that position he inserted the pistol into her mouth and fired it
o Paciano and Gaudencia witnessed the actual killing
 When Misa was later arrested, he signed a confession admitting the killing of Juliana Nierra and implicating
the other accused. He also testified at the preliminary investigation
Issue:
 WON the Nierra spouses, Doblen and Rojas can be convicted as principals
Held:
The Nierra spouses were convicted as co-principals by inducement and by co-principals by cooperation through
acting as lookout
 The contention that there was no proof of conspiracy among the accused is belied by the facts shown in the
records.
 Misa had no personal motive for killing Juliana and so his testimonies and confessions were used primarily
for the conviction of the other accused
 Other considerations: there was a confrontation between said spouses and Aniceto, husband of deceased
and brother of accused, where Paciano did not comment on his brother‘s accusation of their crim and there
was a note sent to Paciano from Misa while they were in the city jail
Doblen and Rojas were convicted as ACCOMPLICES

 Doblen‘s role was that of introducing Misa to Nierra and delivering the murder weapon to Misa. He was not
present at the scene of the crime. Meanwhile, Rojas acted as a lookout for the consideration of P50.
 Their participation, as the court held, was not absolutely indispensible to the consummation of the murder
 In some exceptional situations, having community of design with the principal does not prevent a
malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the homicide or
murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor character
-Adapt
People vs. Doble
FACTS: Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost all heavily armed w/ pistols, carbines and thompsons, left
the shores of Manila in a motor banca & proceeded to Navotas,Rizal to rob the beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust
Co. Said bank wad an unusual banking hours, open from midnight till 8AM. Once docked in Navotas and taking
advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men disembarked from the banca and proceeded to their mission. Once
inside, they started firing at the bank‘s ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men then returned to the waiting motor
banca w/ about P10.5K & sped away. As a result of the shooting, many people got killed & injured. Among those
who got killed were agents of the law.
Only 5 of the 10 men were brought to trial, the rest still remain at large. 2 of the 5 accused were acquitted. It is only
Cresencio Doble, Simeon Doble and Antonio Romaquin appealing in the charge of bank robbery committed in band,
w/ multiple homicide, multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon agents of persons in authority.
HELD: First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence shows that the malefactors met in his house to discuss the plan to rob
the bank. This circumstance alone doesn‘t conclude his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The facts do not show that
he performed any act tending to the perpetration of the robbery, nor that he took a direct part therein or induced other
persons to commit, or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act w/o w/c it would not have been
committed. At most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy w/c is not punishable. Simeon then was not a
principal both by agreement and encouragement for his non-participation in the commission of the crime. Nor was it
clearly proven that he had received any part/fruits of the looted money as to make him an accessory. As
recommended by SolGen, Simeon Doble is entitled to acquittal w/ no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Next, as regards Romaquin & Doble, the malefactors who waited in the banca, both contend that their extra-judicial
statements upon w/c their conviction was principally made to rest, are inadmissible for having been allegedly
obtained by force and intimidation, torture and maltreatment, and in violation of basic consti‘l rts to counsel and
against self-incrimination. However, it must be noted that they didn‘t present any medical cert to attest to the injuries
allegedly inflicted. More so that their testimonies match each other‘s. And it should also be noted that Celso
Aquino‘s testimony, as one of the accused, admitted that no violence was inflicted on him to procure his statement.
This is evidence enough that the appellants could not have been dealt w/ differently as their co-accused Aquino who
was allowed to give his statement freely.
The extra-judicial statements of the appellants are convincing to show that their liability is less than that of a co-
principal by conspiracy or by actual participation. Cresencio was merely in-charge of the banca and had no
knowledge of the concrete plan and execution of the crime. The mastermind obviously did not extend confidence in
him as he was only asked to provide a banca just a few hours before the commission of the crime. Nor was
Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent him from
fleeing away from the scene, evident to show that he never joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were not
voluntary.
An accomplice is one who, not being principal as defined in Art 17 RPC, cooperates in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts. There must be a community of unlawful purpose between the principal and
accomplice and assistance knowingly and intentionally given to supply material and moral aid in the consummation of
the offense. In this case, the appellants‘ cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for abduction w/c makes the
driver a mere accomplice.
But it isn‘t established by evidence that in the mtg held in the house of Simeon that they all agreed to kill and not just
rob. The finding that appellants are liable as mere accomplices may appear too lenient but evidence fails to establish
