Crim Digests COMPILATION

Criminal Law I – Case Digests Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao | Pastor

A!ICLE "# E$%LI&' (LE )* +E$C' (LE

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG (%** $o* L,-./"01 2ctober -/1 -/""3 FACTS: A44ellee is accused o5 ha6ing illegall7 smo8ed o4ium1 aboard the merchant 6essel Changsa o5 English nationalit7 while said 6essel was anchored in Manila Ba7 two and a hal5 miles 5rom the shores o5 the cit7* !he demurrer

9led

b7

said

a44ellee

alleged

lac8

o5

:urisdiction on the 4art o5 the lower court1 which so held and dismissed the case* rts s o5 the Phili44 44iines ha6 a6e e ISSUE# ;hether the court :urisdiction o6er crime1 li8 li8e e the one herein in6ol6ed1 comm co mmit itte ted d ab aboa oard rd me merrcha chant nt 6es 6esse sels ls an anch chor ored ed in our :urisdiction waters*

HELD# !here are two 5undamental rules on this 4articular matter in connection with International Law< to wit1

the

+rench

rule1

according

to

which

crimes

committed aboard a 5oreign merchant 6essels should not be 4rosecuted in the courts o5 the countr7 within whose territorial :urisdiction the7 were committed1 unless their commission a=ects the 4eace and securit7 o5 the territor7< and the English rule1 based on the territorial

-


4rinci4le and 5ollowed in the (nited &tates1 according to which1 crimes 4er4etrated under such circumstances are in ge gene nera rall tr tria iabl ble e in th the e co cour urts ts o5 th the e co coun untr tr7 7 wit ithi hin n territor7 the7 were committed* 25 this two rules1 it is the last la st on one e th that at ob obta tain ins s in th this is :u :uri risd sdic icti tion on11 be beca caus use e at 4resent the theories and :uris4rudence 4re6ailing in the (nited &tates on this matter are authorit7 in the Phili44ines which is now a territor7 o5 the (nited &tates >we were still a (& territor7 when this was decided in -/""3* ;e ha6e seen that the mere 4ossession o5 o4ium aboard a 5oreign 6essel in transit was held b7 this court not triable b7 or courts1 because it being the 4rimar7 ob:ect o5 our 24ium Law to 4rotect the inhabitants o5 the Phili44ines against the disastrous e=ects entailed b7 the use o5 this drug1 its mere 4ossession in such a shi41 without being used in our territor71 does not being about in the said ter errritor7 those e=e =ec cts that our statu tutte contem4lates a6oiding* 'ence such a mere 4ossession is not considered a disturbance o5 the 4ublic order order** But to smo8e o4ium within our territorial limits1 e6en though aboard a 5oreign merchant shi41 is certainl7 a breach o5 the 4ublic order here established1 because it causes such drug to 4roduce its 4ernicious e=ects within our territor7* It seriousl7 contra6enes the 4ur4ose that our Legislature has in mind in enacting the a5oresaid

"


4rinci4le and 5ollowed in the (nited &tates1 according to which1 crimes 4er4etrated under such circumstances are in ge gene nera rall tr tria iabl ble e in th the e co cour urts ts o5 th the e co coun untr tr7 7 wit ithi hin n territor7 the7 were committed* 25 this two rules1 it is the last la st on one e th that at ob obta tain ins s in th this is :u :uri risd sdic icti tion on11 be beca caus use e at 4resent the theories and :uris4rudence 4re6ailing in the (nited &tates on this matter are authorit7 in the Phili44ines which is now a territor7 o5 the (nited &tates >we were still a (& territor7 when this was decided in -/""3* ;e ha6e seen that the mere 4ossession o5 o4ium aboard a 5oreign 6essel in transit was held b7 this court not triable b7 or courts1 because it being the 4rimar7 ob:ect o5 our 24ium Law to 4rotect the inhabitants o5 the Phili44ines against the disastrous e=ects entailed b7 the use o5 this drug1 its mere 4ossession in such a shi41 without being used in our territor71 does not being about in the said ter errritor7 those e=e =ec cts that our statu tutte contem4lates a6oiding* 'ence such a mere 4ossession is not considered a disturbance o5 the 4ublic order order** But to smo8e o4ium within our territorial limits1 e6en though aboard a 5oreign merchant shi41 is certainl7 a breach o5 the 4ublic order here established1 because it causes such drug to 4roduce its 4ernicious e=ects within our territor7* It seriousl7 contra6enes the 4ur4ose that our Legislature has in mind in enacting the a5oresaid

