People v.

Collado

196 SCRA 579

BRIEF

4 Robbers killed an old woman

FACTS

The accused 4 are charged with crime of robbery with homicide before the RTC . On April 15, 1986, Fernando
Collado and Crisanto Lara pleaded not guilty. Romeo Gloriani and Felix Collado remained at large.

On Jan. 18, 1985, Lara went to the house of Honorio de los Santos in Pila and proposed that they hold-up Maria
Regay . On Jan. 20, 1985 the victim walking along the pathway at a distance of more or less 40 m ,Felix who was at
the end of the pathway hid himself and Lara is now behind a coconut tree. Lara then struck her on the face with a
piece of wood, a guava branch with such strong force that the old woman fell on the ground. Lara then hid himself
and Gloriani dragged the victim for about 5 meters to a coconut tree where he pulled out his knife and after stabbing
her once, she appeared to have gained consciousness. She struggled on her back, rolling on the ground as Gloriani
continued stabbing her. The weapon used by Gloriani for stabbing was a double bladed dagger around 6-7 inches
long excluding the handle. When the old woman stopped struggling, Gloriani pulled up her skirt and cut a cord tied
around her waist where she kept her money. Marasigan went down the tree but did not go near the victim and did
not tell his relatives bec. Lara is his uncle. On Jan 20 Jan 20, 1985 around 3 pm a certain Ugid Balatibat told
Josefina that he saw Maria Regay sprawled on a coconut plantation. Josefina and her sister ran to reach the place but
around 3 coconut plantations away where they eventually found their mother, Lara told them not to touch the body
of their mother as there were no policemen yet at that time.

Dr. Rosauro Pramil conducted an autopsy, and the cause of death: PULMONARY FAILURE SECONDARY TO
LUNG DAMAGE.

After 15 days, Mario Marasigan finally reported the matter since he was bothered by his conscience.

ISSUE

WON Crisanto Lara is Guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD

YES. Mario Marasigans positive identification testimony. Medicolegal stated that the victim was hit by a hard
object..

TRIAL COURT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: disregard of age and sex, uninhabited place, taking
advantage of superior strength and evident premeditation.

SC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: uninhabited place and taking advantage of superior strength but evident
premeditation and disregard of respect due to offended party by reason of rank/sex/age should not be taken into
account because the crime is robbery.
G.R. No. 189834 March 30, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JAY MANDY MAGLIAN y REYES, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On January 4, 2000, the accused and Mary Jay were having dinner at their home in Dasmarias, Cavite when they
got into an argument. The accused did not want Mary Jay to attend a party, causing them to fight. Incensed, the
accused collected the clothes that Mary Joy had given him for Christmas and told her he would burn them all and
started pouring kerosene on the clothes. Mary Jay tried to wrestle the can of kerosene from him and, at the same
time, warned him not to pour it on her. Despite his wifes plea, the accused still poured gas on her, thus setting both
the clothes and his wife on fire. The accused, in his defense, said the burning incident was completely accidental. He
said it was Mary Jay who was being difficult while they were arguing.

As a result Mary Joy sustained 90% Third Degree Burns on the face and other vital parts of the body that caused her
death. RTC found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

Accused-appellant contends that (1) he never or did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed or so
grave an offense as the felony charged against him; and (2) that he voluntarily, and of his own free will, surrendered
or yielded to the police or government authorities.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accuse is qualified for mitigating circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a wrong and
voluntary surrender

HELD

No. Under Art. 63(3) that when a law prescribes a penalty with two indivisible penalties and the commission of the
act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be
applied. But Section 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines) provides that "persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will
be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."
VIRGILIO TALAMPAS Y MATIC v. PEOPLE, GR No. 180219, 2011-11-23

FACTS

Jose Sevillo testified that on July 5, 1995 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, he together withEduardo and Ernesto
were in front of his house repairing his tricycle when he noticed the Virgilio Talampas who was riding on a bicycle
passed by and stopped. The latter alighted at about three (3) meters away from him, walked a few steps and brought
out a short gun, a revolver, and poked the same to Eduardo and fired it hitting Eduardo who took refuge behind
Ernesto. The appellant again fired his gun three (3) times, one shot hitting Ernesto at the right portion of his back
causing him (Ernesto) to fall on the ground with his face down. Another shot hit Eduardo on his nape and fell down
on his back . Thereafter, the appellant ran away, while he (Jose) and his neighbors brought the victims to the
hospital.

Talampas interposed self-defense and accident. He insisted that his enemy had been Eduardo, not victim which had
accidentally fired and hit Ernesto.

On June 22, 2004, the RTC, giving credence to the testimony of eyewitness Jose Sevilla, found Talampas guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of homicide

ISSUE

That the lower courts both erred in rejecting his claim of self-defense and accidental death.