their conspiracy w/ the real malefactors who actually robbed the bank and killed several people.
Wherefore, Doble & Romaquin are guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices for the crime of robbery in band.
The penalty imposable upon appellants is prision mayor min. The commission of the crime was aggr by nighttime &
the use of a motorized banca. There being no MC, both appellants should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
of prision correccional from 5 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days to 8 yrs of prision mayor as maximum.
-Adapt
PART II
PENALTIES (Arts. 21-88)
Enrile vs. Salazar
DOCTRINE: There is no such crime in our statute books as rebellion complexed with murder, that murder committed
in connection with a rebellion is absorbed by the crime of rebellion.
FACTS:
On February 27, 1990, Senator Enrile was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued on the same day by Judge Salazar
charging Enrile, together with the spouses Panlilio (the only reason they are included is because they served food at
the Enrile household!) and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder
allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator
Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having
been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. Hence, Senator Enrile filed a petition for
habeas corpus.
The prosecution alleges that Enrile‘s case does not fall within the Hernandez ruling because:
1. the information in Hernandez charged murders and other common crimes committed as a necessary means for
the commission of rebellion, whereas the information against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and frustrated
murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of rebellion
2. there is a distinction between the complex crime ("delito complejo") arising from an offense being a necessary
means for committing another, which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48, RPC, and is the subject of
the Hernandez ruling, and the compound crime ("delito compuesto") arising from a single act constituting two or
more grave or less grave offenses referred to in the first clause of the same paragraph, with which Hernandez
was not concerned and to which, therefore, it should not apply
ISSUES:
1. Is the Hernandez ruling still good law? YES.
2. Did Judge Salazar issue the warrant for Enrile‘s arrest without first personally determining the existence of
probable cause? YES.
3. Was a petition for habeas corpus the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial? NO.
RATIO:
First Issue
In the view of the majority, the ruling remains good law, its substantive and logical bases have withstood all
subsequent challenges and no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete reversal. Two
other options were presented (and rejected):
1. abandon the Hernandez ruling
2. hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses committed in furtherance, or as a necessary means for the
commission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in the course of a rebellion which also constitute "common"
crimes of grave or less grave character
This view is reinforced by the fact that not too long ago, President Aquino, exercising her powers under the 1986
Freedom Constitution, saw fit to repeal, Presidential Decree No. 942 of the former regime which precisely sought to
nullify or neutralize Hernandez by enacting a new provision (Art. 142-A) into the Revised Penal Code. The President
in effect by legislative fiat reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine with the effect of law.
Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an
activity that constitutes rebellion.
Read in the context of Hernandez, the information does indeed charge the petitioner with a crime defined and
punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion. The information filed against the petitioner does in fact charge
an offense. Disregarding the objectionable phrasing that would complex rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder, that indictment is to be read as charging simple rebellion.
Second Issue
Merely because Judge Salazar had what some might consider only a relatively brief period within which to comply
with his duty, gives no reason to assume that he had not, or could not have, so complied; nor does that single
circumstance suffice to overcome the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.
Third Issue
The criminal case before Judge Salazar was the normal venue for invoking the petitioner's right to have provisional
liberty pending trial and judgment.
There was and is no reason to assume that the resolution of any of these questions was beyond the ability or
competence of Judge Salazar — indeed such an assumption would be demeaning and less than fair to our trial
courts.
HELD: The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People v. Hernandez, the questioned
information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as
charging simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right.
The proceedings are remanded to respondent judge to fix the amount of bail.
OTHER OPINIONS:
Fernan, C.J. (Concurring & Dissenting Opinion)
The Hernandez doctrine should not be interpreted as an all-embracing authority for the rule that all common crimes
committed on the occasion, or in furtherance of, or connection with, rebellion are absorbed by the latter.
The doctrine was good law then, but there is a certain aspect of the Hernandez doctrine that needs clarification.
The Court, in the instant case, should have further considered that distinction between acts or offenses which are
indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the one hand, and those acts or offenses that are merely necessary
but not indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the other.
Melencio-Herrera, J. (Separate Opinion)