"


re4 e4rres essi si6e 6e st stat atut ute* e* em eman ande ded d to th the e lo low wer co cour urtt 5o 5orr 5urther 4roceedings in accordance with law* law*

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

US vs. Look Chaw, Dece!e" #$, #%## +act acts# s# &e6e &e6eral ral 4er 4erson sons s >in >inclu cluding ding the int intern ernal, al,re re6en 6enue ue agen ag entt o5 Ce Cebu bu33 we went nt ab aboa oarrd th the e st stea eams mshi hi4 4 Er Errrol olll to ins4ect and search its cargo* !he steamshi4 Erroll is o5 English nationalit7 and it came 5rom 'ong?ong 'ong?ong bound 5or Me@i Me @ico co 6i 6ia a th the e ca call ll 4o 4ort rts s o5 Ma Mani nila la an and d Ceb ebu* u* !h !hes ese e 4ersons who ins4ected and search the steamshi4 5ound sac8s o5 o4ium* !he 9scal 9led 5or unlaw5ul 4ossession o5 o4ium against de5endant,a44ellant Loo8 Chaw* Chaw* !he o4ium seized in the 6essel had been bought b7 the de5endant in 'ong?ong1 at P* 5or each round can and P* P*  5or each o5 the others1 5or the 4ur4ose o5 selling it1 as contraband1 in Me@ico and Puerto de )era Cruz< that




the 6essel arri6ed at Cebu and on the same da7 he sold o4ium* !he de5ense mo6ed 5or a dismissal o5 the case1 on the grou gr ound nds s th that at th the e co cour urtt ha had d no :u :uri risd sdic icti tion on to tr tr7 7 th the e same and the 5acts concerned therein did not constitute a crime* !he lower court ruled that it did not lac8 :urisdiction1 inasmuch as the crime had been committed within its district1 on the whar5 o5 Cebu* !he de5endant de5endan t a44ealed* !he issue to be resol6ed in this t his case is Issue# ;hether or not the Phili44ine courts ha6e :urisdiction 'eld# Fes1 Fes1 the Phili44ine courts ha6e :urisdiction* %# mere 4ossession o5 a thing o5 4rohibited use in these Islands1 Island s1 aboard a 5or 5oreign eign 6essel in trans transit1 it1 in an7 o5 their 4orts1 does $2! constitute a crime triable b7 the courts o5 this countr71 on account o5 such 6essel being considered as an e@tension o5 its own nationalit7 EG# when the article1 whose use is 4rohibited within the Phili44ine Islands1 in the 4resent case a can o5 o4ium1 is

0


landed 5rom the 6essel u4on Phili44ine soil1 thus committing an o4en 6iolation o5 the laws o5 the land with res4ect to which1 as it is a 6iolation o5 the 4enal law in 5orce at the 4lace o5 the commission o5 the crime1 onl7 the court established in that said 4lace itsel5 had com4etent :urisdiction1 in the absence o5 an agreement under an international treat7* Modi9ed b7 reducing the im4risonment and the 9ne im4osed to si@ months and P-1 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

