People vs. BaustistaFacts: The appellant together with the others had a drinking spree.

Three other w e n t h o m e
a h e a d a n d l e f t t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h e d e c e a s e d , a r m e d w i t h a b o l o , behind.A r o u n d 9 p m a
n e i g h b o r s a w t h e a p p e l l a n t r u n n i n g a f t e r t h e d e c e a s e d thought his window.At around midnight the accused
went to Hilario's house together with his brother and confessed that he killed the deceased and requested if they can
sleepin the house which was granted by Hilario. The accused and his brother left the house in the morning. Hilario then wrapped
thebolo and surrendered it to the authorities.He then went to his friend Buyagan and confessed the incident, thus he
wascompelled to report the matter to the police. The appellant interposed self-defense in his behalf.H e n a r r a t e d t h a t
d u r i n g t h e d r i n k i n g s p r e e t h e d e c e a s e d t o l d a b o u t t h e hacking of his uncle by the appellant's cousin. He
reacted saying that he is not likehis cousin.After their companions went home the deceased followed and badmouthedh i m .
R a i s i n g h i s b o l o h e e m b r a c e d t h e d e c e a s e d a n d g r a b b e d t h e b o l o . T h e deceased
however threw a stone at him as he ran. The deceased caught up with him and he then confronted and struck him with his own
bolo.He was found guilty by the lower court for the crime of murder reasoning thatthere was treachery. The case was appealed.
The appellant raised the issue that the court shouldhave decided that it was only homicide.Issue:Whether or not there was
treachery in killing?Held: The Court said that the allegation of treachery must be proven together withthe crime itself. The
court further added that treachery is present if the two elements are present namely: : (1) the employment of means
of execution that gives the personattacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate
orconscious adoption of the means of execution. What is decisive is that the executionof the attack makes it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or retaliate.
T h e r e c o r d s s h o w t h a t t h e d e c e a s e d w a s t o t a l l y a w a r e o f t h e i m p e n d i n g danger, based on the
testimony that the appellant was running after the deceasedand caught up with him. Such circumstance negates that
existence of treachery. Thus the decision of the lower court should have been homicide not murder.

T h e r e c o r d s s h o w t h a t t h e d e c e a s e d w a s t o t a l l y a w a r e o f t h e i m p e n d i n g danger, based on the

testimony that the appellant was running after the deceasedand caught up with him. Such circumstance negates that
existence of treachery. Thus the decision of the lower court should have been homicide not murder.

CRISOSTOMO VS SB FACTS: Crisostomo, a member of the Philippine National Police, and others were charged with the murder of Renato, a
detention prisoner at the Solano Municipal Jail. Crisostomo pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. The presentation of evidence for
Crisostomos
defense was deemed waived for his failure to appear at the scheduled hearings despite notice. Crisostomo and 1 coaccused were found
guilty by theSandiganbayan, while the others were still at large. ISSUE:
WON Crisostomos bail bond forfeiture was justified.
HELD: NO.
Crisostomos
absence on the 22 June 1995 hearing should not have been deemed as a waiver of his right to present evidence. While constitutional rights may be
waived, such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right. Crisostomo did not
voluntarily waive in person or even through his counsel the right to present evidence. The Sandiganbayan imposed the waiver due to the
agreement of the prosecution, Calingayan, and
Calingayans
counsel. If no waiver of the right to present evidence could be presumed from
Crisostomos
failure to attend the 22 June 1995 hearing, with more reason that flight could not be logically inferred from Crisosto
mos
absence at that hearing.
Crisostomos
absence did not even justify the forfeiture of his bail bond. A bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the presence of
the accused is specifically required by the court or the Rules of Court and, despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him
before the court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as so required. Crisostomo was not specifically required by
the Sandiganbayan or the Rules of Court to appear on the 22 June 1995 hearing. Thus, there was no basis for the SB to order the confiscation of
Crisostomos surety bond and assume Crisostomo had jumped bail.
CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. DELIMA [46 Phil. 738 (1922)]
Facts: Lorenzo Napoleon escaped from jail. Poiiceman Felipe Delima found him in thehouse of Jorge Alegria, armed with a
pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance.Delima ordered his surrender but Napoleon answered with a stroke of his lance.
The policeman dodged it, fired his revolver but didnt hit Napoleon. The criminal tried to ranaway, not throwing his weapon; the