HELD

No. In the nature of self-defense, it was Talampas who had initiated the attack only against Eduardo and Ernesto had
not been, neither Eduardo nor Ernesto had committed any unlawful aggression against Talampas.

Talampas could not relieve himself of criminal liability by invoking accident as a defense.

Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code,the legal provision pertinent to accident, contemplates a situation where a
person is in fact in the act of doing something legal, exercising due care, diligence and prudence, but in the process
produces harm or injury to someone or to something not in the least in the mind of the actor an accidental result
flowing out of a legal act.

Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

Talampas' poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in the blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him
from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his criminal liability.
People vs Alconga

78 Phil 366

FACTS
On May 27, deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of the card game, was playing black jack against Maria De
Raposo. De Raposo and Alconga were partners in the game, they had one money. Alconga was seated behind Barion
and he gave signs to De Raposo. Barion, who was suffering losses in the game, found this out and he expressed his
anger at Alconga. The two almost fought outright this was stopped.

The two met again on May 29. when Alconga was doing his job as a home guard. While the said accused was seated
on a bench in the guardhouse, Barion came along and said Coroy, this is your breakfast followed by a swing of his
pingahan, a bamboo stick. Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground under the bench with the intention to
crawl out of the guardhouse. A second blow was given by Barion but failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench
instead. Alconga managed to go out of the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While Barion was about to
deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his revolver, causing him to stagger and hit the ground. The
deceased stood up, drew forth his dagger and directed a blow to the accused who was able to parry the attack using
his bolo. A hand to hand fight ensued. The deceased, looking already beaten and having sustained several wounds
ran away. He was followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200 meters.

A second fight took place and the deceased received a mortal bolo blow, the one which slashed the cranium. The
deceased fell face downward besides many other blows delivered. Alconga surrendered.

ISSUE
Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense by Alconga

HELD
No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide

The deceased ran and fled w/o having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other hand,
having been wounded with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury upon him
has ceased absolutely/ Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure. He could have only attacked if there
was reason to believe that he is still not safe. In the case at bar, it is apparent that it is Alconga who is the superior
fighter and his safety was already secured after the first fight ended. There was no more reason for him to further
chase Barion. The second fight will be treated differently and independently. Under the first fight, self-defense
would have been valid, but that is not the case in the second fight. In the second fight, there was illegal aggression
on the part of Alconga and as a result, he is found guilty of Homicide with no mitigating circumstance (MC) of
Provocation

Note Provocation in order to be an MC must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. It should be
proportionate to the act committed and adequate to stir one to its commission
G.R. No. 126712 April 14, 1999

LEONIDA C. QUINTO, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

On March 23,1977, Leonida went to see Aurelia Cariaga (private complainant) at the latter's residence in Makati.
Leonida asked Aurelia to allow her have some pieces of jewelry that she could show to prospective buyers. Aurelia
acceded and handed over to Leonida one (1) set of marques with briliantitos worth P17,500.00, one (1) solo ring of
2.30 karats worth P16,000.00 and one (1) rosetas ring worth P2,500.00. Leonida signed a receipt.

The 5-day period given to her had lapsed, Leonida requested for and was granted additional time within which to
vend the items. Leonida failed to conclude any sale and, about six (6) months later, Aurelia asked that the pieces of
jewelry be returned. She sent to Leonida a demand letter which the latter ignored. The inexplicable delay of Leonida
in returning the items spurred the filing of the case for estafa against her. RTC found her guilty for the crime estafa.

ISSUE

WON their agreement was novated when complainant agreed to be paid directly by the buyers and on installment
basis

HELD

NO. Novation is never presumed, whether totally or partially, must appear by express agreement of the parties, or by
their acts that are too clear and unequivocal to be mistaken.

There are two forms of novation by substituting the person of the debtor, depending on whose initiative it comes
from, to wit: expromision and delegacion. In the former, the initiative for the change does not come from the debtor
and may even be made without his knowledge. Since a third person would substitute for the original debtor and
assume the obligation, his consent and that of the creditor would be required. In the latter, the debtor offers, and the
creditor accepts, a third person who consents to the substitution and assumes the obligation, thereby releasing the
original debtor from the obligation; here, the intervention and the consent of all parties thereto would perforce be
necessary. In either of these two modes of substitution, the consent of the creditor, such as can be seen, is an
indispensable requirement.

Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against accused-appellant is prision correccional maximum
to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus,
the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to four
(4) years and two (2) months while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should at least be six (6) years
and one (1) day because the amounts involved exceeded P22,000.00, plus an additional one (1) year for each
additional P10,000.00.