Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

People of the Philippines vs.

Jesus Retubado
Mentally ill gagged with a fire cracker

Facts: Someone played a joke on Edwin Retubado, the appellants younger brother
who was mentally ill. Someone inserted a lighted firecracker in a cigarette pack and
gave it to Edwin. While Edwin and his father were having dinner, it exploded. The
suspect was their neighbor Emmanuel Caon, Jr. The matter was brought to the
attention of the barangay captain who conducted an investigation. It turned out that
Emmanuel Caon, Jr. was NOT the culprit. The appellant, however, was bent on
confronting Emmanuel Caon, Jr. Thereafter, the father of Emmanuel Jr., 50 y.o.
Emmanuel Caon, Sr., (pedicab driver) was confronted by Jesus when the former was
on his way home. Emmanuel Sr. ignored Jesus so the latter pushed the pedicab
which nearly fell into a canal. Jesus followed Emmanuel Sr. to his house. His wife,
Norberta Caon was in the balcony of their house, above the porch waiting for him to
arrive. Emmanuel, Jr., meanwhile, was already asleep. Emmanuel Sr. demanded to
know why he was being followed. Jesus told Emmanuel that he just wanted to talk to
Emmanuel Jr., but Emmanuel Sr. told the appellant that his son was already asleep.
Norberta went down from the balcony and placed her hand on her husbands
shoulder to pacify him. Jesus forthwith pulled out a handgun from under his T-shirt
and shot Emmanuel on the forehead. The latter fell to the floor as the appellant
walked away from the scene. Emmanuel was brought to the Tuburan District
Hospital, but he died shortly thereafter. Jesus surrendered to the police but failed to
surrender the firearm he used to kill the victim. Jesus admitted shooting the victim
but claimed that he was merely performing a lawful act with due care hence, cannot
be held criminally liable for the victims death. He testified that when he insisted
that Emmanuel wake up his son, Emmanuel went to his room and emerged
therefrom holding a handgun. Jesus grabbed Emmanuels hand, they struggled for
the gun but eventually, Emmanuel fell on his knees. Jesus pulled the gun to the
level of Emmanuels forehead, and the gun suddenly went off. Jesus then rushed to
his house to change clothes. He placed the gun on the dining table. When he went
back to the dining room his sister told him that their brother Edwin had taken the
gun and thrown it into the sea. Trial court convicted Jesus of murder, and sentenced
him to reclusion perpetua.
Issue: WON Jesus was merely performing a lawful act with due care hence, cannot
be held criminally liable for the victims death - No!
WON Jesus is liable for murder - No! Homicide only
Ruling: The phrase state of necessity is of German origin. Countries which have
embraced the classical theory of criminal law, like Italy, do not use the phrase. The
justification refers to a situation of grave peril (un mal), actual or imminent (actual o
imminente). The word propiedad covers diverse juridical rights (bienes juridicos)
such as right to life, honor, the integrity of ones body, and property (la vida, la
integridad corporal, el pudor, el honor, bienes patrimoniales) belonging to another.
It is indispensable that the state of necessity must not be brought about by the
intentional provocation of the party invoking the same. The defense of a state of

necessity is a justifying circumstance under Article 11, paragraph 4 of the RPC. It is


an affirmative defense that must be proved by the accused with clear and
convincing evidence. By admitting causing the injuries and killing the victim, the
accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of
the evidence of the prosecution. Whether the accused acted under a state of
necessity is a question of fact, which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court. There is no basis to deviate from the findings of the trial court that the
appellant was the provocateur, the unlawful aggressor and the author of a
deliberate and malicious act of shooting the victim at close range on the forehead.
The court came to this conclusion based on: 1. Norberta Caons testimony. 2. There
is no evidence that the appellant informed the police authorities that he killed the
victim in a state of necessity and that his brother, Edwin, threw the gun into the
sea. 3. The appellant had the motive to shoot and kill the victim. There is no
treachery in the present case to qualify the crime to murder. To appreciate
treachery, two (2) conditions must be present, namely, (a) the employment of the
means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself
or to retaliate, and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously
adopted. The prosecution failed to adduce an iota of evidence to support the
confluence of the abovementioned conditions. The appellant is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