policeman shot him dead. Delima was tried andconvicted for homicide; he appealed.Held: The SC ruled that Delima must be
acquitted. The court held that the killing wasdone in performance of a duty. Napoleon was under the obligation to surrender and
hisdisobedience with a weapon compelled Delima to kill him. The action was justified bythe circumstances.
Case digest on PEOPLE V.HERMOGENES FLORAG.R. NO. 125909
The 2 accused (Hermogenes and Edwin) were convicted for the murder of Emerita andIreneo and the attempted murder of Flor.
The 2 were found to have conspired to killIreneo. However, during the commission of the crime, Emerita was also killed and
Flor hit by a bullet.HELD:Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other actsdone outside the
contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary andlogical consequence of the intended crime, only the
actual perpetrators are liable.Evidence only shows conspiracy to kill Ireneo and no one else. Hence, both can beconvicted for the
murder of Ireneo. However, only Hermogenes who fired at Emerita andFlor can be convicted for the murder of Emerita and Flor
respectively.case digests, case digests of supreme court decisions, case digests Philippines, mobile phone deals, laptop computers,
gadgets, free legal opinion, online jobs, best law firms inMindanao

People vs Francisco AbarcaG.R. No. 74433September 14, 1987Facts:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, sentencingthe accused-appellant Francisco Abarca
to death for the complex crime of murder withdouble frustrated murder.The case was elevated to this Court in view of the death
sentence imposed. With theapproval of the new Constitution, abolishing the penalty of death and commuting allexisting death
sentences to life imprisonment, we required the accused-appellant toinform us whether or not he wished to pursue the case as an
appealed case. In compliancetherewith, he filed a statement informing us that he wished to continue with the case byway of an
appeal.On 15 July 1984 in Tacloban City, the accused, Francisco Abarca with deliberate intentto kill and with evident
premeditation, and with treachery, armed with an unlicensedfirearm (armalite), M-16 rifle, shot several times Khingsley Paul Koh
on the different parts of his body inflicting upon gunshot wounds which caused his instantaneous deathand as a consequence of
which also caused gunshot wounds to Lina Amparado andArnold Amparado on the different parts of their bodies which have
caused the death of said spouses.
Issue:
W/O accused-appellant is liable for the crime of complex crime of murder with doublefrustrated murder?
Held:
The case at bar requires distinctions. Here, the accused-appellant was not committingmurder when he discharged his rifle upon
the deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. We cannot therefore hold the appellant liablefor
frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados.For the separate injuries suffered by the Amparado spouses, we
therefore impose uponthe accused-appellant arresto mayor (in its medium and maximum periods) in itsmaximum period, arresto
to being the graver penalty (than destierro).The decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. The accused-appellant is
sentenced tofour months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor. The period within which he has been in confinement shall
be credited in the service of these penalties. He is furthermoreordered to indemnify Arnold and Lina Amparado in the sum of
P16,000.00 as and for hospitalization expense and the sum of P1,500.00 as and for Arnold Amparado's loss of earning capacity.
No special pronouncement as to costs

People of the Philippines vs. Gonzales, Jr.

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs.Inocencio Gonzales, Jr., accused-appellant.G.R. No. 139542June 21,
2001Gonzaga-Reyes, J.FACTS:On October 31, 1998 at about 2:30 p.m., the families of Noel Andres and herein accusedappellant were both on their way to the exit of the Loyola Memorial Park. At theintersection point, the cars they were driving
almost collided. Later on, when Andresfound an opportunity, he cut Gonzalez off, disembarked from his car and went over
toGonzales. Altercation then ensued. Meanwhile, Dino Gonzalez, son of Inocencio,entered the scene in defense of his father.
Fearing that his son was in danger, Gonzaleztook out the gun which was already in his car compartment. Upon seeing his
father,Gonzalezs daughter, Trisha, hugged her father and in the process held his hand holdingthe gun. The appellant tried to free
his hand and with Trishas substantial body weight pushing against him the appellant lost his balance and the gun accidentally
fired. Feliber Andres, Noels wife, was shot to death while their son, Kenneth and nephew Kevin werewounded.The trial court
found the accused guilty of the complex crime of murder and two countsof frustrated murder and accordingly sentenced him to
death. Accused were also orderedto pay for civil liabilities to the heirs of Mrs. Andres, and the parents of Kevin Valdez.Hence, an
automatic review or this case.ISSUES:1. Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error when it found treachery
was present in the commission of the crime.2. Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to
appreciatevoluntary surrender, passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense of a relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong be considered as mitigating circumstances.RULINGS:1. It has been consistently held by this court that chance encounters,
impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment or that were preceded by heated altercationsare generally not
attended by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused todeliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. Thus, the sudden
attack made by theaccused due to his infuriation by reason of the victims provocation was held to bewithout treachery. Sudden
attacks made by the accused preceded by curses and insults bythe victim or acts taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious

or aggressive behavior of the victim were held to be without treachery as the victim was sufficiently forewarnedof reprisal. For
the rules on treachery to apply the sudden attack must have been