Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Quiachon (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the
PEOPLE vs QUIACHON Case Digest nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES vs. ROBERTO QUIACHON
G.R. No. 170236 August 31, 2006
The aforequoted provision of R.A. No. 9346 is applicable in this case pursuant to the
principle in criminal law, favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws
FACTS: Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged with the crime of qualified rape. On which are favorable to accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied
or about May 12, 2001, the accused, by means of force and intimidation had sexual under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides as follows: Retroactive
intercourse with one Rowena Quiachon, his daughter, 8 years old, a deaf-mute minor. effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor
Rowel recounted that on the night of May 12, 2001, Rowel saw his father on top of his the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in
sister Rowena and they were covered by a blanket or "kumot." His father's buttocks Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a
were moving up and down, and Rowel could hear Rowena crying. He could not do final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
anything because he was afraid of their father. Rowel remained in the room but the
following morning, he told his aunt, Carmelita Mateo about what he had witnessed.
Together, Carmelita and Rowel went to the police to report what had transpired. However, appellant is not eligible for parole because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346
provides that "persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or
whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not
The Regional Trial Court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the be eligible for parole."
crime of qualified rape defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and B of the
Revised Penal Code. The court imposed death penalty against the accused. The
defense argued that the benefits of RA 9346 should be extended to the accused.
ISSUE: Whether the appellant can benefit from R.A. 9346 which abolished the death
penalty law.
HELD: Yes. In view of the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 on June 24,
2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be meted on
appellant is reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section 2 thereof which reads:
Issue: Whether or not there is a lawful arrest and seizure of prohibited drugs found
inside his house.
Ruling: Yes. There is a lawful arrest in the case following Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedures dealing with warrantless arrest. As decided in the case
of People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 644, “Having caught the appellant in flagrante as a
result to the buy-bust operation, the policemen were not only authorized but were also
under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even without a warrant of arrest.” The
policemen’s entry into the house of the appellant without a search warrant was in
hot-pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in flagrante. On the other hand,
there was a lawful seizure of the plastic bag of prohibited drugs found in the
appellant’s house. The seizure was the result of appellant’s arrest inside his house. A
Case 3. Albino Co
G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993 The weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the proposition that the Court's decision
of September 21, 1987 in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160 (1987) 14 that a check issued
Chief Justice Narvasa merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P.
Blg. 22 — should not be given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the petitioner and
other persons situated, who relied on the official opinion of the Minister of Justice that
FACTS: Petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a such a check did not fall within the scope of B.P. Blg. 22.
check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in
the sum of P361,528.00. 1 The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was
dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being:
"CLOSED ACCOUNT." A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court
of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime charged.
He argued on appeal that at the time of the issuance of the check on September 1,
1983, some four (4) years prior to the promulgation of the judgment in Que v. People
on September 21, 1987, the delivery of a "rubber" or "bouncing" check as guarantee
for an obligation was not considered a punishable offense, an official pronouncement
made in a Circular of the Ministry of Justice.
ISSUE: whether the decision issued by the Court be applied retroactively to the
prejudice of the accused.
HELD: No. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code "judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines." But while our decisions form part of the law of the land, they are also
subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which provides that "laws shall have no retroactive
effect unless the contrary is provided." This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex
prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not backward. The rationale against
retroactivity is easy to perceive. The retroactive application of a law usually divests
rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract and
hence, is unconstitutional
Case 4. Kay Villegas Kami
ISSUES:
1. WON it violates three rights?
No. It’s set up to prevent prostitution of electoral process and equal protection of laws.
Constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal laws. Penalty in law imposed to acts
committed after approval of law.
Case 5 Ah Sing
Facts:
Ah Sing is a fireman at the steamship Shun Chang, a foreign vessel which arrived in
the port of Cebu from Saigon. He bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon, brought them on
board and had them in his possession during the said trip. The 8 cans of opium were
found in the ashes below the boiler of the steamer's engine by authorities who made a
search upon anchoring on the port of Cebu. The defendant confessed that he was the
owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in Saigon. He dis 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 is
criminally liable in the Philippines.
Held:
Yes. As stated in the Opium Law, we expressly hold that any person who unlawfully
imports or brings any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands, when the prohibited
drug is found under this person's control on a vessel which has come direct from a
foreign country and is within the jurisdiction limits of the Philippines, is guilty of the
crime of illegal importation of opium, unless contrary circumstances exist or the
defense proves otherw
Case 6 H.N Bull Although the illegal conditions existed when the ship settled from a foreign port and
while it was in the high seas, the same existed during the time the ship was within the
territorial waters of the Philippines therefore subjecting the vessel and the crew to the
jurisdiction and law of the Philippine Islands.
FACTS: H.N. Bull was the master of the Norwegian vessel Standard. On December 2,
1908, he, while master of said vessel, willfully and knowingly transported into the port In light of the aforesaid circumstances, defendant was found guilty and was sentenced
of Manila from Ampieng, Formosa, six hundred and seventy-seven (677) head of cattle to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
and carabaos without providing suitable means of securing said animals while in insolvency and to pay the costs.
transit. Some of the animals were tied by means of rings passed through their noses
and others were transported loose on the deck without being tied or secured in stalls
and all without bedding. As a result, the noses of some of the animals were cruelly torn
and many of them were tossed about upon the decks and hold of the vessel and
cruelly wounded, bruised or killed.
This cruelty to the animals is said to be contrary to Act. No. 55 and Act No. 275 of the
Philippine Commission.
However, the accused contended that the cases cannot be filed because information
is insufficient and does not state that the court was sitting at a port where the cattle
were disembarked or that the offense was committed on board by a vessel registered
and licensed under Philippine laws.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over an offense commited on board
by a foreign vessel while inside the territotial waters of the Philippines.
RULING: Yes, the court had jurisdiction over the offense. No court shall have
jurisdiction over an offense or crime committed on high seas or teritorrial jurisdiction of
other countries. However, the moment the vessel entered within the 3 miles of the line
drawn from the headlands which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay, a new set of
principles will be applied.
Case 7 Wong Cheng Remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law, without
special findings as to cost.
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 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 our 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 bring 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.
Case 8 Lol-Lo and Saraw as afformed, and is reversed as to the defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found
guilty of the crime of piracy and is sentenced therefore to be hung until dead.
