URBANO VS PEOPLE
since he commenced the fight between them.
 September 28, 1993, Brigido Tomelden and
petitioner at compound of Pangasinan, having
just arrived from a picnic with some co-
workers.
 Drunk beer in resto
 While inside the compound, two had heated
altercation – Tomelden hurled insulting
remarks at petitioner.
 Exchanges of words turned to exchange of
blows.
 Co-workers tried to break up the fight, but only
for a brief moment because they refused to be
pacified
 Petitioner delivered a “lucky punch” as
described by the witness, in T’s face.
 Blow cause T’s nose to bleed and got
unconscious
 At home, T informed wife of the incident
 T complained of pain in his nape, head and ear
which impelled wife Rosario to bring him to
hosp where a doc examined him
 On October, T went back to hosp complaining
of dizziness, headached and other pains.
 Doc diagnosed T of suffering from brain injury,
secondary to mauling to consider cerebral
hemorrhage.
 T was confined but due to financial constraints,
was discharge despite signs of improvement.
 At home he still complained of extreme head
pain, was brought back to the hosp again and
died.
RTC & CA: HOMICIDE
HELD:
 Mitigating circumstance that Urbano had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed should be appreciated.
 Intent to kill may be presumed from death of T,
mitigating factor can still be considered when
there are attendant facts and circumstances so
warrant.
 U tried to avoid the fight, he is smaller than T.
(he asked first why was T insulting him)
 He tried to avoid blows of T, until he has
inflicted the lucky punch just to end the fight.
 He even helped in carrying T back to the office
of LIWAD’s gen. manager.
 Such gesture does not equate of one’s
intention to commit so grave a wrong such as
to kill the victim.
 T must be aware since of the potential violence
 T’s death could have been prevented had he
had the financial means to get the proper
medication.
PEOPLE vs IGNAS
 September 1995, wife Wilma Grace of the
accused admitted to a close friend that she
was having an affair with Nemesio Lopate.
 Wilma in Taiwan, as domestic helper, sent 4
letters to her friend Romenda.
 2 were for Nemesio, another 2 contains
instructions to reveal to the accused her affair
with Nemesio.
 Nemesio was the brother of the owner where
Wilma worked.
 Feb. 1996, R followed instructions of W and
told June, showed to him W’s letters
 June got furious and stated “There will be a day
for that Nemesio, I will kill him”
 Same week, Alfred (who was presented at the
trial as prosec witness) had a talk with June.
 Alfred was an elder of Kankanaey tribe where
June and Nemesio belonged
 He confirmed the affair.
 March 10, witness Annie Bayanes who is
trader in veggies, was at the Trading Post in
Benguet, was at the unloading area,
conversing with another dealer when she
heard gunshots.
 She saw June
 Another witness saw Nemesio on the ground.
 His alibi was that he was baking bread with a
friend and nowhere in the scene of the crime
RTC: MURDER AGGRAVATED WITH THE USE OF
AN UNLICENSED FIREARM
HELD: HOMICIDE
 SG: the lapse of 2 weeks upon discovery of his
wife’s infidelity and killing could not be
considered proximate.
 Passage of a fortnight is more than sufficient
time for appellant to have recovered his
composure and unease his mind.
 There can be no immediate vindication of a
grave offense when the accused has sufficient
time to recover his serenity.
  Mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of a grave offense cannot be
considered.
BONGALON vs PEOPLE
 May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz and Roldan,
oder brother, both minors, joined the evening
procession for Sto. Niño in Legazpi.
 When procession passed infront of Bongalon’s
house, B’s daughter, Mary Ann Rose minor,
threw stones at Jayson and called him “sissy”
 B confronted Jayson and Roldan and called
them names like “strangers” and “animals”
 B struck J at the back with his hand and
slapped him on the face
 He also went to the brothers’ house and
challenged Rolando, J and R’s father, to a fight
but Rolando refused.
 Jayson was brought in the hospital to have
medical treatment.
 B denied allegations: that he had only talked to
the brothers
 Mary Ann and Cherrylyn, minor daughter, had
told him that J and R were throwing stones at
them and that J burned C’s hair.
 Denied challenging Rolando in a fistfight, only
told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming
his daughters.
RTC: CHILD ABUSE
CA: AFFIRMED BUT MODIFIED PENALTY
HELD:
 Affirm findings of RTC and CA but disagree
with holding that his acts constituted child-
abuse.
 Records do not establish beyond reasonable
doubt that his acts towards Jayson had been
intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and
dignity” of Jayson as a child and human being,
intended to humiliate or embarrass him
 Laying of hands on Jayson was done at the
spur of the moment and in anger because of
fatherly concern towards safety of minor
daughters, who had suffered harm from J and
R.
 Loss of self-control, he lacked intent to debase,
degrade of demean the intrinsic worth and
dignity of child as a human being = essential in
child abuse.