She takes exception to the view that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy. Had the Information filed below
charged merely the simple crime of Rebellion, that proposition could have been plausible. But that Information
charged Rebellion complexed with Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder, a crime which does not exist in our statute
books.
To have filed a Motion to Quash before the lower Court would not have brought about the speedy relief from unlawful
restraint that petitioner was seeking. Besides, the Writ of Habeas Corpus may still issue even if another remedy,
which is less effective, may be availed of (Chavez v. CA)
The Court below must be deemed to have been ousted of jurisdiction when it illegally curtailed petitioner's liberty.
Habeas corpus is thus available.
Feliciano, J. (Concurring Opinion)

There are certain aspects of the Hernandez doctrine that, as an abstract question of law, could stand re-examination
or clarification.
Gutierrez, J. (Concurring Opinion)

The Court emphasizes that it cannot legislate a new crime into existence nor prescribe a penalty for its commission.
That function is exclusively for Congress.
Under the special circumstances of this case, however, the petitioners had no other recourse (petition for a writ of
habeas corpus).
1. the trial court was certainly aware of the decision in People v. Hernandez, that there is no such crime in our
statute books as rebellion complexed with murder, that murder committed in connection with a rebellion is
absorbed by the crime of rebellion
2. Hernandez has been the law for 34 years. Attempts to have the doctrine re-examined have been consistently
rejected by this Court.
3. The prosecution has not explained why it insists on resurrecting an offense expressly wiped out by the President.
The prosecution, in effect, questions the action of the President in repealing a repressive decree, a decree
which, according to the repeal order, is violative of human rights.
4. any re-examination of the Hernandez doctrine brings the ex post facto principle into the picture.
5. The attempts to distinguish this case from the Hernandez case by stressing that the killings charged in the
information were committed "on the occasion of, but not a necessary means for, the commission of rebellion"
result in outlandish consequences and ignore the basic nature of rebellion.
We cannot and should not try to ascertain the intent of rebels for each single act unless the act is plainly not
connected to the rebellion. The killing of civilians during a rebel attack on military facilities furthers the rebellion and is
part of the rebellion.
The petitioner was compelled to come to us so he would not be arrested without bail for a non - existent crime.
Faced with an information charging a manifestly non-existent crime, the duty of a trial court is to throw it out. Or, at
the very least and where possible, make it conform to the law. Any judgment it renders, any order it prescribes, and
any processes it issues must follow the Supreme Court precedent.
In these cases, however, there is a deliberate attempt to charge the petitioners for an offense which this Court has
ruled as non-existent. The prosecution wanted Hernandez to be reversed. Since the prosecution has filed
informations for a crime which, under our rulings, does not exist, those informations should be treated as null and
void. New informations charging the correct offense should be filed.
Padilla, J. (Separate Opinion)

He dissents, insofar as it holds that the information in question, while charging the complex crime of rebellion with
murder and multiple frustrated murder, "is to be read as charging simple rebellion."
That information is clearly a nullity and plainly void ab initio. The prosecution must file an entirely new and proper
information, for this entire exercise to merit the serious consideration of the courts.
Bidin, J. (Concurring & Dissenting Opinion)