U.S. v. Ah S&', )$ Ph&*. %+ (#%#+C5* +rench 6s* English rule +AC!&# !he de5endant is a sub:ect o5 China em4lo7ed as a 9reman on a steamshi4* !he steamshi4 is a 5oreign steamer which arri6ed the 4ort o5 Cebu on A4ril "1 -/-H1 a5ter a 6o7age direct 5rom the 4ort o5 &aigon* !he de5endant bought eight cans o5 o4ium in &aigon1 brought them on board the steamshi4 and had them in his 4ossession during the tri4 5rom &aigon to Cebu* ;hen the

steamer

anchored

in

the

4ort

o5

Cebu1

the

authorities on ma8ing the search 5ound the cans o5 o4ium hidden in the ashes below the boiler o5 the steamers engine* !he de5endant con5essed that he was




the owner o5 the o4ium and that he had 4urchased it in &aigon* 'e did not con5ess1 howe6er1 as to his 4ur4ose in bu7ing the o4ium* 'e did not sa7 that it was his intention to im4ort the 4rohibited drug* I&&(E# ;hether or not the crime o5 illegal im4ortation o5 o4ium into the Phili44ine Islands has been 4ro6enJ (LI$%# Fes* It is the onus o5 the go6ernment to 4ro6e that the 6essel 5rom which the drug discharged came into Phili44ine waters 5rom a 5oreign countr7 with the drug on board* In this case1 it is to be noted that &ec* 0 o5 Act $o* ".- begins1 An7 4erson who shall unlaw5ull7 im4ort or bring an7 4rohibited drug into the Phili44ine IslandsK Im4ort and bring should be construed as s7non7mous terms* !he mere act o5 going into a 4ort1 without brea8ing bul81 is 4rima 5acie e6idence o5 im4ortation* !he im4ortation is not the ma8ing entr7 o5 goods at the customhouse1 but merel7 the bringing them into the 4ort1 and the im4ortation is com4lete be5ore the entr7 to the customhouse* Moreo6er1 4ossession 5or 4ersonal use is unli8el71 :udging 5rom the size o5 the amount brought* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

A"&c*e ) 


PADILLA vs DI/ON

+AC!& es4ondent 'on* Baltazar * Dizon4resided the criminal case against Lo Chi +ai1 who was caught b7 customs guard at MIA while attem4ting to smuggle 5oreign currenc7 and 5oreign e@change instruments > . 4cs amounting to (&10/*H3 out o5 the countr7*In his decision1 res4ondent :udge acquitted Lo Chi +ai1 sa7ing that Lo Chi +ai had no will5ul intention to 6iolate the law >sec 1 Central Ban8 Circular $o* /*3 'e also directed the release to Lo Chi +ai o5 at least the amount o5 (&1* under Central Ban8 Circular $o* /** Commissioner o5 Customs1 Ale@ander Padilla1 then 9led a com4laint against Baltazar * Dizon 5or rendering erroneous decision due to gross incom4etence and gross ignorance o5 the law* I&&(E# ;hether or not res4ondent Baltazar * Dizon is guilt7 o5 gross incom4etence or gross ignorance o5 the law* * 'ELD#

Fes*

es4ondent

:udge

has

shown

gross

incom4etence or gross ignorance o5 the law in holding that to con6ict the accused 5or 6iolation o5 cebtral ban8 circular no* /1 the 4rosecution must establish that the

H


accused had the criminal intent to 6iolate the law* !he res4ondent :udge ought to 8now that 4roo5 o5 malice or deliberate intent is not essential in o=enses 4unished b7 s4ecial laws1 wNc are mala4rohibita* In requiring 4roo5 o5 malice1 the res4ondent :udge has b7 his gross ignorance allowed the accused to go scot 5ree* 'e ob6iousl7 contri6ed to 5a6or the acquittal o5 the accused1 thereb7 clearl7 negating his claim that he rendered the decision in good 5aith* 'is actuations in the case amount to gra6e misconduct 4re:udicial to the interest o5 sound and 5air administration o5 :ustice* In in6o8ing the 4ro6isions o5 CB $o* // to :usti57 the release o5 (&1* to the accused1 the res4ondent :udge

again

dis4la7ed

incom4etence

and

gross

ignorance o5 the law* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

0&sake o1 Fac Peo2*e vs Oa'&s +acts# Pro6incial Ins4ector recei6ed a telegram that esca4ed con6ict Anselmo Balgtas and Irene must be a44rehended Dead or Ali6e* 'e then instructed Chie5 o5 Police 2anis who 8new a certain Irene to subdue the esca4ed con6ict and so 2anis and others went to the

