People v.

Bayambao
Facts:
Accused heard a noise and saw a black figure rushed at him as he was checking if there was an
outlaw outside their house and shot at it. it was his brother-in-law
Pambaya Bayambao was charged with the crime of murder
Bayambao does not deny killing the victim but alleges that he did by mistake

Issue:
WON the accused is criminally liable

Held:
No. appellant is acquitted and is exempt from criminal liability.

The accused acted from the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an ill at least equal in gravity, in
the belief that the deceased was a malefactor who attacked him with a kampilan or dagger in
hand, and for this reason, he was guilty of no crime and is exempt from criminal liability (art. 8,
No. 10, Penal Code.)

Furthermore, his ignorance or error of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith, and this rebuts
the presumption of malicious, intent accompanying the act of killing. In an case, this court
acquitted the accused (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488), and we deem the doctrine laid down in
that case applicable to this one.
People v. Vagallon
Facts:
Roque Salomon, the suitor of the sister of the accused was ejected from the house of the latter
thinking that the former is not fit to marry her.
When Roque and the accused met that evening with the resentment, the fight occurred.
Roque received one wound while the accused, six
Accused wen to his house and relating to his mother what had happened, the latter gave him a
lance and with it he returned to the scene of the fight, and having met on the way the girl
Natividad Salomon, he threw the lance against her, inflicting wounds upon her body, which
caused her death on the following day.
Accused admits accidentally having inflicted wounds that caused the death of Natividad
Solomon
The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of homicide, and considering the
commission of the crime to have been attended by the aggravating circumstances of abuse of
superior strength, not offset by any mitigating one, sentenced him to seventeen years, four
months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessories provided by law, to indemnify
the family of Natividad Salomon in the sum of P500 and to pay the costs of the action, crediting
the accused with one-half of the period of imprisonment suffered him as detention prisoner.

Issue:
WON accused is guilty of homicide

Held:
Yes. However, without the aggravating circumstances
SC: the version given by the accused, as being more reasonable, of the manner in which
Natividad Salomon was wounded, we do not think it right to take into consideration, as was done
by the trial court the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. So that eliminating
said aggravating circumstance, the penalty provided the article 404 of the Penal Code must be
imposed upon the accused in the medium degree, that is, fourteen years, eight months and one
day of reclusion temporal, and as thus modified, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all
other respects, with costs against the appellant.
People v. Guillen

Facts:
Accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated
murder after his attempt to assassinate the former president Manuel Roxas
During the presidential elections, accused voted for the opposing party, he was disappointed with
the president for failing to fulfill the promised the latter made during elections.
On the night of March 10 1947, accused determined to assassinate the president while attending a
meeting
Accused intended to use a revolver but had lost his licensed firearm so he thought of using two hand
grenades.
Accused stood on the chair and hurled the grenade at the president, a general kicked the grenade
where he thought would inflict the least harm, the grenade exploded in the middle of a group of
persons and seriously injured simeon varela who died the next day

Issue:
WON the accused is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence and of less to serious physical
injuries to injured persons

Held:
In throwing the hand grenade at the president, the accused had the intention to killing him and acted
with malice and therefore liable for all consequences.
Art 4 of RPC: criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the
incident of another act performed without malice.
As held by this court. A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the
idea of reckless imprudence. Where such unlawful act is lawfully done a mistake in the identity of
the intended victim cannot be considered reckless imprudence. The sentence of the trial court is
affirmed by unanimous vote and death sentence shall be executed in accordance with article 81 of
the RPC.
People v. Itlanas

Facts:
Appellant Adventor Itlanas y Bautiso was found guilty by the then Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga del Norte of the crime of murder committed against Philippine Constabulary Sgt.
Amelito Perez; homicide against CIC Edmar Mag-aso; and, homicide thru reckless imprudence
committed against Manuel Flores.
HOMICIDE THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE, for the death of civilian MANUEL
FLORES who was hit by stray bullets from M-16 Armalite rifle which he fired under a
desperate impulse to avoid a retribution or avengement from CIC Edmar Mag-aso. For
this separate offense, accused Adventor Itlanas y Bautiso is hereby sentenced to serve
imprisonment of from 4 MONTHS and 1 DAY to 2 YEARS, 4 MONTHS AND 1 DAY
of prision correccional .
 About ten o'clock in the morning of July 12, 1978, Sgt. Amelito Perez was playing cards
with a crew member inside the sergeant's cabin.
 CIC Edmar Mag-aso was on deck duty, unarmed.
 Itlanas went to the upper deck and took the armalite of Mag-aso which was then hanging
on the wall.
 He then went back to the lower deck and hid himself behind the steering wheel facing
Sgt. Perez' cabin. When the latter's companion left the cabin, appellant Itlanas approached
Sgt. Perez and, suddenly, fired at the latter, hitting him on the neck and killing him
instantaneously.

Thereafter, appellant went up the upper deck where he was met by CIC Mag-aso who tried to
grab the armalite. CIC Mag-aso failed and, instead, he was fired upon by Itlanas, killing him on
the spot.

