People vs. Norma Hernandez, CA-GR No.

22553-R, Apr 14, 1959

FACTS:

Vivencio Lascano, and Maria Norma Hernandez have a boyfriend- girlfriend

relationship. The two talked about getting married. Vivencio’s parents went to the house
of Norma to have a “pamamanhikan”. They brought chickens and goats. The marriage
was set on March 19, 1955. The preparation went on but on the day of wedding, Norma
did not show up, causing Vivencio and his family great shame and humiliation. Norma
Hernandez confessed that she was not really in love with him, and that she accepted the
proposal because she was convinced by her parents. That she decided to leave home as
last recourse to prevent the marriage. Norma’s parents also corroborated her testimony.
RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed because she purposely and deliberately fled
to prevent celebration of marriage. Thus, she appealed.

ISSUE: Whether or Not Norma should be convicted on the ground of serious slander by
deed

HELD: NO, SC reversed the RTC judgment and acquitted the appellant. A party to an
agreement to marry who backs out cannot be held liable for the crime of slander
by deed , for then that would be an inherent way of compelling said party to go
into a marriage without his or her free consent, and this would contravene the
principle in law that what could not be done directly could not be done indirectly;
and said party has the right to avoid to himself or herself the evil of going through
a loveless marriage pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code.

One of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. There is no malice
in the act of the appellant changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right
not to give her consent to the marriage after mature consideration. Appellant had
the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11 par.4, RPC) Any person who, in order to avoid
an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third.
That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
 People vs Bonoan, L-45130, March 31, 1933

FACTS:

Accused killed Carlos Guison inflicting upon him several injuries. The case
was called for arraignment as he was sentenced for murder, however the defense
counsel objected on the ground that the defendant was mentally deranged and was
at the time confined in the Psychopatic Hospital. The court issued an order for the
accused to be placed under observation of Dr. Fernandez. Dr. Fernandez appeared
before the court and ratified his report, stating that the accused was not in a
condition to defend himself. The case was suspended indefinitely. After almost 7
months, he reported to the court that the defendant can now appear for trial as he
is now a recovered case. The court found the defendant guilty of murder.
However, defense now appealed that the court erred in finding that the accused
had dementia only occasionally and intermittently and had not had it immediately
prior to commission of defense. It appeared that on the day of commission of
crime, defendant met the deceased and the witness heard the defendant say that he
will kill the deceased. Deceased said that he will pay him, but the defendant
replied that he will kill the deceased and stabbed him thrice.

ISSUE: WON the killing by the defendant is exempted from criminal liability, with the
defense being that of insanity.

HELD: Yes he is exempted from criminal liability. In the Philippines, proof of insanity at
the time of committing the criminal act should be clear and satisfactory in order to
acquit the accused on the ground of insanity. The burden of establishing this is on
the defendant. In proving this, it is permissible to receive evidence of the
condition before and after that time. From the evidence presented, it appeared that
the accused was confined in the insane department in San Lazaro because of
dementia praecox, and that all persons suffering from dementia praecox are
clearly to be regarded as having mental disease to a degree that disqualifies them
for legal responsibility for their actions. It was also noted that the accused had an
episode of insomnia 4 days before the commission of the crime. He was also
diagnosed with Manic depressive psychosis. In view of this, the Court held that
the accused was demented at the time that he perpetrated the offense. Therefore,
judgment of lower court is hereby reversed and he is exempt from criminal
liability.
People vs Madarang, GR 132319, May 12, 2000

FACTS:

Accused was charged with parricide for killing his wife. At the arraignment, trial court entered a
not guilty plea for him. The accused's counsel manifested that his client had been observed
behaving in an abnormal manner inside the provincial jail. The Court issued an Order directing
the transfer of the accused to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) for psychiatric
evaluation to determine his fitness to stand trial. Initial exam revealed that he was suffering from
schizophrenia. He was managed and after more than 2 years of confinement, accused was
discharged from NCMH and recommitted to the provincial jail. The accused proceeded to
adduce evidence to support claim of insanity. He claimed that he had no recollection of stabbing
incident and that his behavior at the time of stabbing was consistent with schizophrenia (violent
tendencies). He also relied on the opinion of the Dr. Tibayan that there was a high possibility that
he was already suffering from insanity prior to the commission of the crime. He urged that he
had no motive to kill his wife who was even scheduled to give birth to their eighth child.

ISSUES: WON the act of killing by the defendant is exempted from criminal liability, with
the defense being that of insanity.

RULING: No, he was not exempted from criminal liability. The Court ruled that none of the
witnesses presented by the appellant declared that he exhibited any of the myriad
symptoms associated with schizophrenia immediately before or simultaneous with
the stabbing incident. To be sure, the record is bereft of even a single account of
abnormal or bizarre behavior on the part of the appellant prior to that fateful day.
Although Dr. Tibayan opined that there is a high possibility that the appellant was
already suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing, he also declared
that schizophrenics have lucid intervals during which they are capable of
distinguishing right from wrong. Hence the importance of adducing proof to
show that the appellant was not in his lucid interval at the time he committed the
offense. His arguments to prove his insanity are merely speculative. There was
no showing of any odd or bizarre behavior on the part of the appellant after he lost
his fortune and prior to his commission of the crime that may be symptomatic of
his mental illness. Therefore, the accused failed to establish with convincing
evidence that he was insane when he killed his wife and this the decision of trial
court convicting him of parricide was affirmed.
US vs Tañedo, L-5418, February 12, 1910 (I)

FACTS:

The accused, with the intention of killing Feliciano Sanchez, invited him to hunt wild chickens,
and, upon reaching the forest, with premeditation, shot him in the breast with a shotgun which
destroyed the heart and killed him. After seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tañedo ran back to
his workers and asked one, Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the body, which they did by
putting it amidst the tall cogon grass, and later burying in an old well. Only one shot was heard
that morning and a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were found at the
scene of the crime. Prior to the trial, the accused denied all knowledge of the crime, but later
confessed during the trial. The CFI of Tarlac found the accused guilty of homicide, having
invited the deceased into the forest and intentionally shooting him in the chest.

So far as can be ascertained, there was no enmity and no unpleasant relations between them.
There appears to have been no motive whatever for the commission of the crime. The only
possible reason that the accused could have for killing the deceased would be found in the fact of
a sudden quarrel between them during the hunt. That idea is wholly negative by the fact that the
chicken and the man were shot at the same time, there having been only one shot fired. Hence,
the decision was appealed.

ISSUE:

WON the court is correct in ruling that there was criminal liability.

Held:

No, the court was incorrect in ruling that there was criminal liability. If life is taken by
misfortune or accident while in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and
without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. In this case there is absolutely no
evidence of negligence upon the part of the accused. Neither is there any question that he was
engaged in the commission of a lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is there any
evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. The only thing in the
case at all suspicious upon the part of the defendant are his concealment and denial. In the case
of the State vs Legg, it ruled that where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused
is not required to prove such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence, because there is a
denial of intentional killing, and the burden is upon the State to show that it was intentional.

Evidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issue in a prosecution for homicide, which
must be submitted to the jury. And since a plea of misadventure is a denial of criminal intent
which constitutes an essential element in criminal homicide, to warrant a conviction it must be
negative by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus the judgment is reversed.
US vs Caballeros, G.R. 1352, March 29, 1905 (I)

FACTS:

Defendants have been sentenced as accessories after the fact in the crime of assassination
perpetrated on the persons of the American school teachers without having taken part in the said
crime as principals or accomplices, they took part in the burial of the corpses of the victims in
order to conceal the crime.

ISSUE:

WON defendants acted under compulsion of irresistible force, which, according to Article 12
(par 5) of the RPC, exempts them from criminal liability

HELD:

Yes, they were exempted from criminal liability. Although one confessed that he assisted with
the burial of the corpses, it appeared that he did so because he was compelled to do so by the
murderers of the four teachers (as corroborated by witness). The witness said that Rober Baculi
was not a member of the group, and that he was in a banana plantation on his property gathering
some bananas; that when he heard the shots he began to run; that he was, however, seen by
Damaso and Isidoro, the leaders of the band; that the latter called to him and striking him with
the butts of their guns they forced him to bury the corpses. For Caballeros, there was no proof
that he took part in any way in execution of crime. Their failure to report the crime is not an
offense punished by the Penal Code. Therefore, the defendants were acquitted.