It is held that those provisions of the Penal Code, notably articles 153 and 154, to be
still in force in the Philippines. The crime of piracy falls under the first paragraph of
Facts: Article 153 of the Penal Code in relation to the Article 154. It is accompanied by 1.) an
offense against chastity and 2.) the abandonment of persons without apparent means
On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left Matuta for Peta, both places were of Dutch of saving themselves. It is, therefore, only necessary to determine as to whether the
possession. One of the boats, which was carrying eleven men, women and children, penalty of cadena perpetua or death should be imposed.
arrived between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies after a
number of days of navigation. There, the said boat was surrounded by six vintas
manned by 24 armed Moros. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch As for the amended "Revised Penal Code", according to Article II of the said code
boat, took for themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally entitled “Application of its provisions”, the provisions of the said code shall be
violated two of the women. All the persons in the boat, except the two young women, reinforced to crimes not only within the Philippine jurisdiction but also outside of its
were again placed in it and holes were made in it, with the idea that it would submerge, jurisdiction in certain cases. These cases were enumerated into five paragraphs within
abandoning those persons without means of saving themselves. The Moros finally left the said article. Pertaining to the fifth paragraph of the article, it states that the
and arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. Two of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo, provisions of this code shall be enforced outside of its jurisdiction against those who
who raped on the women, and Saraw. There, the two women managed to escape. “Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the laws of nations,
Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-tawi, Sulu. They defined in Title One of Book Two of this code.” The crimes indicated in the Title One of
were arrested there and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the Book Two of The Revised Penal Code include Article 122, which is “piracy and mutiny
crime of piracy. However, a demurrer was raised, based on the grounds that the in the high seas”. Thus, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code can be enforced and
offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of any court in the Philippine Islands, is applicable to the crimes of piracy charged against the appellant Lol-lo and Saraw.
and that the facts did not constitute a public offense under the laws in force in the
country.
Issue:
Whether or not the provisions of the penal code dealing with the crime of piracy are still
in force in the Philippines. And as amended, whether or not the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code can be enforced and is applicable to the crime of piracy charged
against the appellant.
Held:
Yes, the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force.
In accordance with the provisions of Act No. 2726, or the "Law governing manner in
which the death penalty shall be executed" (amended as Act No. 3104) it results,
therefore, that the judgement of the trial court as to the defendant and appellant Saraw
Case 9 De Guzman V. Subido municipal regulation is not necessarily an exercise of the sovereign authority, to define
crimes and
provide for their punishment, delegated to a local government. The penalty is merely
intended not to render the ordinance inoperative or useless. The phrase “criminal
Facts: record” governing qualifications for appointments could not have been intended by the
legislature
Ernesto de Guzman was an appointed patrolman in the Quezon City Police
Department by Mayor Norberto S. Amoranto on August 16, 1965. He was a civil to automatically cover every violation of a municipal or city ordinance carrying a
service eligible having taken and passed the civil service patrolman’s examination sanction of a nominal fine to enforce it. A violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify
given on November 24, 1962. He had also passed the usual character investigation as a crime must involve at least a certain degree of evil doing, immoral conduct,
conducted before appointment. As a newly appointed patrolman, the petitioner went corruption, malice,
through and successfully completed the police training course. On March 21, 1966, the or want of principles reasonably related to the requirements of public office. The
petitioner’s appointment was forwarded to the Commissioner of Civil Service. A year termination of his appointment is also illegal and invalid because in accordance with
after the appointment, that is August 18, 1965, no action on the appointment papers Rule IV of Civil Service Rules and Regulations, the commissioner had 180 days from
has been receipt
taken by the respondent commissioner and the city treasurer and city auditor stopped of the appointment papers to act on them otherwise the appointment is approved as
the properly made. It is noted that the respondent commissioner returned the papers for
payment of the petitioner’s salaries. On May 12, 1967, Subido returned Ernesto’s more than a year from date of appointment. The petitioner is reinstated to his
appointment papers to the city mayor because Ernesto was disqualified for the appointment provided he meets the age, physical, and other qualifications and
appointment under R.A. 4864 the Police Act of 1996. The Police Act stipulates that no eligibilities for patrolman under present legislation and rules. Also, the petitioner
person shall be appointed if the person has criminal records (Sec. 9 [5]). The should have the unpaid services and allowances for services actually
disqualification was based on the ground that Ernesto has violated a city ordinance of rendered and five years back pay from the date his services actually terminates.
jaywalking and another ordinance requiring a cochero to occupy only the seat for a
cochero in a calesa. Ernesto filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with
preliminary mandatory injunction with the CFI but it was dismissed.
Issue: Whether or not the violation of the city ordinances constitute criminal record
disqualifying the petitioner for appointment.
Ruling:
No. The violation of said ordinances does not constitute a criminal record, thus,
reinstating Ernesto of his appointment. A penalty imposed for the breach of a
Case 10 Look Chaw in force at the place of the commission of the crime. Only the court established in the
said place itself has competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an
international treaty.
Facts:
Between 11 and 12 o'clock a.m. in August 19, 1909, the Port of Cebu and internal
revenue agent of Cebu, respectively, went aboard the steamship Erroll to inspect and
search its cargo, and found two sacks containing opium. The defendant stated freely
and voluntarily that he had bought these sacks of opium in Hong Kong with the
intention of selling them as contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz, and that as his hold
had already been searched several times for opium he ordered two other chinamen to
keep the sack. All the evidence found properly constitutes corpus delicti.
It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it came
from Hong Kong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports in Manila and
Cebu.
Issue:
Whether or not courts of local state can exercise its jurisdiction over foreign vessels
stationed in its port.
Held:
Yes. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the matter. The mere possession of a
thing of prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of
their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of this
country, on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of its own
nationality. However, the same rule does not apply when the article, whose use is
prohibited within the Philippines, in the present case, a can of opium, is landed from
the vessel upon the Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the penal law
Case 11 Fowler
Facts:
In August 12, 1901, the defendants were accused of the theft of 16 champagne bottles
worth 20 dollars while on board the vessel, “Lawton”. The counsel for defendants
alleged to the Court of First Instance of Manila that they were without jurisdiction over
the crime charged. Since it happened in the high seas and not in the city of Manila or in
the territory in which the jurisdiction of the court extends, they asked that the case be
dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the criminal
case theft committed on board while navigating on high seas on a vessel not
registered in the Philippines.
Held:
No. The Philippine court has jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on high seas
on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. The English Rule states
that such crimes are triable in our country when crimes are committed on board a
foreign vessel sailing from a foreign port and which enters the Philippine waters. In the
case at bar, the vessel Lawton was navigating the high seas at the commission of the
crime. Given the location of the vessel at the time, such act is not triable within our
jurisdiction.
Case 12 Fausta Gonzales omission; (2) the act or omission must be punishable under the Revised Penal Code;
and (3) the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit or fault. In this
regard, the appellant did not satisfy all the elements to be criminally liable. Hence, the
Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the appellate court and
acquitted the appellant
FACTS: In a decision by RTC of Iloilo Branch 38 dated October 31, 1984, Fausta
Gonzales, et al. except Rogelio Lanida, who eluded arrest and remained at large and
yet to be arraigned, all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the murder of Lloyd
Peñacerrada. They were all sentenced to imprisonment of reclusion temporal,
indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim plus moral damages in and to pay the costs.
The trial court based its decision on the testimony of Jose Huntoria, the alleged
eyewitness, who claimed that he saw all the accused circling and ganging up on the
deceased victim. They filed an appeal to Court of Appeals but withdrew the same
during its pendency, except Custodio Gonzales, Sr. The appellant claimed that he was
asleep in his house, located some one kilometer away from the scene of the crime
when the incident happened. He asserted that he only came to know of it after his
grandchildren by Augusto and Fausta Gonzales went to his house to inform him. The
appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Likewise, it modified the
appellant’s sentence to reclusion perpetua and its indemnity. The case is certified for
review of the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is criminally liable, as affirmed by the appellate
court.
