Article 6: Consummated, Frustrated, Attempted Felonies

1. People v. Maghirang
Ponente: Moreland
FACTS Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Laguna charging the accused of frustrated murder
based on the ff facts:

Accused Roman Maghirang, Damaso Rivera, Francisco Guttierez went to the house of
Cornelio Briones carrying banjos and guitars for the purpose of giving a serenade in front of
Briones house in honor of his sister-in-law. However, Briones asked them not to continue
the serenade as he was afraid the music would awaken her.

An assault happened when Briones went to visit a pece of land, riding with his carabao
when uddenlky the 3 mentioned men leaped from the bushes in which they are hidden.
Guttierez seized the carabao while Rivera struck Briones on the left arm w/ a club. Despite
Brioness remontrances, Maghirang still struck him with a bolo one on the shoulder and
the other across the lips. (cite specs of wounds). After returning to consciousness he was
able, with great difficulty to reach his house. The accused then withdrew.

ISSUE Is the crime (frustrated murder) charge against the accused proper?
HELD No. In the case at bar the accused voluntarily desisted from injuring the victim further.
They probably knew that the injuries were not inflicted in a vital part of the body and were
not as such as should produce death. This presents a condition which one cannot deduce
an intent to kill. Thus the crime committed is only LESIONES GRAVES (grave physical
injuries).

2. People v. Borinaga
Ponente: Malcom

FACTS Harry H. Mooney, owner of a shop, contracted with one Juan Lawaan for the construction
of a fish corral. Basilio Borinaga, the accused, was associated with Lawaan in the
construction of the corral. When Lawaan asked Mooney whole amount fixed by the
contract, the latter refused. Lawaan warned him that something would happen to him if he
didnt pay. Mooney, however, seemed not affected.

When Mooney was on a neighbour, Basilio Borinaga, armed with a knife, struck him but
the knife lodged only in the back of the chair on which Mooney was seated. Mooney fell
from the chair but was not injured. Ten minutes after his attack, he returned, with a wife in
hand, was unable to hit him again for Mooney (and Perpetua) were then on their guard
and flashlight on a frightening Borinaga away.
ISSUE Do the facts constitute frustrated murder or attempted murder within the meaning of Art.
4 of the RPC?
HELD Although no exact counterpart to the facts at bar has been found either in Spanish or Phil
jurisprudence, majority of the court answer was that of frustrated murder. This is said to
be true notwithstanding the admitted fact that Mooney was not injured in the least. The
essential condition of a frustrated crime, that the author performs all the acts of execution,
attended the attack. The cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason of
forces independent of the will of the perpetrator (subjective phase of the criminal act was
passed).

Dissenting Opinion (Villa-Real): Art 6 Par. 3 states that the a felony is attempted if the
offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but does not
perform all the acts of execution which constitutes the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

3. People v. Erina
Ponente: Ostrand
FACTS Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Manila finding defendant guilt of the crime of
consummated rape as charged.

The victim of the crime was a child of 3 years and 11 months old and evidence is conclusive
that the defendant, Julian Erinia endeavoured to have carnal intercourse with her but
being disturbed by the timely intervention of the mother and the sister of the child. The
physician who examined the genital organ of the child a few hours after the commission of
the crime found a slight inflammation of the exterior parts of the organ, indicating than an
effort has been made to enter the vagina, but he expressed doubts as to whether the entry
had been effected.

The mother of the child testified that she found its genital organ covered with a sticky
substance, but that cannot be considered conclusive evidence of penetration.

ISSUE W/N Julian Erinia is guilty as charged
HELD It is probably true that a complete penetration was impossible but such a penetration is not
essential; it is sufficient that there is a penetration of the labia.
There being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the offended
party, defendant is entitled to the benefit the doubt and can only be found guilty of
FRUSTRATED RAPE.
Abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance (max degress) as the accused is living
as a guest to the house of the victim.
MALCOLM, dissenting: It is consummated rape accdg to evidence and record, and findings
of the trial judge and decisions.

