Criminal Law I - Case Digests Balderas - Candolita - Delabahan - Masanguid - Pacquiao - Pastor

Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor

ARTICLE 2: ENGLISH RULE V. FRENCH RULE
CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG

(G.R. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922)
FACTS: Appellee is accused of having illegally smoked opium,

aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while
said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles
from the shores of the city. The demurrer filed by said appellee
alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court, which
so held and dismissed the case.
ISSUE: Whether the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction

over crime, like the one herein involved, committed aboard
merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters.
HELD: There are two fundamental rules on this particular

matter in connection with International Law; to wit, the French
rule, according to which crimes committed aboard a foreign
merchant vessels should not be prosecuted in the courts of the
country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were
committed, unless their commission affects the peace and
security of the territory; and the English rule, based on the
territorial principle and followed in the United States, according
to which, crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in
general triable in the courts of the country within territory they
were committed. Of this two rules, it is the last one that obtains
in this jurisdiction, because at present the theories and
1
jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this matter are
authority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the United
States (we were still a US territory when this was decided in
1922).
We have seen that the mere possession of opium aboard
a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not triable by
or courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law
to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the
disastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere
possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory,
does not being about in the said territory those effects that our
statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere possession
is not considered a disturbance of the public order.
But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even
though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of
the public order here established, because it causes such drug
to produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously
contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in mind in
enacting the aforesaid repressive statute. Remanded to the
lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2
US vs. Look Chaw, December 16, 1911
Facts: Several persons (including the internal-revenue agent of

Cebu) went aboard the steamship Erroll to inspect and search
its cargo. The steamship Erroll is of English nationality and it
came from HongKong bound for Mexico via the call ports of
Manila and Cebu. These persons who inspected and search the
steamship found sacks of opium.
The fiscal filed for unlawful possession of opium against

defendant-appellant Look Chaw.
The opium seized in the vessel had been bought by the

defendant in HongKong, at P3.00 for each round can and P5.00
for each of the others, for the purpose of selling it, as
contraband, in Mexico and Puerto de Vera Cruz; that the vessel
arrived at Cebu and on the same day he sold opium.
The defense moved for a dismissal of the case, on the grounds

that the court had no jurisdiction to try the same and the facts
concerned therein did not constitute a crime.
The lower court ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction, inasmuch
as the crime had been committed within its district, on the wharf
of Cebu.
The defendant appealed. The issue to be resolved in this case is
Issue: Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction
3
Held: Yes, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction.
GR: mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these

Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports,
does NOT constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country,
on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of
its own nationality
EX: when the article, whose use is prohibited within the

Philippine Islands, in the present case a can of opium, is landed
from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open
violation of the laws of the land with respect to which, as it is a
violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission
of the crime, only the court established in that said place itself
had competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement
under an international treaty.
Modified by reducing the imprisonment and the fine imposed to

six months and P1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978 (1917)
Cf. French vs. English rule
FACTS: The defendant is a subject of China employed as a

fireman on a steamship. The steamship is a foreign steamer
4
which arrived the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, after a voyage
direct from the port of Saigon. The defendant bought eight cans
of opium in Saigon, brought them on board the steamship and
had them in his possession during the trip from Saigon to Cebu.
When the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities
on making the search found the cans of opium hidden in the
ashes below the boiler of the steamer's engine. The defendant
confessed that he was the owner of the opium and that he had
purchased it in Saigon. He did not confess, however, as to his
purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that it was his
intention to import the prohibited drug.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of opium

into the Philippine Islands has been proven?
RULING: Yes. It is the onus of the government to prove that the

vessel from which the drug discharged came into Philippine
waters from a foreign country with the drug on board. In this
case, it is to be noted that Sec. 4 of Act No. 2381 begins, Any
person who shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited drug
into the Philippine Islands Import and bring should be
construed as synonymous terms. The mere act of going into a
port, without breaking bulk, is prima facie evidence of
importation. The importation is not the making entry of goods
at the customhouse, but merely the bringing them into the port,
and the importation is complete before the entry to the
customhouse. Moreover, possession for personal use is unlikely,
judging from the size of the amount brought.
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 3
PADILLA vs DIZON
FACTS
Respondent Hon. Baltazar R. Dizon presided the criminal case

