People vs.

Gona
A number of Mansacas celebrated a reunion in the house of Gabriel, where there seemed a liberal supply of alcoholic
drinks. Some of the men present became intoxicated which resulted to a quarrel between the defendant and one
Dunca.
Dunca, with his son, eventually left the celebration, followed by the deceased and one Award. Defendant also left the
celebration with the intention of assaulting Dunca, but because of the darkness and being intoxicated, he mistook the
deceased for Dunca and inflicted on him a mortal wound with a bolo.
Defense contended that the defendant had no intention to kill the deceased and committed the crime by mistake.
Whether or not the defendant is relieved from criminal liabilities for mistakenly killing the deceased.
The Supreme Court held against the defendant.
Even admitting that the defendant made a mistake in killing a man instead of another, when it is proved that he acted
maliciously and willfully, he cannot be relieved from criminal responsibility. Neither that he made a mistake in killing
the man should be considered as a mitigating circumstances.

People vs. Mabug-at

Defendant invited her sweetheart, Juana Buralo, for a walk which the latter refused. Three days later, defendant went
to the house of Cirilo Banyan where Juana had gone to take part in some devotion. Revolver in hand, defendant
requested Francisco Abellon to ask Juana to come downstairs, which the latter refused to do so. Defendant then said
that he will get Juana himself and anyone who tries to defend her will be killed.
Defendant waited until Juana and her niece Perfecta Buralo came downstairs and went home. As the two girls went
upstairs, defendant fired a shot which wounded Perfecta. Perfecta did not die and was one of the witnesses who
testified at the trial.
Whether or not the defendant can be relieved from criminal liabilities on frustrated murder.
The Supreme Court decided against the defendant.
The Supreme Court held that the disappointment of the defendant at Juana not accepting the invitation of the former
to take a walk, the fact that he brought with him a revolver when looking for Juana, following her later to her house,
and aiming at her the revolver, the intention of the defendant was to kill Juana.
In seeking to ascertain the intention with which a specific act is committed, it is always proper and necessary to look
not merely to the specific act itself but to all the attendant circumstances as developed by the evidence. When attend
circumstances are being established, it needs little additional evidence to establish the intent to kill beyond a
reasonable doubt. (US vs. Montenegro, 15 Phil., 1)
The fact that a person received the shot which was intended for another, does not alter his criminal liability. (Art.1
Par.3, Penal Code)
The circumstances qualifying the murder are evidence premeditation and treachery.
The crime before the Supreme Court is frustrated murder, having intended to kill and perform all the acts of execution,
which would have produced the crime of murder but which did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his
will. (Art.3, Penal Code)

People vs. Cagoco

Deceased and his son stopped to talk on the sidewalks when a man passes back and forth behind the deceased. When
Yu Yee was about to leave his father, the man approached the latter from behind and suddenly, without warning, struck
him with his fist on the back part of his head. His head struck the asphalt pavement, and was eventually taken to PGH,

where he died about midnight. The post-mortem examination made by Dr. Anastacia Villegas revealed that the
deceased had sustained a lacerated wound and fracture of the skull, and that he died from cerebral hemorrhage;
further, deceased had tuberculosis, though not in an advanced stage, and a tumor in the left kidney.
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the defendant of murder, instead of the crime of maltreatment.
The Supreme Court decided against the defendant.
Paragraph No. 1 of Article 4 of the RPC provide that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In order for a person may be
criminally liable for a felony different from that he proposed to commit, it is indispensible that the two requisites are
present: (a) That a felony be committed; and (2) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct
consequence of the crime committed by the offender.
There is nothing to indicate that that the death of Yu Lon was due to some extraneous case. It was clearly the direct
consequences of defendants felonious act. The absence of the defendants intent to cause a serious injury is just
merely a mitigating circumstance.
If the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner, it can be a relief from criminal liability.

Intod, et.al., vs. CA][47t7887i`1

Defendants launch an attack on the house of