CABANLIG VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Missing vase from robbery
Prosections version: A robbery occurred in Nueva Ecija but 4 days later, 3 suspects
were caught. All items were recovered except for a vase and a small radio. Valino,
one of those apprehended, knew where the location of the stolen items were so 5
policemen decided to escort Valino to the place where the stolen items were hidden.
They rode a jeep. While on their way, Valiano was able to grab one of the polices
M16 armalite. Cabanlig, who was behind Valino inside the jeep, saw what happened
and decided to fire one shot at Valino, and after 3 seconds, fired another 4
consecutive shots. Valino did not fire a shot. The next day, somebody heard the
police talking to a fellow policeman, saying that they salvaged Valino. Defenses
version: It was not a salvage. It was an act of self-defense and performance of
duty Sandiganbayan: Cabanlig liable for homicide since he failed to show that the
shooting was the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty (but the 4
others were acquitted since there was no evidence of conspiracy)
Issue: w/n Cabanlig is liable for Valinos death
SC: NO. Acquitted. - Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different
principles. Self-defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from mortal
harm, while fulfillment of duty is premised on the due performance of duty. The
difference between the two justifying circumstances is clear, as the requisites of
selfdefense and fulfillment of duty are different. - While self-defense and
performance of duty are two distinct justifying circumstances, self-defense or

defense of a stranger may still be relevant even if the proper justifying circumstance
in a given case is fulfillment of duty. For example, a policeman's use of what
appears to be excessive force could be justified if there was imminent danger to the
policeman's life or to that of a stranger. If the policeman used force to protect his
life or that of a stranger, then the defense of fulfillment of duty would be complete,
the second requisite being present. - Undoubtedly, the policemen were in the
legitimate performance of their duty when Cabanlig shot Valino. Thus, fulfillment of
duty is the justifying circumstance that is applicable to this case. To determine if this
defense is complete, we have to examine if Cabanlig used necessary force to
prevent Valino from escaping and in protecting himself and his co-accused
policemen from imminent danger. - In this case, Valino was committing an offense in
the presence of the policemen when Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite from Mercado
and jumped from the jeep to escape. The policemen would have been justified in
shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely necessary to prevent his escape.
But Valino was not only an escaping detainee. Valino had also stolen the M16
Armalite of a policeman. The policemen had the duty not only to recapture Valino
but also to recover the loose firearm. By grabbing Mercado's M16 Armalite, which is
a formidable firearm, Valino had placed the lives of the policemen in grave danger. Had Cabanlig failed to shoot Valino immediately, the policemen would have been
sitting ducks. All of the policemen were still inside the jeep when Valino suddenly
grabbed the M16 Armalite. - By suddenly grabbing the M16 Armalite from his
unsuspecting police guard, Valino certainly did not intend merely to escape and run
away as far and fast as possible from the policemen. Valino did not have to grab the
M16 Armalite if his sole intention was only to flee from the policemen. If he had no
intention to engage the policemen in a firefight, Valino could simply have jumped
from the jeep without grabbing the M16 Armalite. - The Sandiganbayan had very
good reasons in steadfastly adhering to the policy that a law enforcer must first
issue a warning before he could use force against an offender. However, the duty to
issue a warning is not absolutely mandated at all times and at all cost, to the
detriment of the life of law enforcers. The directive to issue a warning contemplates
a situation where several options are still available to the law enforcers. In
exceptional circumstances such as this case, where the threat to the life of a law
enforcer is already imminent, and there is no other option but to use force to
subdue the offender, the law enforcer's failure to issue a warning is excusable.

Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan
Facts: These are petitions for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Sandiganbayan in
three Criminal Cases. The cases are predicated on a shooting incident in San Fernando,Pampanga
which caused the death of Leodevince Licup and injured Noel Villanueva. Accused were all charged
with murder, multiple attempted murder and frustrated murder. Accused were all members of the
Integrated National Police stationed at the Sindalan Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga,
barangay captains of Quebiawan and Del Carmen, members of the Civil Home Defense Force or
civilian volunteer officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and Telebastagan.