.


said 4ersonOs house* 2anis and %alanta a44roached a certain BrigadaMallare outside the house1 who told them that Irene was slee4ing with her 4aramour in bedroom* 2anis and %alanta then went to IreneOs room and saw a man slee4ing with his bac8 towards the door and shot him* !hat man turned out to be &era4io!ecson1 IreneOs 4aramour* 2anis%alanta were charged with murder* In their de5ense1 the7 contended that the7 acted in innocent mista8e o5 5a6t in the honest 4er5ormance o5 their oQcial duties* !he lower court held and so declared them guilt7 o5 the crime o5 homicide through rec8less im4rudence* Issue# wNn accused incur no criminal liabilit7 b7 reason o5 mista8e o5 5act uling# $2* Citing the Ah Chong case# Ignorantia+actiE@cusat a44lies onl7 when mista8e is committed wNo 5ault or carelessness* !he7 ha6e e@ceeded in the 5ul9llment o5 their dut7 b7 8illing the 4erson whom the7 belie6ed to be Balagtas without an7 resistance 5rom him and without ma8ing an7

/


4re6ious inquir7 as to his identit7* ;ith !ecson aslee41 accused had am4le time and o44ortunit7 to ascertain his identit7 without hazard to themsel6es1 considering 6ictim was unarmed* !hus his 4etition is denied1 and he is criminall7 liable 5or the murder >wN mc o5 incom4lete :c R3 o5 !ecson ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

UNITED STATES 6s AH CHONG +AC!& Ah Chong wor8ed as a coo8 at the 2QcersO quarters $o* "H1 +ort Mc ?inle71 izal Pro6ince* In a datached house1 onl7 Ah Chong slee4s with

and Pascual %ualberto1 a

muchaho* It was not 5urnished with a 4ermanent loc8* 2 August -01 -/.1 around -Oo cloc8 in the e6ening1 Ah Chong was suddenl7 awa8en because someone had been tr7ing to o4en the room* 2ut o5 5ear1 'e shouted who is there but none re4lied* Instead1 the other 4erson 8e4t on 5orcing his entr7* Ah Chong belie6ed that it was a thie51 and shouted again i5 7ou enter1 I will 8ill 7ouS Again none re4lied* (4on entr71 and out o5 5ear Ah Chong inTicted a wound on the intruderOs stomach with a common 8itchen 8ni5e* A5terwards1 he realized1 that 4erson was his roomate %ualberto* 'e immediatel7

-


called his em4lo7ers and dressed PascualOs wound but he died on the 5ollowing da7* Ah Chong was 4laced under arrest and was charged wN crime o5 assassination* 'e was tried and 5ound guilt7 b7 trial court o5 sim4le homicide* Ah Chong admitted that he 8illed Pascual but insisted that he struc8 the 5atal blow wNout an7 intent to do wrong5ul act*1 in the e@ercise o5 his law5ul right o5 sel5 de5ense* I&&(E# ;hether or not Ah Chong should be e@em4t 5rom criminal liabilit7 b7 reason o5 mista8e as to the 5acts* 'ELD# FE&* !he &u4reme Court held that “A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal blow alleged in the information in the rm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge; that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he

--


acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than

exercising

his

legitimate

right

of

self-

defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge.