Captain Gaje and the other members of the group went out of their respective rooms and saw the
dead bodies of Sgt. Perez and CIC Mag-aso, and apprentice Manuel Flores who was profusely
bleeding, having been hit by where the latter, while poking a gun at him reminded him of his
(Pantoja) plan to disarm the PC escorts, informing him that his contact man was already in the
upper deck and that one of the oilers was already entertaining one of their PC escorts.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty of homicide

Held:
YES. With respect to the crime committed by the appellant on the deceased Manuel Flores, who
was killed by stray bullets when CIC Mag-aso was shot by him, appellant is guilty of homicide.
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred: (1) by any
person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which
he intended." The provision of the law is so clear that there is no room for interpretation.
People v. Talampas

Facts:
Jose Sevillo testified that on July 5, 1995 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, he together with
Eduardo and Ernesto were infront of his house repairing his tricycle when he noticed the
appellant who was riding on a bicycle passed by and stopped. The latter alighted at about three
(3) meters away from him, walked a few steps and brought out a revolver, and poked the same to
Eduardo and fired it hitting Eduardo who took refuge behind Ernesto. The appellant again fired
his gun three (3) times, one shot hitting Ernesto at the right portion of his back causing him
(Ernesto) to fall on the ground with his face down. Another shot hit Eduardo on his nape and fell
down on his back (patihaya). Thereafter, the appellant ran away, while he (Jose) and his
neighbors brought the victims to the hospital.
On his part, Talampas interposed self-defense and accident. He insisted that his enemy had been
Eduardo, not victim Ernesto that Eduardo had hit him with a monkey wrench, but he had parried
the blow; that he and Eduardo had then grappled for the monkey wrench; that while they had
grappled, he had notice that Eduardo had held a revolver; that he had thus struggled with
Eduardo for control of the revolver, which had accidentally fired and hit Ernesto during their
struggling with each other; that the revolver had again fired, hitting Eduardo in the thigh; that he
had then seized the revolver and shot Eduardo in the head; and that he had then fled the scene
when people had started swarming around.
On June 22, 2004, the RTC, giving credence to the testimony of eyewitness Jose Sevilla, found
Talampas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide

Issue:
WON the lower courts both erred in rejecting his claim of accidental death.

Ruling:
NO. Talampas could not relieve himself of criminal liability by invoking accident as a defense.
Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code the legal provision pertinent to accident, contemplates a
situation where a person is in fact in the act of doing something legal, exercising due care,
diligence and prudence, but in the process produces harm or injury to someone or to something
not in the least in the mind of the actor an accidental result flowing out of a legal act.
Indeed, accident is an event that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes
about through some act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences.
In short, accident presupposes the lack of intention to commit the wrong done.
And, thirdly, the fact that the target of Talampas' assault was Eduardo, not Ernesto, did not
excuse his hitting and killing of Ernesto. The fatal hitting of Ernesto was the natural and direct
consequence of Talampas' felonious deadly assault against Eduardo. Talampas' poor aim
amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in the blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him
from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his criminal liability. Lo que es causa de la causa, es
causa del mal causado (what is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused)
Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
The Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 16, 2007 finding VIRGILIO
TALAMPAS y MATIC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide
Principle:
Talampas' poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in the blow, a circumstance that
neither exempted him from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his criminal liability.

People v. Gona
Facts:
On the evening of October 26, 1928, the Mansacas celebrated a reunion in the house of
the Mansaca Gabriel. There seems to have been liberal supply of alcoholic drinks and some of
the men present became intoxicated, with the result that a quarrel took the place between
the Mansaca Dunca and the defendant. Dunca and his son Aguipo eventually left the house and
were followed by Mapudul and one Award.
The defendant left the house about the same time with intention of assaulting Dunca, but in the
darkness of the evening and in the intoxicated condition of the defendant, the mistook Mapudul
for Dunca and inflicated with a bolo causing him a mortal wound on the left side of the neck and
that as a consequence of said wound, the said Mapudul died.
The defendant was charged before the Court of First Instance of the Province of Davao with the
crime of homicide
Issue:
WON accused had no intention to kill the deceased by mistake
Held:

There can no doubt that the defendant killed Mapudul and that he is guilty of the crime charged,
but his attorney argues that in view of the fact that said defendant had no intention to kill the
deceased and committed the crime by mistake, he should have been found guilty of homicide
through negligence under paragraph 1 of article 568 of the Penal Code and not of the graver
crime of intentional homicide.

This contention is contrary to earlier decisions of this court. In these case of United
State vs. Mendieta(34 Phil., 242), the court said:

Even admitting that the defendant intended to injure Hilario Lauigan instead of Pedro
Acierto, even that, in view of the mortal wound which inflicted upon the latter, in no way
 could be considered as a relief from his criminal act. That he made a mistake in killing
one man instead of another, when it is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully,
cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility. Neither do we believe that the fact that
he made a mistake in killing the wrong man should be considered as a mitigating
circumstances.

People v. Oanis

Facts: As a group taking the route to Rizal street, Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis
and his co-accused Corporal Alberto Galanta were under instructions to arrest Anselmo Balagtas,
a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered,
to get him dead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on
seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their .32
and .45 caliber revolvers, without firstmaking any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The
victim turned out to be a
peaceful and innocent citizen, Serapio Tecson who upon autopsy, multiple
gunshot wounds were found on his body which caused his death.