The proceedings need not be remanded to Judge Salazar for the purpose of fixing bail since we have construed the
indictment herein as charging simple rebellion, an offense which is bailable. Consequently, habeas corpus is the
proper remedy available to petitioner as an accused who had been charged with simple rebellion, a bailable offense
but who had been denied his right to bail by Judge Salazar in violation of petitioner's constitutional right to bail. In
view thereof, the responsibility of fixing the amount of bail and approval thereof when filed, devolves upon us, if
complete relief is to be accorded to petitioner in the instant proceedings.
Sarmiento, J. (Concurring & Dissenting Opinion)

The fact that we gave him "provisional liberty" is in my view, of no moment, because bail means provisional liberty. It
will serve no useful purpose to have the trial court hear the incident again when we ourselves have been satisfied that
the petitioner is entitled to temporary freedom.
-Adapt
People vs. Salvilla
FACTS: Accused: Bienvenido Salvilla, Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all Canasares)
Victims: Severino Choco, owner of New Iloilo Lumber Yard, his daughters
Mary and Mimie (minor, 15 years old), Rodita Habiero, employee
On April 12, 1986, noon time, the four accused staged a robbery at New Iloilo Lumber Yard. They met Rodita,
announced the holdup, and made her go back to the office. In the office, Salvilla threatens Choco and his daughters
with a gun, asking for money. Choco then instructs his daughter Mary to get a paper bag, where he place P 20,000
cash, handing it to Salvilla. As Salvilla pleaded the robbers now leave, Canasares took his wallet and wristwatch.
At 2:00 PM, hostages were allowed to eat. Salvilla told Choco to produce P 100,000. Choco answered he could not
do so because it was a Saturday and banks were closed. In the meantime, police and military had surrounded the
place. Major Melquiades B. Sequio, Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo, negotiated release using a loudspeaker.
With the refusal of accused, OIC Mayor Rosa Caram arrives at the scene and in negotiations lasting four hours, she
offered them P 50,000 instead of the P 100,000 and coaster, with raincoats, asked for by the accused. The accused
agreed to exchange Rodita, accompanied by Mary, for the P 50,000. The exchange took place but Mary was herded
back into the office.
After ultimatums were given and accused wouldn‘t budge, police and military moved in an offensive assault, which
resulted in the rescue of the hostages and arrest of the four robbers. Mimie and Mary were injured though, with Mary
suffering a ―macerated right lower extremity just below the knee,‖ which later on had to be amputated.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime is attempted robbery.
HELD: NO. The Court affirms the decision of the RTC, hence Salvilla et al are guilty of Robbery with Serious
Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention.
There is no question that in robbery, it is required that there be a taking of personal property belonging to another.
This is known as the element of asportation, the essence of which is the taking of the thing out of the possession of
the owner without his privity and consent and without the animus revertendi. The ―taking‖ was sufficiently proved
when Salvilla actually physically held the paper bag with money. Together with the wallet and wristwatch, they were
within the dominion and control of the Salvilla et al, completing the taking.
Salvilla et al are guilty of a complex crime because the Illegal Detention facilitated in the Robbery and was a
deliberate means of extortion for an additional amount. Unlike Astor, wherein hostages were held merely to forestall
their capture by the police.
Lastly, Salvilla‘s ―surrender‖ is not a mitigating circumstance but an act of desperation since the police were already
closing in.
-Adapt
Continued Crime
People vs. De Leon
Facts: In the morning of December 21, 1925 Vicente De Leon entered the yard of Vicente Magat‘s house on
Domingo Santiago St., Manila and took two game roosters. One belonged to Diego Magat and other to Ignacio
Nicolas.
The Municipal court charged him with two counts of theft, one for the theft of Magat‘s rooster and another for
the theft of Nicolas‘ rooster.
When the case was elevated at the CFI of Manila, he was convicted of just one count of theft.
The SC upheld the CFI‘s holding.
Issue: WON appellant is guilty of one count of theft or two separate counts of theft
Held: Guilty of one count of theft.