4. Palaganas v. People
Ponente: Chico-Nazario
FACTS Petition for Review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
Around Jan. 16, 1998, around 8:00pm, brothers Servillano, Melton, and Michael , all
Ferrers, were havin a drinking spree in their house and at 9:45pm transferred to Tidbits
Videoke bar located at the corner of Malvar and Rizal Sts., Poblacion, Manaoag in La Union.
Thereafter at 10:30pm, Jaime Palaganas arrived together with Ferdinand Palaganas and
Virgillio Bautista. Later, when Jaime Palaganas was singing, Melton sang along with him as
he was familiar with the song, My Way. Jaime however resented and was insulted. Jaime
struck Servillano with the microphone. A rumbed ensued between the Ferrer and
Palaganas brothers. Edith, sister of Jaime, arrived and pacified them.

Servillano noticed that his wristwatch was missing went inside and Ferrer brothers outside.
Petitioner, Rujjerick Palaganas, after orders from Ferdinand to shoot the borthers, had shot
Servllano at the left side of the abdomen causing him to fall on the ground ad Melton who
was hit at the head. Michael who attempted to throw stones was hit in the right shoulder.

Police officers came and Ferrer borthers were brought to Villaflor Hospital in Dagupan.

ISSUE W/N the crime charged as affirmed with CA (with modification 2 counts of frustrated
murder and murder) was proper
HELD TRIAL COURT: Finding petitioner guilty of only of homicide and 2 counts of Frustrated
homicide. Rujjerick acquitted of illegal possession of firearms as his use and possession of a
gun was not for the purpose of disrupting election activities.

NO conspiracy. Ferdinand only pointed to where the Ferrer bros were and uttered to
petitioner: Shoot them!, does not connote common design or unity of purpose to kill.
Not participant in the rumble (not a MURDER but HOMICIDE). Shooting was instantaneous
and without any prior plan or agreement with Ferdinand to execute the same.

No treachery. Ferrer brothers were given a chance to defend themselves during the
shooting incident by stoning the petitioner and Ferdinand. Sudden and unexpected attack
was absent.

CA: decreased sentence for homicide and 2 counts for frustrated homicide.
SC: Warning shot of the petitioner failed as Art 11, unlawful aggression refers to an
assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places
the defendants life in peril (sudden and unprovoked). No unlawful aggression (or assault)
on the part of the Ferrer brothers that justified the act of petitioner in shooting them.
Throwing of stones not = to an imminent danger to fire (4-5 meters distance)
Generic aggravating can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance and NOT for
special aggravating (e.g., quasi recidivism and complex crimes)
FINAL JUDGMENT: Homicide for the death of Melton, Frustrated for Servillano, and
Attempted for Michael.

5. Martinez v. CA
Ponente: Callejo, Sr.
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE W/N the crime charged by RTC affirmed by CA was proper (i.e., frustrated homicide)
HELD Case of petitioner: Godofredo Sarmiento, uncle of Bnejamin Martinez, who was also on his
way to the cooperative to update his passbook, was allegedly blocked by Dean and was
hurled by invectives caused by the latter. Allegedly spat and punched Martinez so the
latter stabbed Dean. Brgy Capt. Oller arrived and Martinez surrendered his bolo
TRIAL COURT: Gave credence and full probative weight to the testimony of Dean, Dr.
Rimando, and SPO1 Sulatre. Prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of
treachery court ruled only frustrated homicide (not of murder). Involved a love triangle
and the protagonists history of animosity (illwill)

CA: case is more of a retaliation rather than self-defense (Deans 2 fatal wounds on the
chest which confirmed that petitioner vvigorously and purposefully attacked the victim)
*There was no need for petitioner to follow Dean inside the building since the unlawful
aggression of the latter ceases the moment he went inside the bank.

SC: (1) Validity of criminal complaint (since sworn statement taken long after complaint
was filed and was not even typewritten) DENIED. MTC still issued subpoena once SPO1
Sulatre submitted the medical certificate. Hence, the compliance. NO counter-affidavit was
submitted for any protest
(2) Issue of self-defense- weak; when the unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no
longer has any justifcaction to kill or wound the original aggressor.
a. He is expected to surrender which did not manifest
b. Nature of wound determinative of the effort of killing victim
c. No evidence as to the punching
(3) Convicted only of less serious physical injuries
Indicia to kill:
a. Motive; b. nature or number of weapons used; c. nature and number of wounds
inflicted; d. manner of the commission of the crime; e words uttered at the time
of the injury PHYSICAL EVIDENCE belies his pose.
FRUSTRATED MURDER.