 Slight physical injuries, consider mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation under
Art. 13 (6)
 Because petitioner lost his reason and self-
control, thereby diminishing exercise of will
power.
 Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from
causes existing only in honest belief of the
accused.
 In p&o, offende suffers a diminution of
intelligence and intent.
 He having acted in the belief that J and R had
thrown stones and J burned C’s hair, entitled
to mitigating circumstance.
NIZURTADO vs SANDIGANBAYAN
 Felix Nizurtado committed complex crime of
malversation of public funds through
falsification of document.
 FN was Barangay Capt. In Malabon from
1983-1988.
 FN and Romero (brngy. Treasurer), attended a
seminar at University of Life, Pasig.
 Seminar was about Barangay Livelihood
Program of the Ministry of Human Settlements,
Metro Manila Commission, Kilusang
Kabuhayan Kaunlaran
 Under prog. Brngys in Manila could avail loans
of 10k per barangay to finance viable livelihood
projects
 After seminar, FN received a check of 10k
intended for brngy Panghulo and issued in his
name
 Check can be encashed only upon submission
to the Secretariat a resolution approved by the
Brngy Council identifying the livelihood proj. in
w/c loan would be invested.
 He entrusted check to R for safekeeping.
 In one of the regular sessions, Brngy Panghulo
discussed proj w/c to invest 10k.
 R proposed that a brngy center be established
 But session finished without them agreeing on
any livelihood proj
 Few days after meeting, FN got the check back
from R, saying that he would return it
 After few more days FN asked R to sign an
unaccomplished resolution in mimeograph
form.
 All blank spaces in the form were unfilled-up
except those at the bottom w/c were intended
for the names of other brngy officials.
  Trusting FN, R affixed his signature
 R was instructed by FN to talk with Gomez and
secure his signature.
 R obliged pleading that his proposal would be
the one written in the blank form.
 But unknown to R and G, the proj. were titled
as “T-shirt manufacturing of round neck shirts”
 FN encashed the same check
SANDIGANBAYAN: MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT, WITH 2 MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE: VOLUNTARY SURRENDED
AND REESTITUTION OF FUNDS IN HIS FAVOR
HELD:
 FN was able to misappropriate funds and
encashed check on the basis of resolution of
Brngy Council.
 The money instead of being used for proj, was
later lent to other members of Brngy Council =
act of misappropriation.
 Falsification of public doc. Punishable under
par. 2 of Art 171 of RPC.
 Doc. Need not be an authentic official paper
since its simulation is the essence of
falsification, and signatures need not be
forged.
 SC also considered voluntary surrender as a
modifying circumstance independent and
apart from restitution of the questioned funds.
 SC also considered another mc which is no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed, entitling him to 3 distinct mc.
RTC: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
CA: CRIME OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING IN PHYSICAL INJURIES
HELD: AFFIRM CA
MARIANO vs PEOPLE
 Ferdinand de Leon was driving his owner type
jeep in Bulacan, with wife Urbanita and 2-yr-
old son, from baptismal party.
 Reynaldo Mariano was driving red Toyota pick-
up with wife Rebecca and helper Rowena,
from worship service.
 Toyota overtook jeep of D and almost bumped
it.
 F got mad, overtook the Toyota and blocked its
path
 R stopped pickup behind jeep
 F approached R and a heated altercation
arose.
 Luis de leon, uncle of F, pacified them.
 They heeded advice of Luis and went their
separate ways.
 F dropped by his mother’s house to pick up
some items.
 Parked his jeep in front of the house of mother
and alighted therefrom.
 But he was bumped by a moving vehicle and
lost consciousness.
 Urbanita called help from mother-in-law and
identified the same Toyota red pickup by
Reynaldo.
 R’s defense: R stopped pickup as he saw an
oncoming vehicle which he allowed to pass.
 He made signal and overtook jeep of F, but F
suddenly alighted from his jeep and lost his
balance and sideswiped by the overtaking
pickup.
 R did not stop his pickup for fear that
bystanders might harm him and his
companions.
 He brought companions to their house, and
thereafter surrendered himself.
 But mc of voluntary surrender cannot be
appreciated.
 Par. 5 of Art. 365 of RPC, expressly states that
in the imposition of the penalties, the courts
shall exercise their sound discretion, w/o
regard to the rules prescribed in Art. 64.
 Rationale: In quasi-offenses penalized under
Art. 365, the carelessness, imprudence or
negligence w/c characterizes the wrongful act
 may vary from one situation to another, in
nature, extent and resulting consequences.
 Court is not bound to apply par. 5 of Art. 64 of
rpc, even if appellant had 2 mitigating
circumstances in his favor with no aggravating
circumstances
 There is negligence on the part of R: he could
have swerve to the direction where F was not
standing.