That on or about the 5th day of April 1988, in Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public
officers, being then policemen, Brgy. Captains, Brgy. Tanod and members of the Civil Home Defense
Force (CHDF), respectively, confederating and mutually helping one another, and while responding
to information about the presence of armed men in said barangay and conducting surveillance
thereof, thus committing the offense in relation to their office, did then and there, with treachery and
evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with deliberate intent to take the life of
Leodevince S. Licup, attack the latter with automatic weapons by firing directly at the green Toyota
Tamaraw jitney ridden by Leodevince S.Licup and inflicting multiple gunshot wounds which are
necessarily mortal on the different parts of the body, thereby causing the direct and immediate death
of the latter. On the evening of the incident, Villanueva, Flores, Calma, De Vera, Panlican and Licup
were at the residence of Salangsang as guests at the barrio fiesta celebrations. The company
decided to leave at around 7:30 p.m., shortly after the religious procession. With Licup in the
passenger seat and the rest of his companions at the back of his Tamaraw jeepney, Villanueva
allegedly proceeded at 5-10 kph with headlights dimmed. Suddenly, as they were approaching a
curve on the road, they met a burst of gunfire and instantly, Villanueva and Licup were both wounded
and bleeding profusely. Both Flores and Villanueva allegedly did not see any one on the road flag
them down. After the shooting, Flores jumped out of the jeepney when he saw petitioner Pamintuan
emerging. Pamintuan reproved them for not stopping when flagged. Villanueva cried out and told
Flores to summon Salangsang for help as he and Licup were wounded. Flores dashed back to
Salangsangs house as instructed and, returning to the scene, he observed that petitioner Yu was
also there, and Villanueva and Licup were being loaded into a Sarao jeepney by two armed men
together with Pamintuan, to be taken to the hospital. As soon as Flores and his companions had
been dropped off at the hospital, the driver of the Sarao jeepney immediately drove off together with
his two armed companions. Licup later expired at the hospital. Flores claimed that all the accused
had not been known to him prior to the incident, except for Pamintuan whom he identified to be his
wifes uncle and with whom he denied having had any rift. The bullet holes on the Tamaraw jeepney
were all on the passenger side and that there were no other bullet holes at the back or in any other
portion of the vehicle. Salangsang testified that he caught a glance of Mario Reyes on the wheel of
an owner-type jeepney idling in front of the ill-fated Tamaraw; it was the same jeepney which he
remembered to be that frequently used by Yapyuco in patrolling the barangay. Only Yapyuco took the
stand for the defense. He identified himself as the commander of the Sindalan Police Substation in
San Fernando, Pampanga. He narrated that he and his men received a summon for police
assistance concerning a reported presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan. Yapyuco decided
to respond and instructed his men to put on their uniforms and bring their M-16 rifles with them.
Yapyuco and his group met with Pamintuan who told him that he had earlier spotted four men
carrying long firearms. As if sizing up their collective strength, Pamintuan intimated that he and
barangay captain Mario Reyes had also brought in a number of armed men and CAFGU members.
Moments later, Pamintuan announced the approach of his suspects, hence Yapyuco, Cunanan and