6. People v. Caballero
Ponente:Callejo, Sr.
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE W/N the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
a. Murder for both Leonilo Broce and Eugene Tayactac
b. Frustrated murder for Arnold Barcuma
HELD RTC: Ricardo, Armando, and Marciano, Jr. (Robito at large) were charged of murder for
killing Leonilo and Eugene and frustrated murder for Arnold
Trial court found that there was conspiracy to kill. CONSPIRACY may be proved by
circumstantial evidence (before, during, and after the commission of felony)
SC:
a. All the appellants criminally liable for the death of Eugene. Doesnt matter who among
the appellants stabbed Eugene or inflicted injuries on Arnold. ACT OF ONE IS THE ACT
OF THE OTHERS. (Co-principals)
However, only guilty of Frustrated murder as to Arnold
b. Prosecution failed to adduce evidence that appellants and Robito conspired to kill
Leonilo. They did not see Leonilo rushing out from his house and Robito to stab him.
No evidence as to the assistance of the accused Robito in killing Leonilo (People v.
Flora for acts done outside the contemplation of the conspirators, only the ACTUAL
PERPETRATORS are liable i.e., not the necessary and logical consequence of the
intended crime). - ACQUITTED
Frontal attack treacherous if it is sudden and the victim is unarmed. (Eugene then
was unarmed)

7. People v. Lizada
Ponente: CAllejo, Sr.
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE a. W/N the Court gravely erred in not making a finding or fact in its
decision and such failkure is reversible
b. W/N the Court gravely erred in convicting the accused of 4 counts of
rape
HELD RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 4 counts of rape (death penalty on each
count)
SC:
a. RTC failed to state the factual and legal basis for the imposition of
supreme penalty of death. Accdg to Art 8 Par 14 of the 1987 no
decision shall be rendered by ay court w/o expressing therein clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on w/c it is based.
b. On Nov. 5, 1998 ONLY ATTEMPTED and NOT ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS (no intention to have sexual intercourse (when Rossel
was reprimanded to go back to his room when he peeped through the
door) the rest CONSUMMATED.
SIMPLE RAPE in August, Sep, and Oct 1998; ATTEMPTED RAPE in Nov)

ATTEMPTED vs. PREPARATORY (devising means or measures necessary for the
accomplishment of a desired object)
Note: Date of commission of the offense not necessary to state in the
complaint the precise date the offense was committed (not an essential
element)
Rape- consummated: slightest penetration of the labiaof the pudendum

8. Rivera v. People
Ponente: Callejo, Sr.
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE W/N CA erred in affirming RTC decision
HELD RTC: Frustrated murder
CA: Attempted murder (non mortal wounds)
SC: Art 6 (attempted) petitioner, who acted in concerted effort, commenced
the felony of murder by mauling and hitting the victim three times with a
hollow block
Attacked in a sudden andunexpected manner treacherous
CA DECISION AFFIRMED.

9. People v. Orande
Ponente: Corona
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE W/N the accused is guilty of the crime charged
HELD RTC: 2 counts of simple rape, 1 count of statutory rape, and 1 count of
frustrated rape

SC: No frustrated rape (People v. Erinia); Consummation of rape: when the
accused has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and
all essential elements have been accomplished.
DECISION:
1. Jan 14 1996 simple rape
2. April 15, 1994 -statutory rape (age below 12)
3. Mar 12, 1995 statutory rape (age below 12)
4. Nov. 17, 1996 simple rape

*intimidation led to her failure to cry out for help
*Delay of even 3 years does not necessarily detract credibility as long as it is
satisfactorily explained.