against Lo Chi Fai, who was caught by customs guard at MIA
while attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign
exchange instruments ( 380 pcs amounting to US$355,349.57)
out of the country. In his decision, respondent judge acquitted
Lo Chi Fai, saying that Lo Chi Fai had no willful intention to
violate the law (sec 6, Central Bank Circular No. 96.) He also
directed the release to Lo Chi Fai of at least the amount of
US$3,000.00 under Central Bank Circular No. 960..
Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a

complaint against Baltazar R. Dizon for rendering erroneous
decision due to gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the
law.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of

gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law. .
HELD: Yes. Respondent judge has shown gross incompetence or

gross ignorance of the law in holding that to convict the accused
for violation of cebtral bank circular no. 960, the prosecution
must establish that the accused had the criminal intent to violate
6
the law. The respondent judge ought to know that proof of
malice or deliberate intent is not essential in offenses punished
by special laws, w/c are mala prohibita. In requiring proof of
malice, the respondent judge has by his gross ignorance allowed
the accused to go scot free. He obviously contrived to favor the
acquittal of the accused, thereby clearly negating his claim that
he rendered the decision in good faith. His actuations in the case
amount to grave misconduct prejudicial to the interest of sound
and fair administration of justice.
In invoking the provisions of CB No. 969 to justify the release

of US$3,000.00 to the accused, the respondent judge again
displayed incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistake of Fact
People vs Oanis
Facts: Provincial Inspector received a telegram that escaped

convict Anselmo Balgtas and Irene must be apprehended Dead
or Alive. He then instructed Chief of Police Oanis who knew a
certain Irene to subdue the escaped convict and so Oanis and
others went to the said persons house. Oanis and Galanta
approached a certain Brigada Mallare outside the house, who
told them that Irene was sleeping with her paramour in
bedroom. Oanis and Galanta then went to Irenes room and saw
7
a man sleeping with his back towards the door and shot him.
That man turned out to be Serapio Tecson, Irenes paramour.
Oanis & Galanta were charged with murder. In their defense,

they contended that they acted in innocent mistake of favt in
the honest performance of their official duties.
The lower court held and so declared them guilty of the crime of
homicide through reckless imprudence.
Issue: w/n accused incur no criminal liability by reason of

mistake of fact
Ruling: NO.
Citing the Ah Chong case: Ignorantia Facti Excusat applies

only when mistake is committed w/o fault or carelessness.
They have exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty by killing the

person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any
resistance from him and without making any previous inquiry as
to his identity. With Tecson asleep, accused had ample time and
opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
themselves, considering victim was unarmed. Thus his petition
is denied, and he is criminally liable for the murder (w/ mc of
incomplete jc #5) of Tecson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES vs AH CHONG
8
FACTS
Ah Chong worked as a cook at the Officers quarters No. 27,

Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal Province. In a datached house, only Ah
Chong sleeps with and Pascual Gualberto, a muchaho. It was
not furnished with a permanent lock. O August 14, 1908, around
10o clock in the evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awaken
because someone had been trying to open the room. Out of fear,
He shouted who is there but none replied. Instead, the other
person kept on forcing his entry. Ah Chong believed that it was
a thief, and shouted again if you enter, I will kill you! Again
none replied. Upon entry, and out of fear Ah Chong inflicted a
wound on the intruders stomach with a common kitchen knife.
Afterwards, he realized, that person was his roomate Gualberto.
He immediately called his employers and dressed Pascuals
wound but he died on the following day.
Ah Chong was placed under arrest and was charged w/ crime of

assassination. He was tried and found guilty by trial court of
simple homicide.
Ah Chong admitted that he killed Pascual but insisted that he

struck the fatal blow w/out any intent to do wrongful act., in the
exercise of his lawful right of self defense.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong should be exempt from

criminal liability by reason of mistake as to the facts.
9
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court held that
A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at

bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal
blow alleged in the information in the firm belief that the
intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a
thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his
life and of his property and of the property committed to his
charge; that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have
presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he acted
in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the
belief that he was doing no more than exercising his
legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as
he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from
criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not be
said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even
carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the
means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent
danger which he believe threatened his person and his property
and the property under his charge.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proximate Cause
US V. VALDEZ
FACTS: At about noon, on November 29, 1919, while the