The defendants alleged and appealed that in the honest performance of their official duties, they
acted in innocent mistake of fact.

Issue: Whether or not Chief of Police Oanis and Corporal Galanta were guilty of murder.

Ruling:
New Rules of Court, Rule 109, Section 2 paragraph 2 provides, No
unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the
person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for
his detention. As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed by
both was murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. Even if it were true
that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be justified in
killing him while the latter was sleeping. In apprehending even the most notorious
criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive
from justice is determined to fight the officers of the law who are trying
The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being
intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be
unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
(People vs. Sara, 55 Phil., 939)
People v. Pinto
As a result of series of events in pursuit of one Francisco Bello who was allegedly training
private army, Patrol men Daniel Pinto Jr. and Narcisco Buenaflor Jr. were convicted of murder
for killing not only Bello but also Richard Tiongson and Rosalie Andes and seriously wounding
Maria Theresa Tiongson

Issue:
WON the defendants defense on mistake in identity of the victim is tenable

Held:
No. the fact that the victims were different from the one the appellants intended to injure cannot
save them from conviction. Mistake in identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the
accused zeroes in on his intended victim. The main reason behind this conclusion is the fact that
the accused had acted with such disregard for the life of the victims without checking carefully
the latter’s identity as to place himself on the same legal place as one who kills another willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously. Neither may the fact that the accused made a mistake in killing one
man instead of another be considered a mitigating circumstance.
People v. Sabalones

Facts:
On June 1 1985 respondents including Rolusape Sabalones armed with firearm and ambushed
individuals riding in two vehicles resulting to death of two persons and injury to three others.
According to witness presented, sabalones was implicated in the killing of Nabing Valdez
because of the slapping incident involving her father in law.
The conclusion of the trial court the CA that the appellants killed the wrong person was based on
the extrajudicial statement of appellant beronga and the testimony of Jennifer binghoy these
pieces of evidence sufficiently show that the appelnts believed that they were suspected of
having killed the recently slain Nabing Valdez, and that they expected his group to retaliate
against them.
The trial court observed that they want to their grisly destination amidst the dark and positioned
themselves in defense of his turn against the invasion of revengeful gang of supporters of Nabing
Valdez.

Issue: WON the case is one of mistake in identity.

Held: YES. The case is one of error in personae. Transferred intent is used when a defendant
intends to harm one victim but them unintentionally harms a second victim instead. In this case
the defendant’s intent transfers from the intended victim to the actual victim and can be used to
satisfy the mens rea element of the crime. The transferred intent doctrine is only used for
completed crimes and is not used for attempted crimes.
Aberratio ictus means mistake in blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due
to imprecision of the blow. In this case the appellants opened fire because they mistook the
vehicles to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Valdez. The fact that they were mistaken
does not diminish their culpability. The court held that mistake in identity of the victim carries
the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim,
US v. Brobst

Fact:
Saldivar had been fires from the mining company he was working for. Brobst had been told not
to let him back in. However, Saldivar came in with 3-4 friends looking for a job and ignored
Brobst’s orders to leave. Brobst then struck him a blow which caused his own bolo to hit him
and Saldivar staggered away to his sisters house. He arrived there 2 hours later and died on her
doorstep attributed to possible internal bleeding.

Issue:
WON brobst is liable

Held:
Yes. Even though no evidence was provided to ascertain that the blow was strong enough to
cause death, no evidence was provided to show he intervened to help Saldivar either.

People v. Alburquerque

Facts:
Appellant has been suffering from partial paralysis, walks dragging one leg and has lost control
of the movement of his right arm. He has been unable to work since he suffered the stroke of
paralysis.
Pilar one of his daughters who gave birth without the knowledge of the appellant is acquainted
with the deceased Manuel
Appellant wrote letters that at time hostile and threatening to compel Manuel to marry his
daughter and give support to the child. Manuel never complied.
Appellant went to Manuel’s office, went downstairs and inflicted his penknife upon him hitting
the base of his neck causing his death with the intention to only stab his face but due to lack of
his control of his right arm, it landed on his neck
Trial court found that the appellant did not intend to cause so grave an injury as the death. He
only wanted to inflict a wound that would compel him to marry or at least support his daughter.
Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to cause so grave an injury as the
death of the deceased as well as those of his having voluntarily surrendered himself to the
authorities, and acted under the influence of passion and obfuscation, should be taken into
consideration in favor of the appellant.
Issue:
WON appellant is guilty of homicide

Held:
YES. The facts as herein proven constitute the crime of homicide defined and penalized in article
249 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion temporal. In view of the concurrence therein of
three mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty next lower in
degree, that is prision mayor, should be imposed.
The defense likewise claims that, at all events, article 49 of the Revised Penal Code, which refers
to cases where the crime committed is different from that intended by the accused, should be
applied herein. This article is a reproduction of article 64 of the old Code and has been
interpreted as applicable only in cases where the crime befalls a different person, which is not the
case herein.