10. People v. Campuhan
Ponente: Belosillo
FACTS
ISSUE Is Primo Campuhan guilty of statutory rape (Art.335)?
HELD RTC: Statutory rape

SC: ATTEMPTED RAPE (Art 6 Par 3 timely presence of the mother)

Punishment of attempted rape -2 degrees lower than statutory (death penalty)

Medico legal - no external signs of physical injuries

Corazon insists that Primo did not restrain himself from pursuing his wicked
intention despite her timely appearance Court not persuaded (inconsistent
with mans instinct of self-preservation)

Holding of right hand on the organ yet to attain an erection

No penetration as per the victim.
*In People v. Orita, Court did away with frustrated rape

11. People v. Marquez
Ponente: Panganiban
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE 1. W/N the court erred in convicting the accused of frustrated robbery
with frustrated homicide
2. W/N crime of illegal possession of firearm
HELD RTC: Frustrated robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide and illegal
possession of firearms

SC: 1. There was a mark of discrepancy between the statements of SPO1
Merene as regards the whereabouts of the conductor before, during, and after
the hold-up but does not negate the fact that the accused was positively
identified
Robberywas foiled and intend rob was evident as to the violence
created by the accused. Were it not for the policeman, appellant and
his cohorts would have consummated their original plan
2. ACQUITTED. Gun wasnt found at the possession of appellant
(conjecture that such gun was brought at the house of Mauricio Ilao
does not satisfy the elements of the crime


Article 8: Conspiracy and Proposal to commit a felony

1. People v. Reyes
Ponente:
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE W/N conspiracy is present in the commission of the felony
HELD RTC: special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom w/ homicide DEATH
PENALTY imposed hence this automatic review
CA: Kidnapping for ransom w Double homicide (From Death penalty to
reclusion perpetua)
Filed a m,otion for reconsideration but was denied. And filed Notice of Appeal
SC:
(1) No cogent reason to overturn the RTCs ruling finding the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses credible. (Witnesses Abagatnan, Robert, and
Yao San) (covering of t-shirt on the head still identified since their
faces were exposed.)
(2) Conspiracy exists when theres presupposed purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful objective (EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION by
the accused showed the detailed role/participation played by each of
the) Extrajudicial Declaration is a declaration of made voluntarily and
without compulsion or inducement by a person under custodial
investigation, stating or acknowledging that he had committed such
crime. (Based on Art. III Sec. 12 of the Consti: have the right to be
informed and remain silent and to have a competent and independent
counsel)
Crime of kidnapping:
a. The offender is a private individual
b. He kidnaps or detains another
c. Act of detention or kidnapping is illegal
d. In the commission of the offense the ff are present: a) kidnapping o
detention lasts for more than 3 days; b) committed by simulating
authorities; c) serious phys.injuries inflicted; d) person kidnapped is
a minor, female, or a public officer
DEATH PENALTY shall be imposed when any of the 2 is resent:
a. Motive is to extort ransom
b. Kidnapped victim died or illed or was subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts
However, RA 9346 spassed on June 24, 2006 PROHIBITS the
imposition of death penalty only reclusion perpetua with no
parole
DECISION: SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM
WITH HOMICIDE (no need to put double since appropriate
denomination should be complex

2. Herrrera v. Sandiganbayan
Ponente: Azcuna
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE Is there conspiracy on the part of Herrera and Marinao
HELD Joint trial RTC: accused Edgardo Herrera and Redentor Mariano guilty of 2
counts of Murder as co-principals with aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of their public position
Public respondent Sandiganbayan DENIED joint motion for Reconsideration
Herrera and petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari

Double Jeopardy does not apply. Elements:
1. There is a complaint sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction
2. The same is filed with the Court of competent jurisdiction
3. Theres a valid arraignment or plea to the charges
4. Accused is convicted or acquitted or case is dismissed or terminated
w/o his express consent
Winterhalter narrated that Pat. Barrera and Alcalde together w/ the petitioners
, were the ones responsible for the death of the victims.

Sekf Defense by Petitioners cannot stand. The accused who invokes self-defense
thereby admits having killed the victim, and burden of evidence is shifted on
him to prove w/ clear and convincing evidence

Petitioners argument: Victims were trying to get the pistol tucked in the waist
of one of the police officers latter should show means in repelling the
supposed aggression.
*Since both victims were handcuffed (after they had thir med exam), there was
no means that perceived threats were sufficiently serious

CONSPIRACY. Petitioner Marinao drove the vehicle to Timothy St. which was a
place less conspicuous to passerby. There Pat. Alcalde, Pat. Barrera, and
petitioner Herrera brought out the 2 victims from the back portion of the van
and shot the victims. After the killing, petitioners even helped crry the two
victims on the van.