―The act of taking the roosters at the same place and at the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an
independent existence of their own, because there are not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that
characterize the separate crimes.‖
There being only one criminal purpose in the taking of the two roosters, only one crime was committed.
The fact that two roosters belonged to two different persons was merely accidental.
-Adapt
Application of penalties
People vs. Ducosin
Facts: Valeriano Ducosin was convicted of the crime of frustrated murder of Rafael Yanguas, punishable by one
degree lower than the prescribed penalty for murder, which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death
(lowered to prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in medium period). The plea of guilty was
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, which lowered the penalty to its minimum period. Therefore the range of
the penalty was ten years and one day to twelve years of imprisonment, leaving to the discretion of the court the
precise time to be served within range. The Supreme Court shall revise the penalty by applying Act 4103, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, which will prescribe a minimum and maximum penalty.
Issue: Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what should be the penalty? In other words, what should be the
maximum and the minimum?
Held: The maximum penalty imposed was ten years and one day to twelve years and the minimum was seven years.
After serving the minimum sentence, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence should consider giving him parole.
Ratio: According to section 1 of Act 4103, ―the Court shall order the accused to be imprisoned… to such a maximum
as may, in view of attending circumstances, be properly imposed under the present rules of the said [Revised Penal]
Code, to a minimum term which shall not be less than the minimum imprisonment period of the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by the code for the said offense. Given that frustrated murder, with the extenuating circumstance of
guilty plea, should be punished by one degree lower than murder, and in its minimum period, the maximum
imprisonment period should be within the range of that penalty (prision mayor in its maximum period or years and one
day to twelve years). The minimum period should be within the range of the penalty immediately lower than prision
mayor in its maximum period (prision mayor in its medium period, four years, two months and one day to ten years.
Judgment modified.
-Adapt
People vs. Formigones
Facts: In the month of Nov. 1946, Abelardo was living on his farm in Camarines Sur w/ his wife, Julia Agricola & their
5 children. From there they transferred in the house of his half-brother, Zacarias Formigones in the same municipality
to find employment as harvesters of palay. After a month, Julia was sitting at the head of the stairs of the house when
Abelardo, w/o previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house & stabbed his wife
Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating the right lung & causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death.
Abelardo then took his dead wife & laid her on the floor of the living room & then lay down beside her. In this position,
he was found by the people who came in response to the shouts made by his eldest daughter, Irene Formigones.
The motive was admittedly that of jealousy because according to his statement, he used to have quarrels with his
wife for reason that he often saw her in the company of his brother, Zacarias; that he suspected the 2 were
maintaining illicit relations because he noticed that his wife had become indifferent to him. During the preliminary
investigation, the accused pleaded guilty. At the case in the CFI, he also pleaded guilty but didn‘t testify. His counsel
presented the testimony of 2 guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was confined to the effect that his conduct
was rather strange & that he behaved like an insane person, at times he would remain silent, walk around stark
naked, refuse to take a bath & wash his clothes etc... The appeal is based merely on the theory that the appellant is
an IMBECILE & therefore exempt from criminal liability under RPC A12.
Issue: WON Abelardo is an imbecile at the time of the commission of the crime, thus exempted from criminal liability
Held: No. He is not an imbecile. According Dr. Francisco Gomes, although he was feebleminded, he is not an
imbecile as he could still distinguish between right & wrong & even feel remorse. In order that a person could be
regarded as an imbecile w/in the meaning of RPC A12 so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must be deprived
completely of reason or discernment & freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. (Note that definition is
same as insanity)
As to the strange behavior of the accused during his confinement, assuming it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it
may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse
at having killed his wife. A man who could feel the pangs of jealousy & take violent measures to the extent of killing
his wife who he suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief that in doing so, he was vindicating his honor, could
hardly be regarded as an imbecile. WON the suspicions were justified, is of little or no importance. The fact is that he
believed her faithless. Furthermore, in his written statement, he readily admitted that he killed his wife, & at the trial
he made no effort to deny of repudiate said written statements, thus saving the government all the trouble & expense
of catching him & securing his conviction.
But 2 mitigating circumstances are present: passion or obfuscation (having killed his wife in a jealous rage) &
feeblemindedness.
Judgment: In conclusion, appellant is found guilty of parricide & the lower court‘s judgment is hereby affirmed w/ the
modification that appellant will be credited with half of any preventive imprisonment he has undergone (because of
the 2 mitigating circumstances)
-Adapt
People vs. Simon
Facts: Oct. 22, 1988, Pampanga. Martin Simon was convicted of violating RA 6425 AII §4 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972) through a NARCOM poser-buyer. It was appealed for reversal alleging it was a frame-up (testimonies &
evidence proved otherwise) & evidence was inadmissible (held, because there was no counsel).
Issue: WON correct penalty applied?