interisland steamer Vigan was anchored in the Pasig River, a
10
small boat was sent out to raise the anchor. The crew of this
boat consisted of the accused, Calixto Valdez y Quiri, and six
others among whom was the deceased, Venancio Gargantel.
The accused was in charge of the men and stood at the stern of
the boat, acting as helmsman, while Venancio Gargantel was at
the bow.
The work raising the anchor seems to have proceeded too slowly
to satisfy the accused, and he accordingly began to insult the
men. Upon this Venancio Gargantel remonstrated, saying that it
would be better, and they would work better, if he would not
insult them. The accused took this as a display of
insubordination; and rising in rage he moved towards Venancio,
with a big knife, threatening to stab him. At the instant when
the accused had attained to within a few feet of Venancio, the
latter, evidently believing himself in great and immediate peril,
threw himself into the water and disappeared beneath its
surface to be seen no more.
As it was full midday, and there was nothing to obstruct the view
of persons upon the scene, the failure of Venancio Gargantel to
rise to the surface conclusively shows that, owing to his possible
inability to swim or the strength of the current, he was borne
down into the water and was drowned.
ISSUE: WON Valdez was criminally responsible.
RULING: YES. Gargantel, believing himself to be in great and

immediate peril, threw himself into the water, impelled by the
11
instinct of self preservation, Valdez who criminally assaulted him
by threatening to stab him with a big knife, is responsible for
homicide.
As to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the death

thus occasioned the likewise can be no doubt; for it is obvious
that the deceased, in throwing himself in the river, acted solely
in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and was in no
sense legally responsible for his own death. As to him it was but
the exercise of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable
person under the same circumstances might have done the
same. As was once said by a British court, "If a man creates
in another man's mind an immediate sense of dander
which causes such person to try to escape, and in so
doing he injuries himself, the person who creates such a
state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result."
(Reg. vs. Halliday, 61 L. T. Rep. [N.S.], 701.
The accused must, therefore, be considered the responsible

author of the death of Venancio Gargantel, and he was properly
convicted of the offense of homicide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pp v. PURIFICACION ALMONTE
ARTICLE 4: PROXIMATE CAUSE
September 7, 1931 G.R. No. 35006
12
FACTS: Purification lived maritally with the Chinaman Felix Te
Sue who was a married man. A certain Mguela Dawal, with
whom Felix had also lived maritally, threatened to bring suit
against him unless he rejoined her, and so Te Sue and
Purification voluntarily agreed to separate. From that time on
Te Sue lived in together with the said Miguela Dawal.
On the morning of October 1, 1930, the accused visited her

former paramour, found him with Miguela. When Te Sue saw
her, he approached and told her to go away at once because her
new paramour might get jealous and do her harm. The accused
insisted upon remaining, and on being pushed by Te Sue and
Miguela, feeling that she was being unjustly treated, took hold
of a small penknife she carried and stabbed the man in the
abdomen. Horrified, perhaps, at her deed, she fled to the street,
leaving the blade sticking in her victim's abdomen. The injured
man was at once taken to the provincial hospital where he was
given first aid treatment, and Doctor Ortega performed a slight
operation upon him.
From the testimony of Dr. Ortega, it may be inferred: That the

deceased was stabbed on the left side of the abdominal region,
near the navel; that the wound did not involve any internal
organ; that upon arriving at the hospital, he was submitted to a
minor operation which consisted in cleaning, medicating, and
suturing the wound; that upon his arrival, the patient was in a
nervous state; that during the operation they tied down the
patient; that immediately after the operation Doctor Ortega
13
admonished him to keep quiet because any movement he might
make would change his pathological state for the worse and
bring about dangerous complication; that in spite of this
admonition the deceased moved about, sitting up in bed, getting
up and pacing about the room; that because of this, the internal
vessels, already congested because of the wound, bled, and the
hemorrhage thus produced caused his death.
The defense contends, with which the Attorney-General agrees,

that according to Doctor Ortega's testimony the determining
cause of Te Sue's death was not he wound inflicted by the
accused, but his own carelessness in moving about against the
doctor's orders, which produced the internal hemorrhage.
ISSUE: Whether the wound inflicted by the accused would held