TREACHERY. Presence of deliberate and sudden attack. Unarmed victims no
chance of resisting

DECISION: 2 counts of MURDER affirmed

3. Ingal v. People
Ponente: Chico-Nazario

FACTS Appeal from the decision of CA

PROSECUTION WITNESSES:

Myrna Dalangan Domingo, mother of the victim, testified that her son was a 19
y.o student when he died on Mar 2, 1987. She immediately went to the Mary
Johnston hospital upon learning the news. However, his son passed away the
same day.

Aida Bona resident of Perla St., Tondo, Manila and the owner of the carinderia
where the stabbin took place. She narrated that around 9pm at Mar 2, 1987,
she was in front of her carinderia and the victim eating thereat and petitioner
Jose Ingal pulled his hair and repeatedly stabbed him. After stabbing, petitioner
just ran away if nothing happened. Distinguishing mark: right mole on the
eyelid. Only she, Rosalinda Tan, and the gf were on the carinderia.

Rosalinda Tan, helper at the carinderia, witnessed the stabbing on the victim
Rolando Domingo.. She was 2 meters away when he saw the petitioner placed a
towel on the neck of the victim and stabbed him thrice.

Autopsy report showed : 4 stab wounds (2 of which were penetrating and 2
were fatal) Bladed weapon used was tres cantos

Defense: Accdg to Ingal he was at work then to deliver fish to Divisoria every
night

Remedios Ibajo: While Toto, the victim, was eating with a woman, he was
tapped in the shoulder by a companion (Joseph) of Carding Daga and was
ordered to the latter to bring out the weapon. A tres cantos was pulled out by
Carding Daga and given to the companion and stabbed the victim. These
persons have 2 more companions waiting in the corner and were headed to a
Smokey Mountain. Toto was picked up by his lady companion and brought to
the hospital.
ISSUE W/N the court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Bona and Tan that
there was only 1 suspect in the killing
HELD RTC: Murder
CA: Murder

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to modify the sentence to reclusion
perpetua. Trial court on Mar 9, 1999 MODIFIED THE DECISION to RECLUSIO
PERPETUA

SC: Much was given credence to the testimonies of Bona and Tan despite the
the former having waited for the apprehension of the assailant after seven
years to divulge the issue. (Did not reduce her statement into writing till the
apprehension of such appellants because of fear since the suspect were at large
then) Delay in reporting is a natural reluctance for fear of reprisal

Findings of lower court conclusive and binding to SC

Hornbook doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by positive and convincing
evidence .Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are co-principals
regardless of degree of participation the act of one becomes the act of all.

CONSPIRACY assumes pivotal importance in the determination of liability of
the perpetrators In the case, petitioner is only liable

MURDER reclusion perptua.

4. People v. Guittap/ Masinag Vda.de Ramos
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago
FACTS Appeal from the Decision of RTC

State witness Ariel Dador testified that in the evening of July 15, 1992, Cesar
Osabel asked him and a certain Purcino to go with him to see appellant Masinag
at her house in Lucena City. Osabel explained to Dador that and Purcino that he
and Masinag planned to rob the spouses Jael since the spouses were old and
rich and only their daughter lived with them.

July 16 at 7:00pm, the three went to the hjouse and execute the plan. Osabel
and Purcino went inside and Dador stayed outside 30m away from the house.
After 2 hours, Purcino and Osabel were carrying a karaoke machine and a a rfile.
Dador saw the hands of Osabel bloodied as the latter tied the victims hands
with t.v cord before he repeatedly stabbed him

Robbery of jewelry and other items with a total value of P67,800
ISSUE W/N the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged
HELD RTC:: Robbery w/ Homicide against Decena Masinag vda. de Ramos and Cesar
Osabel

Amended Information: Robbery with double homicide filed against Masinag,
Guittap, Morelos, Osabel, Dador, Guilling, Purcino


Appellant Masinag denied involvement . She denied that she had resentment
against the victims because they berated her son for stealing her daughters
handbag.