RULING: The lower courts portrayed the alleged witness, Jose Huntoria, as a credible
and disinterested one. They relied solely on his testimony and without giving credence
on the appellant’s defense of alibi. However, it took eight months for him to testify
since the killing and has not explained convincingly the long delay of his action. In light
of this, his credibility as a witness is doubtful. Likewise, he admitted that he was a
tenant of the deceased victim and was also his landlord, hence, making him an
interested witness. This is in stark contrast of what the lower courts portrayed him. It is
worth noting that during the cross examination, he admitted candidly that he did not
saw exactly the appellant as among the assailants. Further, he could not specify the
act performed, the weapon used and the extent of participation by the appellant. As
stated in Articles 3 and 4 of the Revised Penal Code, there must be an act of felony to
be criminally liable. In general, the elements of felonies are: (1) there must be an act or
Case 13 Ah Chong Pascual died from the effects of the wound the following day
The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the
incident, and had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock
Facts: that the door and acquaint his companion with his identity
The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal protection
The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, because of repeated robberies in Fort McKinley
Rizal Province Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the
Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same place as a house boy or muchacho impression that Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of their
sleeping room, despite the defendant's warnings
"Officers' quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40 meters from the nearest
building Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating
(mitigating) circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor, the
No one slept in the house except the two servants who jointly occupied a small room minimum penalty prescribed by law
toward the rear of the building, the door of which opened upon a narrow porch running
along the side of the building
This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and height
The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock; the occupants, Issue:
as a measure of security, had attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door, Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible
and were in the habit of reinforcing this somewhat insecure means of fastening the
door by placing against it a chair
On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00 pm, the defendant was suddenly
awakened by some trying to force open the door of the room
Holding:
He called out twice, "Who is there?"
No.
He heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being
pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room Ratio:
The defendant warned the intruder "If you enter the room, I will kill you." By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he would be
exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be (i.e. if
Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally liable/responsible because it
out wildly at the intruder (when he entered the room) who turned out to be his would be self-defense), but would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if
roommate Pascual the actor had known the true state of the facts (i.e. if he knew that it was actually
Pascual, he would be guilty of homicide/assassination)
Pascual ran out upon the porch heavily wounded
The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith
Recognizing Pascual, the defendant called to his employers who slept in the next
house and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds "The act itself foes not make man guilty unless his intention were so"
The essence of the offense is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot exist
"The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as they appear to him."
If one has reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which will justify a killing,
if without fault or carelessness he does believe them, he is legally guiltless of the
homicide
The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of self-defense
He cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even
carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts
RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted.
Case 14. Soriano shown by the overt acts of a person, which in the present case unmistakably point to
that intent.
CASE # 14
FEDERICO SORIANO, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. L-3008 March 19, 1951
Felix V. Macalalag for petitioner.
First Assistance Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Acting Solicitor Antonio
Consing for respondent.
FACTS: Federico Soriano was charged on August 22, 1945, with the crime of theft of
one electric motor marked "Cyclix," with Western Electric Company cable, and one
lantern slide projector, with their corresponding accessories, for the operation of
motion pictures, valued at P6,000, belonging to the eagle Cinema Co., Inc.,
represented by its President Manager, Teodoro S. Benedicto.
After trial he was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and sentenced to
suffer and indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months of arresto mayor to two (2)
years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days ofprision correccional, with the
accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs. He appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which modified the above judgment and sentenced him to three (3) months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21)
days of prision correccional, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law, and
to pay the costs, ordering the lantern slide projector (Exhibit C) and the "Cyclix" motor
generator (Exhibit D) be returned to the owner, the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc.
The defendant filed a petition for certiorari in this Court against the Court of Appeals
but the petition for the writ of certiorari is denied, with costs against the petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the accused, as found by the Court of Appeals,
Constitute theft.
RULING: Yes. As to the element of intent, it is clear that when the petitioner carried
away and concealed from the owner and the police authorities the above-mentioned
articles, he acted with intent of gain. Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is
Case 15 Bindoy
Ruling:
Yes.
Facts: There was no evidence that Emigdio took part in the fight between Bindoy and Pacas,
nor was the accused aware of Emigdio’s presence in the place. There is also no
evidence to show that the accused deliberately injured the deceased and with the
Afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance aroused in a tuba wine shop among some of intention of committing a crime. There was no ill feeling between Bindoy and
the tuba drinkers in the barrio market of Calunod, Municipality of Baliangao, Provice of Omamdam. In fact, they were nephew and uncle and were on good terms with each
Occidental Misamis. The tuba drinkers were Faustino Pacas (alias Agaton), his wife other. Bindoy was only defending his possession of the bolo, which Pacas was trying
Tibay, and Donato Bindoy (the appellant). Bindoy offered Tibay tuba, but she refused to take away from him. The law allows a person to use the necessary force to retain
to drink for she had already done so. Bindoy, who had his bolo at that time, threatened what belongs to him, making the accused’s conduct perfectly legal.
to injure Tibay if she did not accept. The two had exchange of words, which resulted The judgment appealed is reversed, and the accused Donato Bindoy is hereby
for Pacas to step in to defend his wife, attempting to take the bolo from Bindoy. The acquitted according to Article 8, No. 8 of the old Penal Code.
skirmish attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam, who was living near the market.
Out of curiosity, Emigdio went to see what was happening and saw Bindoy and Pacas
struggling for the possession of the bolo. Bindoy then, managed to disengage himself
from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter’s hand towards the left behind the
appellant. The point of the bolo hit Emigdio Omamdam’s chest, who was then behind
Bindoy which caused his death.
The appellant was charged with homicide in violation of Article 404 of the old Penal
Code and was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis to the
penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal and indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Php. 1000 to pay the costs.
The defense appealed from the judgment of the trial court, contending that the said
court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide,
saying that it was an accident and done without malicious intent.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant can be acquitted in the grounds that the act was an
accident and without malicious intent.
Case 16 Guevarra V. Almodovar – On April 4, 1986, the said motion was denied with respect to the first and third
grounds relied upon decision on and part was deferred until evidence shall have been
presented during trial.
FACTS:
b) Information contains averments which if true would constitute a legal excuse or Yes.
justification Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Intent means: a determination to do
certain things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is
essential to such intent. Discernment means: the mental capacity to understand the
c) That the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged and the person of difference between right and wrong.
defendant
Yes. The petitioner, in his arguments, asserts that since P.D. 1508 has not been complied
with, the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case. This erroneous perception has
The petitioner’s contention that he was entitled to a two-degree privileged mitigating been corrected long before. As intimated in the case of Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA
circumstance due to his minority because of P.D. 1508. He argued that this can be 470, and categorically stated in Ebol vs. Amin, 135 SCRA 438, P.D. 1508 is not
applied to his case because the penalty imposable is reduced to not higher than jurisdictional.
arresto menor from an original arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium
as prescribed in Article 365 of the RPC.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit and the Temporary Restraining Order effective 17 September 1986 is
The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the penalty imposable LIFTED. Let this case be REMANDED to the lower court for trial on the merits. No cost.
under the law for the offense and not the penalty ultimately imposed.