3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 A4TICLE 5: P4O6I0ATE CAUSE US V. VALDE/ +AC!&# At about noon1 on $o6ember "/1 -/-/1 while the interisland steamer )igan was anchored in the Pasig i6er1 a small boat was sent out to raise the anchor* !he crew o5 this boat consisted o5 the accused1 Cali@to )aldez 7 Uuiri1 and si@ others among whom was the deceased1 )enancio%argantel* !he accused was in charge o5 the men and stood at the stern o5 the boat1 acting as helmsman1 while )enancio%argantel was at the bow*

-"


!he wor8 raising the anchor seems to ha6e 4roceeded too slowl7 to satis57 the accused1 and he accordingl7 began to insult the men* (4on this )enancio%argantel remonstrated1 sa7ing that it would be better1 and the7 would wor8 better1 i5 he would not insult them* !he accused too8 this as a dis4la7 o5 insubordination< and rising in rage he mo6ed towards )enancio1 with a big 8ni5e1 threatening to stab him* At the instant when the accused had attained to within a 5ew 5eet o5 )enancio1 the latter1 e6identl7 belie6ing himsel5 in great and immediate 4eril1 threw himsel5 into the water and disa44eared beneath its sur5ace to be seen no more* As it was 5ull midda71 and there was nothing to obstruct the 6iew o5 4ersons u4on the scene1 the 5ailure o5 )enancio%argantel to rise to the sur5ace conclusi6el7 shows that1 owing to his 4ossible inabilit7 to swim or the strength o5 the current1 he was borne down into the water and was drowned* I&&(E# ;2$ )aldez was criminall7 res4onsible* (LI$%# FE&* %argantel1 belie6ing himsel5 to be in great and immediate 4eril1 threw himsel5 into the water1 im4elled b7 the instinct o5 sel5 4reser6ation1 )aldez who criminall7 assaulted him b7 threatening to stab him with a big 8ni5e1 is res4onsible 5or homicide*

-


As to the criminal res4onsibilit7 o5 the accused 5or the death thus occasioned the li8ewise can be no doubt< 5or it is ob6ious that the deceased1 in throwing himsel5 in the ri6er1 acted solel7 in obedience to the instinct o5 sel5, 4reser6ation and was in no sense legall7 res4onsible 5or his own death* As to him it was but the e@ercise o5 a choice between two e6ils1 and an7 reasonable 4erson under the same circumstances might ha6e done the same* As was once said b7 a British court1 V I1 a a'

c"eaes &' a'ohe" a'7s &'8 a' &e8&ae se'se o1 8a'8e" wh&ch ca9ses s9ch 2e"so' o " o esca2e, a'8 &' so 8o&' he &';9"&es h&se*1, he 2e"so' who c"eaes s9ch a sae o1 &'8 &s "es2o's&!*e 1o" he &';9"&es wh&ch "es9*. V >eg* 6s* 'allida71 - L* !* e4* W$*&*X1 H-* !he

accused

must1

there5ore1

be

considered

the

res4onsible author o5 the death o5 )enancio%argantel1 and he was 4ro4erl7 con6icted o5 the o=ense o5 homicide* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

P2 v. PU4IFICACIONAL0ONTE &e4tember H1 -/-

%** $o* 

-0


+AC!&# Puri9cation li6ed maritall7 with the Chinaman +eli@ !e &ue who was a married man* A certain MguelaDawal1 with whom +eli@ had also li6ed maritall71 threatened to bring suit against him unless he re:oined her1 and so !e &ue and Puri9cation 6oluntaril7 agreed to se4arate*

+rom that time on !e &ue li6ed in together

with the said MiguelaDawal* 2n the morning o5 2ctober -1 -/1 the accused 6isited her 5ormer 4aramour1 5ound him with Miguela* ;hen !e &ue saw her1 he a44roached and told her to go awa7 at once because her new 4aramour might get :ealous and do her harm* !he accused insisted u4on remaining1 and on being 4ushed b7 !e &ue and Miguela1 5eeling that she was being un:ustl7 treated1 too8 hold o5 a small 4en8ni5e she carried and stabbed the man in the abdomen* 'orri9ed1 4erha4s1 at her deed1 she Ted to the street1 lea6ing the blade stic8ing in her 6ictims abdomen* !he in:ured man was at once ta8en to the 4ro6incial hos4ital where he was gi6en 9rst aid treatment1 and Doctor 2rtega 4er5ormed a slight o4eration u4on him* +rom the testimon7 o5 Dr* 2rtega1

it ma7 be in5erred#

!hat the deceased was stabbed on the le5t side o5 the abdominal region1 near the na6el< that the wound did not in6ol6e an7 internal organ< that u4on arri6ing at the