him liable for the crime.
RULING: YES.
The court concluded that the internal veins were congested from
the beginning because of the force of the blow which produced
the wound, and that what really impelled the patient to violate
the doctor's orders, by sitting up in bed and pacing about the
room, was not, as the defense insinuates, a desire to aggravate
the criminal liability of the accused, but simply his nervous
condition, which was noted from the moment he entered the
provincial hospital. It was not the warmth of the bed or his not
being used to it that made the patient act as he did, but the
pathological state created by the illness brought on by the
14
wound from which he was suffering. The court was convinced
that under normal conditions, if the patient had not been ill, he
would not have violated the doctor's orders, knowing, as he did,
that the slightest movement might occasion a complication or
internal hemorrhage capable of causing death.
The patient's nervous condition when the complication or

internal hemorrhage which caused death set in, was an inherent
physiological condition produced by the wound in the abdomen.
It goes without saying that if he had not been wounded he would
not have undergone that extraordinary state and condition, nor
have had to leave his bed during the critical stage of his illness.
Lastly, in United States vs. Zamora (32 Phil., 218), The

court held that "One who performs a criminal act should
be held to liability for the act and for all of its
consequences, although both were inflicted upon a
person other than the one whom the felon intended to
injure."
However, the appellant is entitled to the mitigating

circumstances of not having intended to commit so serious a
crime as that committed, and of having acted with passion and
obfuscation. The first is shown by the fact that she made use of
a small penknife, and the second, by the fact that before the
attack she had been pushed out of the room where the victim
was, and that she considered such treatment as an offense or
15
abuse. The penalty must therefore be reduced one degree or to
prision mayor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PP v. Toling (62 SCRA 17, Jan 17,1975)
Facts: Antonio Toling and Jose Toling, twins, from Northern

Samar, visited their children in Manila on Jan 6, 1965. . On their
homeward trip, the twins boarded Bicol Express Train. After the
train passed by Cabuyao, Laguna, a murderous rampage
happened allegedly caused by the twins, armed with pair of
scissors and a knife. Most of the passengers scurried away for
safety but the twins, who had run amuck, stabbed everyone
whom they encountered inside the coach.
Constabulary Sergeants Vicente Z. Rayel and Vicente Aldea

were among the passengers of the train who tried to stop the
twins. CS Aldea was able to stop Antonio and wrested the
scissors away.
When they arrived at Calamba station, 4 CS escorted the twins

from the train and turned them over to the custody of the
Calamba Police.
Some of the victims were found dead in the coach while otherd
were picked up along the railroad tracks between Cabuyao &
Calamba.
16
Toling brothers, in their statement, topd the investigators that
while in the train they were held up by 2 or more persons.
Filed against Toling brothers in the MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna was

an information for multiple murder (9 victims) and multiple
frustrated murder(six victims) and triple homicide( as to the
persons who died from the running train to avoid being stabbed.
ISSUE: (1) Whether the accused were criminally liable for the
deaths. YES- 8 separate murders and 1 attempted murder
(2) Whether the accused is criminally responsible for the

deaths of those who jumped from the train. NO
RULING: (1) witnesses confirmed the admissions of the twins

that they stabbed several passengers. On the theory of self-
defense is highly incredible, as none of the passengers noticed
the alleged hold up. Also, defense failed to prove that persons,
other than the twins, could have inflicted the stab wounds.
(2) No one testified that those 4 victims jumped from the train.
Had the necropsy reports been reinforced by testimony showing
that the proximate cause of their deaths was the violent and
murderous conduct of the twins, then the latter would be
criminally responsible for their deaths.
Absent of eyewitness-testimony as to the jumping from the train

of four victims precludes the imputations of criminal
responsibility to the appellants for the ghastly deaths of the said
victims.
17
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PP v. Ortega
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Urbano v. IAC
Facts:
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on his

way to his ricefield. He found the place where he stored palay
flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal. Urbano
went to the elevated portion to see what happened, and there
he saw Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efre cutting grass. Javier
admitted that he was the one who opened the canal. A quarrel
ensued, and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm with his bolo,
and again on the leg with the back of the bolo. On October 27,
1980, Urbano and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano
paid P700 for the medical expenses of Javier. On November 14,
1980, Urbano was rushed to the hospital where he had lockjaw
and convulsions. The doctor found the condition to be caused by
tetanus toxin which infected the healing wound in his palm. He
died the following day. Urbano was charged with homicide and
was found guilty both by the trial court and on appeal by the
Court of Appeals. Urbano filed a motion for new trial based on
18
the affidavit of the Barangay Captain who stated that he saw
the deceased catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals on
November 5. The motion was denied; hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the