The same principle applies in construing Section 2(3) of P.D. 1508, which states:
Case 17 Rafael B. Catolico, negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences, as, in law, is equivalent to
criminal intent. The maxim is, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. In
FACTS: On October 2, 1909, Catolico, as justice of the peace of Baggao, Province of the case at bar, the prosecution demonstrated, both by the allegations in its
Cagayan, had before him sixteen separate civil cases filed by the plaintiff, Juan information filed against the accused and by its proofs on the trial, that the absence of
Canillas against sixteen distinct individuals, each one for damages resulting from a the funds in question was not due to the personal use thereof by the accused, thus
breach of contract. All sixteen cases were decided in favor of the plaintiff. The affirmatively and completely negativing the presumption. Conversion must be
defendants in said cases appealed from the decision of the justice of the peace and affirmatively proved, either by direct evidence or by the production of facts from which
deposited P16 as required by law, at the same time giving a bond of P50, which was conversion necessarily follows. (U. S. vs. Morales, 15 Phil. Rep., 236; U. S. vs.
approved by the court. On the 12th day of said month, Canillas presented a writing to Dominguez, 2 Phil. Rep., 580.)
the appellant as said justice of the peace, alleging that the sureties on the said bonds
were insolvent and later demonstrated this to the satisfaction of the appellant. The
latter ordered the cancellation of the said bonds and, in the same order, required each
of the appellants to file another bond within fifteen days, that, if none of the appellants
in said cases presented new bonds within the time fixed, the plaintiff in said cases
applied to the appellant, for an order declaring final the judgment entered in each of
the said sixteen cases and commanding the execution of the same. None of the
appellants was able to file another bond within the time fixed, resulting in the
declaration of the final judgment and ordering the sums attached and delivered the
same to the plaintiff. The attorney for the defendants in the said sixteen cases
presented a complaint against the appellant to the Court of First Instance. The
appellant was prosecuted with the crime of malversation of funds.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act committed by the appellant, in the performance of his
duty, is considered a crime of malversation of funds.
HELD: No. The judgment of conviction is reversed and the defendant was ordered
discharge from custody. The case made against the appellant lacks many of the
essential elements required by law to be present in the crime of malversation of public
funds. The accused did not convert the money to his own use or to the use of any
other person; neither did he feloniously permit anybody else to convert it. Everything
he did was done in good faith under the belief that as presiding officer of the court of
justice of the peace, he had a perfect right under the law for his order with regard to the
bonds, and such cannot be considered an appropriation or a taking of said sums within
the meaning of Act No. 1740. To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain
crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by a criminal intent, or by such
Case 18 Renegado and satisfactory proof of insanity; they are indications of the passionate nature of the
accused.
In the absence of proof that the defendant had lost his reason or became demented a
few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime, it is presumed that he
FACTS: was in a normal condition of mind.
Mamerto de Lira was a math teacher in Tiburcio Tancinco Memorial Vocational School (2) The killing of Mamerto de Lira is qualified by evident premeditation. Here, the
which is run by the national government. Loreto Renegado was a clerk in the same accused has more or less sixty-four hours to ponder over his plan and listen to the
school. De Lira asked Renegado to type his exam questions but the latter refused. advice of his co-employees and of his own conscience, and such length of time was
They had a small argument which left the accused fuming with anger. The accused more than sufficient for him to reflect on his intended revenge.
told several people that he’ll gonna kill the deceased. They pacified him and told him There is treachery committed. There is treachery where the victim who was not armed
the possible consequences that may happen. After a few days, while the deceased was never in a position to defend himself or offer resistance, nor to present risk or
was in the canteen sitting with his back towards the accused, without warning the danger to the accused when assaulted. The accused killed the deceased while he was
accused stabbed the deceased with a knife which later caused the latter’s death. The eating and his back faced towards him.
counsel of the accused pleads for an acquittal on the ground that the accused should
be exempt from criminal liability because at the precise time he stabbed de Lira, the There was an assault upon a person in authority. A teacher either of a public or of a
accused lost his senses and he simply did not know what he was doing. His counsel duly recognized private school is a person in authority.
claimed that after Renegado was clubbed on the forehead, he suffered from head
injury which produced “ill-effects”. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was offset by the aggravating
circumstance of treachery.
ISSUE:
(1) WON the accused is exempt from criminal liability on the ground of insanity.
(2) What are the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present in the case.
HELD:
(1) No. Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least
discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that
there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will, mere abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability. In the case at bar, it just shows that Renegado is
a man of violent temper who can be easily provoked to violence for no valid reason at
all. Thus in People vs. Cruz, this Court held that breaking glasses and smashing
dishes are simply demonstrations of an explosive temper and do not constitute clear
Case 19 Oanis alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him. Thus, the crime committed by
defendants was not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not
accidental.
FACTS: 2) Yes. As Balagtas was killed while asleep, the crime committed was murder with the
qualifying circumstance of alevosia. However, the defendants may be entitled to an
incomplete justifying circumstance as provided in Article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code.
On December 24, 1938, Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at
There are two requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: (a)
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received a telegram from Major Guido ordering the arrest of
that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and
wanted criminal- Anselmo Balagtas. He asked that he be given four men, one of whom who
(b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
reported was defendant Alberto Galanta. The same instruction was given to defendant
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In the instant case,
Antonio Oanis, chief of police of Cabanatuan, who was likewise called by the Provincial
only the first requisite is present. Thus, Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code was imposed,
Inspector. The Provincial Inspector divided the party into two groups. Oanis and Galanta
entitling the defendants to a privileged mitigating circumstance of penalty lower by one or
took the route leading to the house of a bailarina named Irene Requinea, where Balagtas was
two degrees than that prescribed by law.
believed to be staying. They then asked a resident of that area- Brigida Mallare, where the
room of Irene was. Defendants then went to Irene’s room and on seeing a man sleeping with
his back towards the door where they were, simultaneously or successively fired at him with
their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. It turned out later that the person shot and killed was not
Balagtas but an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene’s paramour. Galanta and Oanis
had their own versions but was rejected. It contradicted the evidence of Irene. It was
contended that Defendants made an innocent mistake in the performance of their duties.
The lower court declared them guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the defendants are criminally liable for the death of Serapio Tecson.
2) Whether or not the defendants are entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance in case
they are found criminally liable.
HELD:
1) Yes. The maxim ignorantia facti excusat, applies only when the mistake is committed
without fault or carelessness. In the instant case, the defendants found no circumstances
whatsoever which would press them to immediate action, as the person in the room being
then asleep would give them ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity. Moreover,
they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or
Case 20 Fernando de Fernando
HELD: YES. reversing the appealed judgment, guilty of the crime of homicide through
reckless negligence
FACTS:
· Before the day of crime: Moro prisoners had escaped from the Penal
Colony of San Ramon, Zamboanga · De Fernando failed to use the ordinary precaution that he should have used
before taking such fatal action
· 3 suspicious looking persons who were prowling around the place alarmed
the residents o The calling of “Nong Miong” indicated that the owner of the house might be an
older relative of the one calling, or an intimate friend
· As municipal policeman Fernando de Fernando, Paciencia Delgado
daughter of Remigio Delgado told him that her father wished to see him o De Fernando failed to ask Paciencia Delgado who was it was that was calling
her father with such familiarity
· Remigio Delgado informed him that the 3 suspicious persons in blue were
lurking in his house · NO malicious intent because he though at the time that he was justified in
acting as he did
· About 7pm: De Fernando seated on a bench near the window talking to
Paciencia when about 4 meters from the stairs was a person in dark clothes with 3 · homicide through reckless negligence under article 568, in relation with
bolos tied together calling out “Nong Miong” without answering the inquiry of De article 404, of the Penal Code
Fernando.
o De Fernando took out his revolver and fired a shot in the air but the person still
continued to go up the stairs so he shot him at the base of the neck at the right side
o The shot person turned out to be Buenventura Paulino, nephew of Remigio, who
ran to their neighbor Leon Torres’ house, placing the bolo on the table, fell on the floor
and died
· de Fernando called the police chief to relay what happened
· CFI of Zamboanga: guilty of the crime of murder
FACTS: This is an appeal from a decision of Judge Braulio Bejasa in the Court of First
Instance of Capiz, finding the defendant guilty of a violation of section 416 of the
Election Law and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a
fine of P50, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The contention that the defendant could not leave his revolver in his automobile
without the risk of losing it because he was alone, it is sufficient to say that under the
circumstances it was not necessary for the defendant to leave his automobile merely
because somebody standing near the polling place had called him, nor does the
record show that it was necessary for the defendant to carry arms on that occasion.
The Court of First Instance of Capiz affirmed the decision appealed from, with the
costs against the appellant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant is guilty of a violation of section 416 of the
Election Law and whether or not the penalty to the defendant is reasonable.
RULING: Yes. If a man with a revolver merely passes along a public road on election
day, within fifty meters of a polling place, he does not violate the provision of law in
question, because he had no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited but the defendant
to carry arms for the reason that he could not leave his revolver in his automobile and
entered the fence of the polling place was a clear violation of the Election Law.
The decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.
Avanceña, C.J., Street, Abad Santos, and Hull, JJ., concur.
Cacal, Raymundo Bangi and Marcial Barid went to the barangay hall at Carusipan to
attend a dance. The group did not tarry for long at the dance because they sensed
some hostility from Cesar Galo and his companions who were giving them dagger
looks. In order to avoid trouble, especially during the festivity, they decided to head for
home instead of reacting to the perceived provocation of Galo and his companions.
The group had barely left when, within fifty meters from the dance hall, their owner
jeep was fired upon from the rear. Vidal Agliam was able to jump out from the eastern
side of the "topdown" jeep and scurried to the side of the road, hiding in the ricefield.
His younger brother Jerry also managed to jump out, but was shot in the stomach and
died. Carmelo Agliam, Robert Cacal and Ronnel Tolentino sustained injuries in the
right foot, back of the right thigh, and legs and thighs, respectively. The stunned
Eduardo Tolentino was not even able to move from his seat and was hit with a bullet
which punctured his right kidney. He did not survive. The precipitate attack upon the
jeep left two people dead and four others injured.
Based upon the affidavits of Carmelo and Vidal Agliam, warrants for the arrest of
Ballesteros, Galo and Bulusan were issued. All of the accused, FELIPE
BALLESTEROS, CESAR GALO and ALVIN BULUSAN, pleaded not guilty. Paraffin
tests conducted on Galo and Ballesteros produced positive results. Bulusan was not
tested for nitrates. The trial commenced, and the Regional Trial Court of Bangui, Ilocos
Norte, Branch 19, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder,
qualified by treachery, as charged under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The accused came to the High Court on appeal, hoping that the decision of the trial
court be reversed and that a new one be entered, acquitting them of the charges.
Ruling: Yes. Accused-appellants insist that the trial court erred in finding that Carmelo
and Vidal Agliam recognized them as the assailants, which was not at all the case. In
their testimonies, Carmelo and Vidal Agliam both described the place being well lit by
moonlight. It was also a summer evening, which meant no fog could’ve becloud the
Case 22 Ballesteros vision of the victims, preventing them from clearly seeing their assailants. They
Facts: In the summer evening of May 28, 1991, Carmelo Agliam, his half-brother pinpointed the location of the attackers to be approximately three meters from where
Eduardo Tolentino, Ronnel Tolentino, Vidal Agliam, his brother Jerry Agliam, Robert they stood. Considering the moonlight and the proximity between them, the victims
could distinctly identify their assailants. They were also acquaintances. Carmelo knew
Galo and his brother, a butcher, since he used to deal with them in his business of
buying and selling cattle. Bulusan was a classmate of Vidal at Cadaratan School. The
constant interaction between them would lead to familiarity with each other such that,
at the very least, one would have been able to recognize the other easily.
That accused-appellants had no motive in perpetrating the offense is irrelevant. Motive
alone is not proof of a crime. Intent and not motive must be established by the
prosecution. Motive is hardly ever an essential element of a crime. A man driven by
extreme moral perversion may be led to commit a crime, without a real motive but a
just for the sake of committing it.
Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by law to convict a person of a criminal
charge. The doubt to the benefit of which an accused is entitled in a criminal trial is a
reasonable doubt, not a whimsical or fanciful doubt based on imagined but wholly
improbable possibilities and unsupported by evidence.
The defense of alibi must be established by positive, clear and satisfactorily evidence,
the reason being that it is easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can
rarely be given credence. This is especially true in case of positive identification of the
culprit by reliable witnesses, which renders their alibis worthless. Positive identification
prevails over denials and alibis.
With the review of the case at an end, the appellate court found the three accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery, as charged, defined
and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
applying Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code hereby sentences them to reclusion
perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided by law.
Case 23 Ural Issue:
Held:
Brigido Alberio, twenty-six years old, former detainee in Buug, Zamboanga del Sur, was
accused of murder and then set at liberty on June 9, 1966 after posting bail. On July 31, 1966, Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the same is affirmed with costs against the
he intended to go home at Barrio Upper Lamari, Buug but night overtook him, so he decided to appellant.
sleep in the Buug Municipal Building for his security. He arrived at 8:00 PM and saw an The crime committed by appellant Ural was murder by means of fire (incendio). The court,
extraordinary occurrence. He saw Policeman Ural (with whom he was already acquainted) after scrutiny of the whole record, does not find any justification for disbelieving Alberio.
boxing the detainee, Felix Napola. Ural stepped into the body of Napola who collapsed on the The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position. The
floor after the fistic blows. Ural went outside, he came back and ignited a match after pouring prisoner was under his custody. The policeman, who taking advantage of his public position
the contents of a bottle to Napola’s body. Ural left the cell and Napola shouted in agony, but maltreats a private citizen, merits no judicial leniency.
nobody came despite the call for help. Alberio, left after witnessing the barbaric act but Ural But the trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance "that the offender had no
threatened him: “You better keep quiet of what I have done”. Teofilo Matugas, a Policeman intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed" It is manifest from the proven facts
declared that he was relieved by Ural at 8:30 PM and that he has not seen Alberio in the that appellant Ural had no intent to kill Napola. His design was only to maltreat him may be
building. Domingo Ural stated that around 9:00 PM of July 31,1966 he was the jail guard on because in his drunken condition he was making a nuisance of himself inside the detention cell.
duty when he heard the scream of Napola asking for help. He entered the cell, saw Napola’s When Ural realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, he allowed Napola to secure
shirt in flames and removed it with the assistance of Ernesto Ogoc and Anecio Siton. He did medical treatment at the municipal dispensary. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
not summon a doctor because the wounds were minor as Napola said and that he was the offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance of abuse of his official position.
only one on duty. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium
period of the penalty for murder.
The trial court deplored the prosecution’s failure to present as witnesses Juanito de la
Serna and Ernesto Ogoc, the prisoners who saw the burning of Napola. Their affidavit
declared was consistent with Alberio, Domingo Ural threatened them not to talk about the
burning of Felix Napola to anybody or else he will burn them also. Mrs. Napola testified that
her husband told her that policeman Ural burned him and that she was allowed by Ural to bring
her husband to the dispensary for treatment.
Doctor Luzonia R. Bakil, the municipal health officer, certified that the thirty-year old victim,
whom she treated twice, sustained second-degree burns on the arms, neck, left side of the
face and one-half of the body including the back. "Without any medical intervention", the burns
would cause death", she said. Napola died on August 25, 1966. The sanitary inspector issued
a certificate of death indicating "burn" as the cause of death.
CFI in Zamboanga del Sur, convicted him of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and
ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Felix Napola in the sum of twelve thousand pesos and to
pay the costs. Ural appealed that the prosecution did not presented sufficient evidence
and contested the credibility of the witness, Alberio.
Case 24 Mabug-at Held:
Yes. There was an intention to kill on the part of the accused. The court ruled that the
relations existing between the accused and Juana Buralo, his disappointment at her
Facts: not accepting his invitation to take a walk, the fact that the accused, revolver in hand,
The defendant-appellant, Ramon Mabug-at was found by the Court of First Instance of Oriental went to look for Juana Buralo at the house where the devotion was being held, later
Negros as guilty for the crime of frustrated murder and was imposed with penalty of twelve years following her to her house, and especially having aimed at her person--the head--are
and one day cadena temporal, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the offended party in facts which, in their opinion, permit of no other conclusion than that, in firing the shot, it
the sum of P700 and to pay the costs. was the accused's intention to kill. Moreover, the fact that a person received the shot
which was intended for another, does not alter his criminal liability. (Art. 1, par. 3, Penal
The appellant appealed from this judgment citing two errors committed by the trial court, to wit: 1) Code.
In holding that the crime committed is frustrated murder, and 2) In not giving any credit to the
No. The trial court did not commit an error in holding that crime committed was
evidence presented by the defense, finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
frustrated murder. The Supreme Court cited treachery as the qualifying circumstance.
The evidence of the prosecution shows that the accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. Further it was ruled that the treachery was proven and must be taken into consideration
Juana had been jealous of the accused on the account of the latter having frequently visited the in this case, because the accused fired at Perfecta Buralo, employing means which
house of one Carmen. The accused invited Juana to take a walk on the afternoon of August 9, tended to insure the execution of the crime without running any risk himself from
1925. Juana refused him, later sending him a note of excuse. On the third day, the accused went to anyone who might attempt to defend the said offended party. The treachery which,
the threshold of Cirilo Banyan’s house where Juana Buralo had gone to take part in some devotion. according to the evidence, would have attended the crime had the bullet hit Juana
There the accused, revolver in hand, requested Francisco Abellon to ask Juana to come Buralo was present in this case because the offended party Perfecta Buralo and Juana
downstairs and as Abellon refused to do so, the accused said, “If you do not want to go upstairs, I were going upstairs with their backs towards the accused when he fired his revolver.
will get Juana and if anyone tries to defend her I will kill him.” Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed was frustrated murder, the
accused having intended to kill and performed all the acts of execution, which would
The accused waited until Juana and her niece Perfecta Buralo came downstairs when they went in have produced the crime of murder but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by
the direction of their house. The accused, who was seen by the two, followed them without saying reason of causes independent of his will. (Art. 3, Penal Code.) Therefore, the Supreme
a word. The houses were just adjacent. As the two girls were going upstairs, the accused, while Court has this to say regarding the judgement being appealed, “The judgment
standing at the foot of the stairway, fired a shot from his revolver which wounded Perfecta Buralo,
appealed from being in accordance with the law and the facts proven, the same is
the bullet passing through a part of her neck, and coming out through the left eye, which was
hereby affirmed in all its parts costs against the appellant. So ordered.”
completely destroyed. Due to proper medical attention, Perfecta Buralo did not die and is one of
the witnesses who testified at the trial of this case.
The defense, without abandoning its allegation that the accused is not responsible for the crime,
contends that the crime proven is not frustrated murder but the discharge of a firearm, with injuries,
it not having been proven that it was the accused’s intention to kill.
Issue:
Whether or not there was an intention to kill on the part of the accused.
Whether or not the trial court committed an error in holding that the crime committed was
frustrated murder
Case 25 Ortega When he answered he didn’t know, Andre punched him so he bled and fell to the
ground. Andre drew a knife and stabbed him, hitting him on the left arm, thereby
FACTS: immobilizing him. Andre then gripped his neck with his left arm and threatened to kill
• October 15, 1992 5:30 pm: Andre Mar Masangkay (courting Raquel Ortega), him. Unable to move, Ortega shouted for help. Quitlong came, seized the knife and
Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega, Roberto San Andres, Searfin, Boyet and Diosdado stabbed Andre 10 times with it. Andre then ran towards the direction of the well.
Quitlong were having a drinking spree with gin and finger foods. Then, he tended his wound in the lips and armpit and slept.
• October 15, 1992 11:00 pm: Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia who were • RTC: Benjamin and Manuel through conspiracy and the taking advantage of
already drank joined them. superior strength committed murder
• October 16, 1992 midnight: Andre answering a call of nature went to the back
portion of the house and Benjamin followed him. Suddenly, they heard a shout from ISSUE: W/N Benjamin and Manuel should be liable for murder.
Andre “Don’t, help me!” (Huwag, tulungan ninyo ako!)
• Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Benjamin on top of Andre who was lying down
being stabbed. Ariel got Benjamin Ortega, Sr., Benjamin’s father while Diosdado HELD: NO. PARTLY GRANTED. Benjamin is guilty only of homicide. Manuel
called Romeo to pacify his brother. Romeo, Benjamin and Manuel lifted Andre from deserves acquittal
the canal and dropped him in the well. They dropped stones to Andre’s body to weigh
the body down. Romeo warned Diosdado not to tell anybody what he saw. He • If Ortega’s version of the assault was true, he should have immediately reported
agreed so he was allowed to go home. But, his conscience bothered him so he told the matter to the police authorities. If Ortega’s version of the assault was true, he
his mother, reported it to the police and accompanied them to the crime scene. should have immediately reported the matter to the police authorities. It is incredible
that Diosdado would stab Andre 10 times successively, completely ignoring Benjamin
• NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat: who was grappling with Masangkay and that Andre was choking him while being
stabbed.
o cause of death is drowning with multiple stab wounds, contributory
• Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of the accused to
o 13 stab wounds take advantage of such superiority – none shown
o stab wound on the upper left shoulder, near the upper left armpit and left chest o Andre was a 6-footer, whereas Ortega, Jr. was only 5’4”
wall- front
• Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability shall be
o stab wound on the back left side of the body and the stab wound on the back incurred by “any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
right portion of the body – back different from that which he intended.”
• Manuel Garcia alibi o The essential requisites
o He was asked to go home by his wife to fetched his mother-in-law who 1. the intended act is felonious – assisting Benjamin by carrying the body to the
performed a ritual called “tawas” on his sick daughter and stayed home after well
• Benjamin Ortega, Jr. story 2. the resulting act is likewise a felony - concealing the body of the crime to
o After Masangkay left, he left to urinate and he saw Andre peeking through the prevent its discovery
room of his sister Raquel. Then, Andre approached him to ask where his sister was.
3. the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the actor’s wrongful
acts (praeter intentionem) – still alive and was drowned to death
• a person may be convicted of homicide although he had no original intent to kill
• Garcia is a brother-in-law of Benjamin
o Exempt by Article 20 of RPC
ART. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. -- The
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such
with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the
single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article.
• The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code, which is imposable in its medium period, absent any aggravating or
mitigating circumstance, as in the case of Appellant Ortega. Because he is entitled to
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be one
degree lower, that is, prision mayor.
Case 26 Reyes RULING: Yes. On a careful review of the evidence the Court were convinced that
appellant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide without either
aggravating or mitigating circumstances and therefore sentence him under Act No.
4103 to from eight years of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months, and one day
of reclusion temporal and to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the sum of
FACTS: Previous to the crime, the deceased, Fausta Tavera, for a couple of weeks P1,000. As thus modified the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs against
had been living with appellant, but her parents had persuaded her to come home and appellant. So ordered.
were demanding that appellant pay a dowry of P30 before the date of the celebration
of the marriage could be fixed.
On the evening of April 30, 1934, there had been a barrio procession, and after the
procession, they were gathered in one of the houses, where an impromptu dance took
place. The deceased and appellant were talking in the yard of the house where the
dance was taking place, and she informed him that she could not return to him and
that she was going with her parents of Catanduanes. Appellant dragged the deceased
towards the street and stabbed her in the chest with a fanknife. Deceased ran to the
house of the barrio lieutenant, a short distance away, falling deed at the foot of the
staircase, although the wound was only a slight one, it not having penetrated the
thoracic cavity, having hit a bone.
Immediately Andres Tapil, Tomas and Rufino, relatives of the deceased, attempted to
seize the appellant, but with the aid of his knife, he escaped and ran from the scene of
the affray.
Appellant as witness in his own behalf claimed that he was attacked by the three
relatives of the deceased, and if deceased was wounded by him, it was in the midst of
that affray and
Appellant contends that he cannot be convicted of homicide as the wound actually
inflicted was a superficial wound of no intrinsic magnitude. As above stated, deceased
ran screaming to the nearby house where she dropped dead. The sanitary inspector
who examined the body the next day, found no other wound and certified that
deceased had died from shock as a result of the wound and so testified at the trial.
The death having occurred in an outlying barrio, there was no proper autopsy. So far
as is known, deceased was in normal health, but appellant contends that it is
incumbent upon the State to prove that the deceased did not die of poisoning or some
other cause.
Appellant was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur of the crime of
homicide.
Issue:
Ruling:
PEOPLE v. CABALLERO
ISSUE: WON the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold?
HELD: Basing the judgement in consideration of the Article 248, Article 6, par. 1 ofthe
Revised Penal Code, the court, beyond reasonable doubt, found the appellantsguilty
of the crime frustrated murder. With the fact that appellant Armando usedwooden pole
and appellants Ricardo and Robito used knives, it cannot be denied thatthere was an
intent to kill Arnold. Moreover, the doctor attended on Arnold testifiedthat the stab
wound inflicted upon Arnold was mortal and may have caused thelatter’s death, if not
for the timely and effective medical intervention. WHEREFORE,the acts committed by
the appellants is indeed FRUSTRATED MURDER.
Case 29 Oco
Issue: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of murder and frustrated murder based on
the stages of execution.
Facts:
On or about 9:30pm of November 24,1997, HerminigildoDamuag was driving his
motorcycle along V. Rama Avenue, Cebu City with Alden Abiabi riding with him at the Ruling: According to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, a felony is consummated
back. When they reached the vicinity of Pica Lumber, a white Tamaraw FX AUV when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present,
overtook their motorcycle and blocked their path, forcing Damuag to slow down. and it is frustrated when the performer performs all the acts of execution but which,
Another motorcycle, with two riders on it, appeared behind the first motorcycle. From a nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
distance of about two to three meters, one of the riders of the second motorcycle perpetrator.
suddenly fired two shots in close succession. Damuag attempted to look at the tires of
his motorcycle, thinking that they have exploded. Suddenly, Abiabi pushed him with In the case at bar, the act done by the appellant has all the necessary elements for the
his body. Abiabi fell from the first motorcycle and slumped on the pavement face down. execution and accomplishment of the crime Murder under Article 248 of the Revised
As Damuag was trying to control his motorcycle, he noticed another motorcycle Penal Code. The trial court also stated that treachery attended the killing of Abiabi and
passed by from behind him. His motorcycle zigzagged towards the gutter. Damuag the wounding of Damuag (Paragraph 1, Article 248, R.P.C.). There is treachery when
was thrown off and hit the ground. He stood up and realized that he was hit at the right the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
side of his body. He then heard a burst of gunfire from behind. Damuag saw the third methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
motorcycle at about nearby. It was on a stop. Raul “Boy Usher” Oco was at the back of execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
the third motorcycle, holding a short firearm in his right hand. The alleged Raul Oco might take. For treachery to exist, two conditions must be found: (1) that at the time of
fired his gun at Damuag but missed. Although wounded, Damuagwas able to run. the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender
However, the third motorcycle chased him. Upon reaching the vicinity of Five Brothers consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.
restaurant, Damuag stopped because he could not pass anymore. From a distance, In this case, without any warning, the backrider of the second motorcycle, coming from
the appellant again fired two more shots at Damuag. The third motorcycle sped away behind, suddenly fired successive shots at Damuag and Abiabi. While Abiabi was
towards B. Rodriguez Street. Damuag was rushed to the nearest hospital. He survived helplessly laid at the pavement face down due to the wounds he sustained, appellant
the attack due to the timely medical attention given to him at the latter hospital. Alden mercilessly shot at him. On the other hand, Damuag, already wounded, tried to escape
Abiabi did not survive the ambush. but appellant pursued him and shot at him three more times. The unexpected and
sudden attack on the victims, rendering them unable and unprepared to defend
The trial court issued a warrant for the arrest of the appellant and his co-accused, themselves, such suddenness having been meant to ensure the safety of the gunman
Armando “Amid” Lozano, Dave Samson and Eutiquiano “Toking” Pacaa, Jr. Upon as well as the success of the attack made it clear that treachery is involved. For the
learning of the warrant, accused Oco, Lozano, and Pacaa surrendered voluntarily to serious wounding of Damuag, the appellant committed frustrated murder, the same
the police. Samson was arrested the same day. Court trial ensued. having been committed with intent to kill and with treachery, as afore explained. The
means and method employed by the appellant clearly show intent to kill. Indeed,
After the trial, the trial court found the appellant guilty of murder and frustrated murder. Damuag could have died as a result of the gunshot wounds he sustained if it were not
But due to the credibility of the witnesses, the appellant’s co-accused were acquitted. for the timely operation performed on him.
The appellant then, appealed to the appellate court, insisting that he had nothing to do
with the incident. He insisted that he had no motive to kill Damuag or Abiabi, and that
his identification at the crime was incredulous. Thus, the charges of murder and
frustrated murder against him should be reversed and he be acquitted.
Case 30 Sazon
Facts:
Ernesto Romualdez was confronted by Sazon for circulating a rumor that Sazon and
his companions were engaged in stealing, upon confrontation however, Romualdez
boxed Sazon and threatened to kill him. 2 days later, Sazon and his cousin followed
Romualdez after seeing the latter pass by. Sazon again confronted Romualdez, and
Romualdez allegedly provoked Sazon to just shoot. To which Sazon shot
Romualdez dead.
Issue: WON Sazon was justified in killing Romualdez because there was provocation
Held: No. The alleged provocation of Romualdez was insufficient to justify Sazon's
actions. Furthermore, there was evident premeditation when Sazon and his cousin
followed the victim in an attempt to overpower him
Case 31 Siton
FACTS: At around 11:00 pm, 9-Feb-1985, Norberto Notar was outside the Hair Works
Salon in Sta. Ana, Manila. Also in the vicinity were accused-appellant Roberto Siton
and three other men. A group of seven to eight men, including Roylan Holgado passed
by.
A brief exchange of words occurred between Notar and Holgado. A free-for-all ensued
between the groups. Holgado, suffered two stab wounds, one of which was fatal. Notar
suffered a stab wound and was released after recovery.
The RTC-Manila, Branch II found the accused guilty of homicide after giving credence
to the positive identification made by Ferrer. The alibi of Siton was disregarded. The
sentence was for 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years of reclusion
temporal less preventive period of confinement, and to indemnify the heirs of Holgado
for 30,000.00.
The case was raised to the Court of Appeals by Siton. The appellate court affirmed the
decision of the RTC in all aspects upholding the angle of conspiracy.
Thus, the case was brought to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: W/N there can be conspiracy in a free-for-all fight
HELD: No. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons cme to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It was not proved that
there was previous agreement relating to the commission of the crime. Conspiracy
was not established since the attack on Holgado was not agreed upon beforehand.
The decision was modified, finding the accused guilty of less serious physical injury
since it was proved that the stab wound inflicted by Siton upon the victim was non-fatal.
Siton was penalized for 4 months arresto mayor with accessory penalties.
Note: As per testimony of Ferrer, the fatal wound (slashing the right lobe of the liver,
piercing the right kidney and grazing the 1 lumbar vertebra) was inflicted by Joey
st
Calip.
Case 32 Desoy, et al
Case 33 Pangilinan “About 3:45 in the afternoon of the same day, Leonida, accompanied by her driver,
arrived at the pay-off site on board her Pajero. A red Toyota Corolla then approached
and stopped just beside the Pajero. Leonida saw her husband seated between two
men at the back of the red car. Meanwhile, appellant, who was seated in front at the
passenger side, got down from the car. After identifying himself as "Adan‟, Leonida
Facts: gave the Dunlop bag containing the ransom money to him. The Toyota Corolla then
Arthur Pangilinan, Arnold Lopez and Reynaldo Yambot guilty beyond reasonable sped away.
doubt of the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and illegal possession of firearms and Before they could do so, however, they noticed a speeding white Nissan Sentra
imposing upon each of them the supreme penalty of death and a prison term of six (6) behind them. There is an exchange of gunfire, Jun Notarte managed to escape.
years and one (1) day to eight (8) years. However, his companions, namely appellant, Arthur Pangilinan, and Reynaldo Yambot,
“Teofilo Garcia, and his wife, Leonida, were the sole distributors of the Singer Sewing were not as lucky. After about ten minutes of intermittent firing, they were finally
Machines under the business name ‘Gamier Industrial Sewing Machines’. On March 8, subdued and taken into custody. Teofilo was successfully rescued, shaken but
1994, around eleven o’clock in the morning, two armed men, later identified as Jun unharmed.
Notarte and Reynaldo Yambot, entered the Garcias’ office and showroom at 322 Shaw Separately apprehended in connection with his kidnapping incident was Antonio
Boulevard, Mandaluyong City and announced a hold-up. After emptying Teofilo’s Hamton. Having somehow learned about Teofilo’s abduction, Antonio, at the same
drawer of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) in cash, they took him with them outside time that appellant was negotiating with [Leonida] for the ransom money, was also
to a waiting light gray Mitsubishi Lancer. Inside the car were two other men, later calling up Leonida, pretending to be her husband’s kidnapper. Antonio’s ruse was
identified as herein appellant Arnold Lopez and Arthur Pangilinan. Teofilo was shoved eventually discovered, but not before he was already able to extort Fifty Thousand
into the backseat of the car and blindfolded with black sunglasses covered with Pesos (P50,000.00) from Leonida.
adhesive tapes.
“On March 10, 1994, around eleven o’clock in the morning, appellant, who identified
himself as ‘Adan Manalo,’ called up Leonida, telling her to prepare the amount of 10
million pesos as ransom money for her husband’s release. Adan Manalo calls Leonida Issues:
every 2 days asking if she already raised the money.
1. Whether or not there has been a conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom?
On March 17, 1994 Leonida informed that she now had One Million Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000.00), appellant seemed finally satisfied. He then gave 2. Whether or not the appellants can be convicted of illegal possession of fire arms?
Leonida instructions for the pay-off. At a little before four o'clock that afternoon, she
should be at the Magallanes flyover and open the hood of her car to make it appear
that it developed engine trouble. Appellant would then drive by and stop his car beside
hers. After he identifies himself as "Adan", Leonida should immediately hand over the
ransom money to him. Held:
All this time, Leonida had been coordinating with the Task Force Habagat of the Yes. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC). Eight teams were formed to monitor the the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement need not be
pay-off and conduct rescue operations. The ransom money was placed in a light blue proven by direct evidence; it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before,
Dunlop bag (Exhibit G) and Leonida was instructed to wear a green dress for easy during and after the commission of the offense, pointing to a joint purpose and design,
identification at the pay-off site. concerted action, and community of interest. Indeed, jurisprudence consistently tells
us that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated.
In the case at bar, as the trial court correctly held, conspiracy may be deduced from
the appellants’ acts that show concerted action and community of interest. If it can be
proven that two (2) or more persons aimed their acts toward the accomplishment of
the same unlawful object - so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in
fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and
concurrence of sentiment - then conspiracy may be inferred, even though no actual
meeting among them to concert means can be shown. Consequently, the conspirators
shall be held equally liable for the crime, because in a conspiracy the act of one is the
act of all.
No. They cannot be held liable for such offense, since there was another crime --
kidnapping for ransom -- which they were committing at the same time.
The law governing illegal possession of firearms provides that the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be
imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with
bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as
caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful
such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing
capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no
other crime was committed by the person arrested.
Interpreting this law, the Court has consistently ruled that if an unlicensed firearm is
used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple
illegal possession of firearms.