-


hos4ital1 he was submitted to a minor o4eration which consisted in cleaning1 medicating1 and suturing the wound< that u4on his arri6al1 the 4atient was in a ner6ous state< that during the o4eration the7 tied down the 4atient< that immediatel7 a5ter the o4eration Doctor 2rtega admonished him to 8ee4 quiet because an7 mo6ement he might ma8e would change his 4athological state

5or

the

worse

and

bring

about

dangerous

com4lication< that in s4ite o5 this admonition the deceased mo6ed about1 sitting u4 in bed1 getting u4 and 4acing about the room< that because o5 this1 the internal 6essels1 alread7 congested because o5 the wound1 bled1 and the hemorrhage thus 4roduced caused his death* !he de5ense contends1 with which the Attorne7,%eneral agrees1 that according to Doctor 2rtegas testimon7 the determining cause o5 !e &ues death was not he wound inTicted b7 the accused1 but his own carelessness in mo6ing

about

against

the

doctors

orders1

which

4roduced the internal hemorrhage* I&&(E#

;hether the wound inTicted b7 the accused

would held him liable 5or the crime* (LI$%# FE&*

-


!he court concluded that the internal 6eins were congested 5rom the beginning because o5 the 5orce o5 the blow which 4roduced the wound1 and that what reall7 im4elled the 4atient to 6iolate the doctors orders1 b7 sitting u4 in bed and 4acing about the room1 was not1 as the de5ense insinuates1 a desire to aggra6ate the criminal liabilit7 o5 the accused1 but sim4l7 his ner6ous condition1 which was noted 5rom the moment he entered the 4ro6incial hos4ital* It was not the warmth o5 the bed or his not being used to it that made the 4atient act as he did1 but the 4athological state created b7 the illness brought on b7 the wound 5rom which he was su=ering* !he court was con6inced that under normal conditions1 i5 the 4atient had not been ill1 he would not ha6e 6iolated the doctors orders1 8nowing1 as he did1 that the slightest mo6ement might occasion a com4lication or internal hemorrhage ca4able o5 causing death* !he 4atients ner6ous condition when the com4lication or internal hemorrhage which caused death set in1 was an inherent 4h7siological condition 4roduced b7 the wound in the abdomen* It goes without sa7ing that i5 he had not been wounded he would not ha6e undergone that e@traordinar7 state and condition1 nor ha6e had to lea6e his bed during the critical stage o5 his illness*

-H


Lastly, in United States vs. Zamora (3 !hil., "#$, %he court held that &'ne who erforms a criminal act should be held to liability for the act and for all

of

its

conse)uences,

although

both

were

in*icted uon a erson other than the one whom the felon intended to in+ure.&

'owe6er1 the a44ellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstances o5 not ha6ing intended to commit so serious a crime as that committed1 and o5 ha6ing acted with 4assion and ob5uscation* !he 9rst is shown b7 the 5act that she made use o5 a small 4en8ni5e1 and the second1 b7 the 5act that be5ore the attac8 she had been 4ushed out o5 the room where the 6ictim was1 and that she considered such treatment as an o=ense or abuse* !he 4enalt7 must there5ore be reduced one degree or to 4rision ma7or* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PP v. To*&'($< SC4A #+, =a' #+,#%+>Facs: Antonio !oling and Yose !oling1 twins1 5rom $orthern &amar1 6isited their children in Manila on Yan 1 -/* * 2n their homeward tri41 the twins boarded Bicol E@4ress !rain*

A5ter the train 4assed b7 Cabu7ao1

Laguna1 a murderous ram4age ha44ened allegedl7

-.