proximate cause of the latters death
Held:
A satisfactory definition of proximate cause is... "that cause,

which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred."And more
comprehensively, "the proximate legal cause is that acting first
and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain
of events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately
effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent
and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might
probably result therefrom."
If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already

infected by tetanus germs at the time, it is more medically
19
probable that Javier should have been infected with only a mild
cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared on
the 22nd dayafter the hacking incident or more than 14 days
after the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time
should have been more than six days. Javier, however, died on
the second day from theonset time. The more credible
conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the
appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet
present. Consequently, Javier's wound could have been infected
with tetanus after the hacking incident. Considering the
circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his wound could have
been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days
before he died.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct,
natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon
him by the accused. And since we are dealing with a criminal
conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim's death
must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The
medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that
the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded
to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct
and foreign to the crime.
There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause
and its subsequent infection, for failure to take necessary
precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate cause
20
of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. "A
prior and remote cause cannot be made the be of an action if
such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition
or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made
possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause
and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient
cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have
happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger
existed in the condition except because of the independent
cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an
independent negligent act or defective condition sets into
operation the instances which result in injury because of the
prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the
proximate cause."
21

Criminal Law I - Case Digests Balderas - Candolita - Delabahan - Masanguid - Pacquiao - Pastor

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Criminal Law I - Case Digests Balderas - Candolita - Delabahan - Masanguid - Pacquiao - Pastor

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Criminal Law I Case Digests

Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG

FACTS: Appellee is accused of having illegally smoked opium,

ISSUE: Whether the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction

HELD: There are two fundamental rules on this particular

Facts: Several persons (including the internal-revenue agent of

The fiscal filed for unlawful possession of opium against

The opium seized in the vessel had been bought by the

The defense moved for a dismissal of the case, on the grounds

The defendant appealed. The issue to be resolved in this case is

Issue: Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction

GR: mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these

EX: when the article, whose use is prohibited within the

Modified by reducing the imprisonment and the fine imposed to

U.S. v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978 (1917)

Cf. French vs. English rule

FACTS: The defendant is a subject of China employed as a

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of opium

RULING: Yes. It is the onus of the government to prove that the

Respondent Hon. Baltazar R. Dizon presided the criminal case

Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of

HELD: Yes. Respondent judge has shown gross incompetence or

In invoking the provisions of CB No. 969 to justify the release

Facts: Provincial Inspector received a telegram that escaped

Oanis & Galanta were charged with murder. In their defense,

Issue: w/n accused incur no criminal liability by reason of

Citing the Ah Chong case: Ignorantia Facti Excusat applies

They have exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty by killing the

UNITED STATES vs AH CHONG

Ah Chong worked as a cook at the Officers quarters No. 27,

Ah Chong was placed under arrest and was charged w/ crime of

Ah Chong admitted that he killed Pascual but insisted that he

ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong should be exempt from

A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at

FACTS: At about noon, on November 29, 1919, while the

ISSUE: WON Valdez was criminally responsible.

RULING: YES. Gargantel, believing himself to be in great and

As to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the death

The accused must, therefore, be considered the responsible

ARTICLE 4: PROXIMATE CAUSE

September 7, 1931 G.R. No. 35006

On the morning of October 1, 1930, the accused visited her

From the testimony of Dr. Ortega, it may be inferred: That the

The defense contends, with which the Attorney-General agrees,

ISSUE: Whether the wound inflicted by the accused would held

The patient's nervous condition when the complication or

Lastly, in United States vs. Zamora (32 Phil., 218), The

However, the appellant is entitled to the mitigating

PP v. Toling (62 SCRA 17, Jan 17,1975)

Facts: Antonio Toling and Jose Toling, twins, from Northern

Constabulary Sergeants Vicente Z. Rayel and Vicente Aldea

When they arrived at Calamba station, 4 CS escorted the twins

Filed against Toling brothers in the MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna was

(2) Whether the accused is criminally responsible for the

RULING: (1) witnesses confirmed the admissions of the twins

Absent of eyewitness-testimony as to the jumping from the train

On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on his

Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the

A satisfactory definition of proximate cause is... "that cause,

If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already