Held: No. Conviction modified. There was overlapping error in the law thus the SC had to harmonize conflicting
provisions by providing for degrees of graduation. Rule: degrees applied depending on quantity then apply mitigating
or aggravating circumstance. Least penalty should be prision correccional so as not to depreciate seriousness of
crime. Justified in applying RPC provisions because law adopted penalties under RPC in their technical terms thus
significations and effects will also apply. It rules in people v. Tsang Hin Wai that when special law grants discretion to
SC to apply penalties, Code won‘t be held. Otherwise, SC should be guided by rules in RPC that being the expert in
criminal law administration.
-Adapt

Crim1 Compiled Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim1 Compiled Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M.

Art. 2. Applicability of provisions

People vs. Wong Cheng

US vs. Look Chaw

Issue: Is he guilty of importing when intent was not so proven?

US vs. Lol-lo and Saraw

Art. 3. Definition of felony

Issue: Is he liable for the crime?

People vs. Oanis and Galanta

Issue: Are they liable?

Art. 4. Criminal Liability

People vs. Iligan

Issue: Who is liable for the death?

People vs. Mananquil

Held: Yes; the death is a consequence of her act of burning him.

Issue: WON Balmores committed an impossible crime.

Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder?

Art. 6. Stages of commission

People vs. Orita

Issue: Whether or not rape is consummated

People vs. Campuhan

Issue: WON crime is rape?

Held: No. Modified to attempted rape

Facts: Defendant: Tomas Adiao

Issue: WON the act of the defendant is frustrated theft

People vs. Lamahang

Issue: WON crime is attempted robbery?

People vs. Salvilla

People vs. Borinaga

Issue: Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder.

Held: YES. The Court affirms the judgment of the RTC.

Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real:

Attempted murder only.

People vs. Sy Pio

People vs. Ravelo

Art. 11: Justifying Circumstances – Self-defense

People vs. Boholst-Caballero

Issue: WON Cunigunda, in stabbing her husband, acted in legitimate self-defense

Held: Yes, she did. Acquitted

2. Three requisites of legitimate self-defense are present

People vs. Genosa

HELD: 1) No, but with 2 mitigating circumstances

Art. 11: Defense of Honor

People vs. De la Cruz

People vs. Juarigue

2. WON there are mitigating circumstances in Avelina‘s favor.

Judgment modified; penalty reduced.

Art. 11: Defense of property

People vs. Apolinar

Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defense of property

Issue: WON there is defense of property.

People vs. Narvaez

Issue: WON the aggression was unlawful

Art. 11: Defense of reputation

People vs. Chua Hiong

Appellant acquitted with costs de-officio.

People vs. Pelayo

Art. 11: Avoidance of a greater evil

Facts: Complainant’s version:

She denied receiving a wedding gown.

Regina vs. Dudley

Issue: WON killing of deceased is justifiable.

Decision: Modified. No legal justification of Homicide but willful Murder.