caused b7 the twins1 armed with 4air o5 scissors and a 8ni5e* Most o5 the 4assengers scurried awa7 5or sa5et7 but the twins1 who had run amuc81 stabbed e6er7one whom the7 encountered inside the coach* Constabular7 &ergeants )icente Z* a7el and )icente Aldea were among the 4assengers o5 the train who tried to sto4 the twins* C& Aldea was able to sto4 Antonio and wrested the scissors awa7* ;hen the7 arri6ed at Calamba station1 0 C& escorted the twins 5rom the train and turned them o6er to the custod7 o5 the Calamba Police* &ome o5 the 6ictims were 5ound dead in the coach while otherd were 4ic8ed u4 along the railroad trac8s between Cabu7ao Calamba* !oling brothers1 in their statement1 to4d the in6estigators that while in the train the7 were held u4 b7 " or more 4ersons* +iled against !oling brothers in the M!C o5 Cabu7ao1 Laguna was an in5ormation 5or multi4le murder >/ 6ictims3 and multi4le 5rustrated murder>si@ 6ictims3 and tri4le homicide> as to the 4ersons who died 5rom the running train to a6oid being stabbed*

-/


I&&(E# >-3 ;hether the accused were criminall7 liable 5or the deaths* FE&, . se4arate murders and - attem4ted murder >"3 ;hether the accused is criminall7 res4onsible 5or the deaths o5 those who :um4ed 5rom the train* $2 (LI$%# >-3 witnesses con9rmed the admissions o5 the twins that the7 stabbed se6eral 4assengers* 2n the theor7 o5 sel5, de5ense is highl7incredible1 as none o5 the 4assengers noticed the alleged hold u4* Also1 de5ense 5ailed to 4ro6e that 4ersons1 other than the twins1 could ha6e inTicted the stab wounds* >"3 $o one testi9ed that those 0 6ictims :um4ed 5rom the train* 'ad the necro4s7 re4orts been rein5orced b7 testimon7 showing that the 4ro@imate cause o5 their deaths was the 6iolent and murderous conduct o5 the twins1 then the latter would be criminall7 res4onsible 5or their deaths* Absent o5 e7ewitness,testimon7 as to the :um4ing 5rom the train o5 5our 6ictims 4recludes the im4utations o5 criminal res4onsibilit7 to the a44ellants 5or the ghastl7 deaths o5 the said 6ictims*

"


Peo2*e vs O"ea

+AC!&# [

2ctober -1 -//" # 4m# Andre Mar Masang8a7

>courting aquel 2rtega31 Ariel Caranto1 omeo 2rtega1 oberto

&an

Andres1

&ear9n1

Bo7et

and

DiosdadoUuitlong were ha6ing a drin8ing s4ree with gin and 9nger 5oods* [

2ctober -1 -//" --# 4m# Ben:amin 2rtega1 Yr* and

Manuel %arcia who were alread7 dran8 :oined them* [

2ctober -1 -//" midnight# Andre answering a call o5

nature went to the bac8 4ortion o5 the house and Ben:amin 5ollowed him* &uddenl71 the7 heard a shout 5rom

Andre

DonOt1

hel4

meS

>'uwag1

tulungannin7oa8oS3 [

Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Ben:amin on to4 o5

Andre who was l7ing down being stabbed*

Ariel got

Ben:amin 2rtega1 &r*1 Ben:aminOs 5ather while Diosdado called omeo to 4aci57 his brother* omeo1 Ben:amin and Manuel li5ted Andre 5rom the canal and dro44ed him in the well* !he7 dro44ed stones to AndreOs bod7 to weigh the bod7 down*

omeo warned Diosdado not to tell

an7bod7 what he saw* 'e agreed so he was allowed to go home* But1 his conscience bothered him so he told

"-


his mother1 re4orted it to the 4olice and accom4anied them to the crime scene* [ o