Puno took post in the middle of the road at the curve where the Tamaraw jeepney conveying the
victims would make an inevitable turn. AS THEJEEPNEY CAME MUCH CLOSER, PAMINTUAN
ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS THETARGET VEHICLE, so they allegedly flagged it down and
signaled for it to stop. He claimed that instead of stopping, the jeepney accelerated and swerved to
its left. This inspired them to fire warning shots but the jeepney continued pacing forward, hence they
were impelled to fire at the tires thereof and instantaneously, gunshots allegedly came bursting from
the direction of a nearby house directly at the subject jeepney. (may mysterious shooter
daw)Yapyuco recalled that one of the occupants of the jeepney then alighted and exclaimed at
Pamintuan that they were San Miguel Corporation employees. Holding their fire, Yapyuco and his
men then immediately searched the vehicle but found no firearms but instead, two injured
passengers whom they loaded into his jeepney and delivered to nearby St. Francis Hospital. From
there he and his men returned to the scene supposedly to investigate and look for the people who
fired directly at the jeepney. They found no one; the Tamaraw jeepney was likewise gone. The
Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty only of HOMICIDE for the eventual death of Licup, and of
attempted homicide for the injury sustained by Villanueva. The Sandiganbayan found that the
qualifying circumstance of treachery has not been proved because first, it was not shown how the
aggression commenced and how the acts causing injury to Villanueva and Licup began and
developed, and second, THIS CIRCUMSTANCE MUST BE SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF A
DELIBERATE AND CONSCIOUS ADOPTION OF THE MODE OF ATTACK AND CANNOT BE
DRAWN FROM MERE SUPPOSITIONS OR FROM CIRCUMSTANCES IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE AGGRESSION. The same finding holds true for evident premeditation because
between the time Yapyuco received the summons for assistance and the time he and his men
responded at the scene, there was no sufficient time to allow for the materialization of all the
elements of that circumstance.
Issue: Whether or not there was treachery
Held: No. The Sandiganbayan correctly found that petitioners are guilty as co-principals in the
crimes of homicide and attempted homicide only. The allegation of EVIDENT PREMEDITATION has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt because the evidence is consistent with the fact that the
urge to kill had materialized in the minds of petitioners as instantaneously as they perceived their
suspects to be attempting flight and evading arrest. The same is true with TREACHERY, inasmuch
as there is NO CLEAR AND INDUBITABLE PROOF THAT the MODE OF ATTACK WAS
CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY ADOPTED BY PETITIONERS.(WHEREFORE, the instant
petitions are DENIED. The joint decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 16612, 16613
and 16614, dated June 27, 1995, are hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:(a) In
Criminal Case No. 16612, petitioners are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as the minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1)day of
reclusion temporal, as the maximum; in Criminal Case No. 16614, the indeterminate sentence is
hereby modified to Two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as themaximum, and

Six (6) months of arresto mayor, as the minimum.(b) Petitioners are DIRECTED to indemnify, jointly
and severally, the heirs of Leodevince Licupin the amount of P77,000.00 as actual damages,
P50,000.00 in moral damages, as well as NoelVillanueva, in the amount of P51,700.00 as actual and
compensatory damages, and P20,000.00as moral damages.)

ISIDRO T. HILDAWA vs. ENRILE G.R. No. L-67766 August 14, 1985
Crimebusting units violative of Bill of Rights

FACTS: Petitioners Isidro T. Hildawa and Ricardo C. Valmonte in these Special Civil Actions pray that a
"preliminary injunction issue directing respondents to recall the crimebusters and restraining them from
fielding police teams or any of this sort with authority/license to kill and after hearing, declaring the order
of respondents fielding crimebusters null and void and making the injunction permanent." They alleged
that the formation and fielding of secret marshals and/or crimebusters with absolute authority to kill
thieves, holduppers, robbers, pickpockets and slashers are violative of the provisions of the New
Constitution under Sections 1, 17,19, 20 and 21 of Article III (Bill of Rights).
ISSUE: Whether or not the creation and deployment of special operations team to counter the
resurgence of criminality is violative of the provisions of the Constitution.
HELD: The Supreme held that there is nothing wrong in the creation and deployment of special operation
teams to counter the resurgence of criminality, as there is nothing wrong in the formation by the police of
special teams/squads to prevent the proliferation of vices, prostitution, drug addiction, pornography and
the like. That is the basic job of the police. It is the alleged use of violence in the implementation of the
objectives of the special squads that the court is concerned about. It is our way of life that a man is
entitled to due process which simply means that before he can be deprived of his life, liberty or property,
he must be given an opportunity to defend himself. Due process of law requires that the accused must be
heard in court of competent jurisdiction, proceeded against under the orderly process of law, and only
punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, with an opportunity to be heard, and a
judgment awarded within the authority of a constitutional law.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen