Crim 9.29.
2018
5 People v YamID
 Jerry and Julius while running an errand
passed by resp house.
 After greetimg, yamid sunsheathed bolo
 They ran, yamid followed, got caught of
Jerry killed then sucked blood
 Danilo went to look, struck in head and
fell, then struck own stomach of yamid
 Dcsd argue due to land dispute
 Def claims schizophrenia. Fantasy from
reality wih hallucinations
ISSUE:
Insanity during crime?
 No med cert of insanity
 No enough evidence
 Difference of mental weakness,
eccentricity and depression from
insanity
 Even though sucking blood is not
normal, it doesnt prove insanity
 Should show insanity during crime
but not enough evidence
DECISION:
Guilty of homicide
6 People v Valledor
 Suddenly entered room of 4 people working
around a table.
 Particularly attacked rogers, hit in forearm
then Elsa with a knife
 Then stabbed another one on the way out
 Diagnosed with psychosis with schizophrenia,
has had meds thoracin for 2 months.
 At the day, there was no thoracin and def was
seen doing not so normal stuff
ISSUE
 Was he insane during crime?
DECISION
 Was aware of his actioms as he
specifically attacked hose poeple, the
2 nearer to the door was unharmed
 Motive of revenge
 A man may act crazy but it does not
necessarily and conclusively prove
that he is legally so insane
Guilty of mirder, attempted murder and frustrated
murder.
7 People v Bellonio
 Ramy decided to buy cigarettes from a
store only a few meters away
 Ramy decided to buy cigarettes from a
store only a few meters away
 Jennifer said that he and Ramy sat and
talked on the bench
 Without saying a word and without
warning, the accused delivered a
stabbing blow with a dagger which was
concealed in his hand
 Fatal blow
 Dr says sufferimg from schizophrenia
ISSUE
was he insane during crime?
DECISION
 Must prove (1) he did not act with
complete absence of the power to
discern; (2) he was not deprived of
reason; and (3) he was not totally
deprived of his will.
 the accused is tried on the issue of
sanity alone and if found to be sane,
a judgment of conviction is rendered
without any trial on the issue of guilt
as he had already admitted
committing the crime
 No schizo during childhood, hid
knife, deliberate killing at bench
stabbed from back
Guilty of murder
 8 People v Taneo 9 People v doquena 10 People v Navarro
 Potenciano Taneo, went to sleep and  accused-appellant, who is a minor killed  Luisa# Navarro# 13# years# old# who#
while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left Juan Ragojos by stabbing him in the breast was#
the room bolo in hand with a knife, was 13yo approached# by# agents# of# the# Price#
 he wounded her in the abdomen.  Threw ball to deceased which hit stomach Enforcement#
Potenciano Taneo attacked Fred Tanner then got mad, chased and slapped Division#of#PRISCO#asking#frot#he#price
and Luis Malinao and tried to attack his  Withthreatening attitude accused #of#one#tin#of#
father after which he wounded himself. confronted again bt was punched in Hershey’s# Cocoa.# She# was# arrested#
Potenciano's wife who was then seven mouth. after# allegedly#
months pregnant, died  Deceased was bigger than accused, so he selling#cocoa#11#cents#more#that#ceilin
 defendant had a quarrel over a glass of found a knifee and struck the deceased g#price.#Found#
"tuba" with Enrique Collantes and with it guilty# of# violating# E.O.# 447# in#
Valentin Abadilla, who invited him to  7th grade pupil in the intermediate school connection# with# Sec#
come down to fight of the municipality of Sual, Pangasinan, 12#of#RA#5096 Anti6
 The defendant states that when he fell and as such pupil, he was one of the Profiteering#law#and#was#sent#to#
asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was brightest in said school and was a captain the#custody#of#Phil.#Training#School#for
trying to stab him of a company of the cadet corps #Girls
 he fancied seeing his wife really wounded  acted with discernment and was  Yes.#Nothing#in# the#law# says# that#
and in desperation wounded himself. As conscious of the nature and consequences RPC#is# not#
his enemies seemed to multiply around of his act suppletory#to#their#provisions#(Art10)W
him, he attacked everybody that came his  discernment that constitutes an exception hile#intent#is#immaterial#in#crimes#mala
way. to the exemption from #prohibita,#
 defendant not only did not have any criminal liability of a minor under f if teen the# circumstances,# which# exempt#
trouble with his wife, but that he loved years of age but over nine, who commits from# criminal#
her dearly. Neither did he have any an act prohibited by law, is liability,#are#based#on#lack#of#intelligenc
dispute with Tanner and Malinao, or have his mental capacity to understand the dif f e,#intent#and#
any motive erence between right and wrong spontaneity.#In#the#language#of#art#12#
 lack of a motive for committing a criminal  behaviour of said minor, not only bef ore (3),#state#has#the# burden# of# proving#
act does not necessarily mean that there and during the commission of the act, but that# the# minor# acted# with#
are none, but that simply they are not also af ter and even during the trial discernment.# Discernmentbeing# more#
known to us, than#
 The doctor stated that considering the  Guilty of homicide mere#understanding#is#the#mental#capa
circumstances of the case, the defendant city#to#understand# the# difference#
acted while in a dream, under the between# right# and# wrong.# # In#
influence of an hallucination and not in his the#instant# case,# accused# did# not#
right mind. fully# grasp#the#
 defendant is not criminally liable for the importance#of#the#question#and#there#
offense with which he is charged, and it is was#no#record#that# she# was a#
ordered that he be confined in the merchant.# Such#
Government insane asylum minor,#over9but#less#than#15#is#not#cri
minally#responsible
 11 Jose v people
 sell and deliver to other person
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE
(or shabu)
 nformation was that a big time group of
drug pushers from Greenhills will deliver
100 grams of shabu at Chowking
Restaurant
 Buy bust op in laguna, successful, arrested
after exchange
 Alvin Jose, on its finding that he was only
thirteen (13) years old when he
committed the crime
 Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a
minor over nine (9) and under fifteen (15)
years of age at the time of the commission
of the crime is exempt from criminal
liability unless he acted with discernment
 presumed lacking the mental element of a
crime the capacity to know what is wrong
as distinguished from what is right or to
determine the morality of human acts
 accused Zarraga called the petitioner to
bring out and hand over the shabu
wrapped in plastic and white soft paper.
 . Aside from bringing out and handing
over the plastic bag to accused Zarraga,
the petitioner merely sat inside the car
and had no other participation
whatsoever
 Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the
parties to such conspiracy to discern what
is right from what is wrong
 petitioner is ACQUITTED
12 People v Jacinto
 f eloniously had carnal knowledge with one
AAA, a f ive-year old minor child.
 She usually calls him kuya, At the store, he
saw appellant place AAA on his lap, buyimg
cigs
 They walked towards the rice f ield near the
house of spouses Alejandro and Gloria
Perocho [the Perochos].23 There he made
her lie down on harrowed ground
 def ense of alibi cannot prevail over the
victim’s positive identif ication, youth and
immaturity are normally badges of truth and
honesty
 the Court of Appeals correctly considered
Republic Act No.
9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006) despite the commission of the crime
three (3) years bef ore it was enacted on 28
April 2006
 allows the retroactive application of the Act
to those who have been convicted and are
serving sentence at the time of the ef f
ectivity of this said Act, and who were below
the age of 18 years at the time of the
commission of the of f ense
 choosing an isolated and dark place to
perpetrate the crime, to prevent detection[;]
and (2) boxing the victim xxx, to weaken her
def ense" are
indicative of then seventeen (17) year-old
appellant’s mental capacity to f ully
understand the consequences
of his unlawf ul action
 qualif ied rape is AFFIRMED
13 People v arpon
 Henry Arpon y Juntilla guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of one (1) count of
statutory rape and seven (7) counts of
rape against the private complainant
AAA
 In one afternoon when she was only
eight years old, she stated that the
accused-appellant raped her inside their
house.
 for five times on different nights
 .minority of the victim and the fact that
the accused appellant is the uncle of the
victim
 What the law punishes in statutory rape
is carnal knowledge
 the victim, as to her body and facial
features, was indeed a minor
 In the instant case, the accused-
appellant testified that he was born on
February 23, 1982 and that he was only
13 years old when the first incident of
rape allegedly happened in 1995
 For the second and third counts of rape
that were committed in the year 1999,
the accused-appellant was already 17
years old. We likewise find that in the
said instances, the accused-appellant
acted with discernment
 the accused-appellant had to threaten
AAA in an effort to conceal his dastardly
acts only proved that he knew full well
that what he did was wrong
 Exempted from first charge, uilty of
qualified rape on 2nd and 3rd,