SC: Appellant contends that extrajudicial confessions of Osabel and Dador were
insufficient to establish her participation in the conspiracy. Osabel was only
forced to execute the statement implicating Masinag

Dadors testimony was not based on his own personal knowledge but from
what Osabel told him. He admitted that he was never near appellant and did
not talk to her the plan when they were at ther house on July 15, 1992.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE\

Res inter alios acta rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be rejudiced
by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Osabels extrajudicial confession I
binding only upon the confessant not to his co-accused on a principle of goo
faith that a mans own acts are binding upon himself and are evidence against
him,

No other evidence of the participation of the appellant was present aside from
the confession. There being no independent evidence INCULPABILITY was
established.

EVIDENCE + EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION = GUILT OF CO-ACCUSED

There must be overt actsin furtherance of conspiracy (Active participation,
moral assistance by presence and moral ascendancy)

ACQUITTED AND ORDERED RELEASED.


5. People v. Miranda
Ponente:
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE W./N Zosimo is liable for the crime charged for conspiracy
HELD RTC: Murder
Zosimo denied inflicting any injuries inflicted on the victim. He alleged that
Dominador had a grudge against him because of the roofing issue

Zosmo appealed.
NO INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES. Ngoho complements its testimony
with thoseof Leticias and Ladans. The difference is that Ngoho just saw the
killing of Dominador by Elloraba and Mnaoag and left the appellant while the
later witnessed the whole episode.

Conspiracy not a qualifying circumstance; may be a felony itself like conspiracy
in selling illicit drugs, conspiracy to bribe voters, etc.

Conspiracy in the case is a mode to increase criminal liability.

DECISION: AFFIRMED with moral and exemplary damages.



Article 9: Grave, Less Grave, Light Felonies
1. People v. Canson, Jr., et. Al
Ponente: Montemayor
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE W/N Cason is guilty of light offense?
HELD Peace Court of Makati, Mandaluyong, Pque, Rizal accused of Art 195
(exploitation and use of slot machines; gambling)
Motion to quash on the ground of prescription
Justice of peace dismissed all cases.

Prosecution now appealing said order of dismissal

Article 9 light felonies are those infractions of law; Art. 26 (fine(

one-arm bandits especially in the form of slot machines which are
patronized by that element of the community which could least afford to lose
money

11 separate violations of gambling law should be QUASHED because the
prosecuting attys filed the info beyond the relatively short3 month period.


Article 10: Offenses not subject to RPC
1. People v. Respecia
Ponente: Endencia
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE W/N the court erred in applying the indeterminate sentence law
HELD CFI: Illegal possession of dynamite
Appealed but later on pleaded guilty when they were arraigned and for this
reason they claim that in view of their plea, the court should have applied the
penalty provided for in Act 2255 since it is supplementary to special laws.

By virtue of their plea of not guilty, they deserve penalty of 3 months and 10
mos.not indeterminate

Court: Punishable in RPC cannot be applied in special laws. In this case, Art. 64
cannot be made to apply. (3 mos and 2 years sentence still within the legal
range in question)
Court could lengthen the penalty with its discretion
Penalty imposed: 3 mos 1 year and 6 mos

2. People v. Macatanda
Ponente: De Castro
FACTS Refer to y.p
ISSUE
HELD CFI : Cattle rustling under P.D 533

Appealed to the Court: 1) Lack of instruction; 2) being a member of cultural
minority being a Moslem

Pleaded guilty

LACK OF INSTRUCTION:
People v. Maqui (an Igorot case of theft mitigates due to uncivilized nature)
not a mitigating circumstance since it should be proven directly and positively.
Maquis case mitigating as to his uncivilized and not being an Igorot

Court rejected plea (LENIENCY for the crime)of lack of instruction since cultural
membership does not per se imply being uncivilized or semi-uncivilized state of
the offender
Art. 64, as contended by accused, does not apply to penalties prescribed by
special laws. Penalty should not be governed by RPC BUT Supreme Court
disagree since the nature of the penalty imposed, P.D 533 is an amendment of
RPC with reference to Art. 310 (theft) and Art 64 mitigating circumstances of
plea of guilty and extreme poverty LOWERING ONE DEGREE OF PENALTY

DECISION: indeterminate sentence of 4 years prision correccional to 8 years
prision mayor