$BI Medico Legal 2Qcer Dr* Ludi6ico Y* Lagat# cause o5 death is drowning with multi4le stab

wounds1 contributor7 o o

- stab wounds stab wound on the u44er le5t shoulder1 near the

u44er le5t arm4it and le5t chest wall, 5ront o

stab wound on the bac8 le5t side o5 the bod7 and the

stab wound on the bac8 right 4ortion o5 the bod7 – bac8 [ o

Manuel %arcia alibi 'e was as8ed to go home b7 his wi5e to 5etched his

mother,in,law who 4er5ormed a ritual called tawas on his sic8 daughter and sta7ed home a5ter [ o

Ben:amin 2rtega1 Yr* stor7 A5ter Masang8a7 le5t1 he le5t to urinate and he saw

Andre 4ee8ing through the room o5 his sister aquel* !hen1 Andre a44roached him to as8 where his sister was* ;hen he answered he didnOt 8now1 Andre 4unched him so he bled and 5ell to the ground* Andre drew a 8ni5e and

""


stabbed him1 hitting him on the le5t arm1 thereb7 immobilizing him* Andre then gri44ed his nec8 with his le5t arm and threatened to 8ill him* 2rtega shouted 5or hel4*

(nable to mo6e1

Uuitlong came1 seized the

8ni5e and stabbed Andre - times with it* Andre then ran towards the direction o5 the well* !hen1 he tended his wound in the li4s and arm4it and sle4t* [

!C# Ben:amin and Manuel through cons4irac7 and

the ta8ing ad6antage o5 su4erior strength committed murder

I&&(E# ;N$ Ben:amin and Manuel should be liable 5or murder*

'ELD# $2* PA!LF %A$!ED* Ben:amin is guilt7 onl7 o5 homicide* Manuel deser6es acquittal [

I5 2rtegaOs 6ersion o5 the assault was true1 he should

ha6e immediatel7 re4orted the matter to the 4olice authorities* I5 2rtegaOs 6ersion o5 the assault was true1 he should ha6e immediatel7 re4orted the matter to the 4olice authorities* It is incredible that Diosdado would stab Andre - times successi6el71 com4letel7 ignoring

"


Ben:amin who was gra44ling with Masang8a7 and that Andre was cho8ing him while being stabbed* [

Abuse o5 su4erior strength requires deliberate intent

on the 4art o5 the accused to ta8e ad6antage o5 such su4eriorit7 – none shown o

Andre was a ,5ooter1 whereas 2rtega1 Yr* was onl7

O0 [

Article 01 4ar* -1 o5 the e6ised Penal Code states

that criminal liabilit7 shall be incurred b7 an7 4erson committing a 5elon7 >delito3 although the wrong5ul act done be di=erent 5rom that which he intended* o -*

!he essential requisites the intended act is 5elonious – assisting Ben:amin b7

carr7ing the bod7 to the well "*

the resulting act is li8ewise a 5elon7 , concealing

the bod7 o5 the crime to 4re6ent its disco6er7 *

the unintended albeit gra6er wrong was 4rimaril7

caused b7 the actorOs wrong5ul acts >4raeterintentionem3 – still ali6e and was drowned to death [

a 4erson ma7 be con6icted o5 homicide although he

had no original intent to 8ill

"0


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

U"!a'o v. IAC +acts# 2n 2ctober "1 -/.1 4etitioner +ilomeno(rbano was on his wa7 to his rice9eld* 'e 5ound the 4lace where he stored 4ala7 Tooded with water coming 5rom the irrigation canal* (rbano went to the ele6ated 4ortion to see what ha44ened1 and there he saw Marcelino Ya6ier and Emilio E5re cutting grass* Ya6ier admitted that he was the one who o4ened the canal* A quarrel ensued1 and (rbano hit Ya6ier on the right 4alm with his bolo1 and again on the leg with the bac8 o5 the bolo* 2n 2ctober "H1 -/.1 (rbano and Ya6ier had an amicable settlement* (rbano 4aid PH 5or the medical e@4enses o5 Ya6ier* 2n $o6ember -01 -/.1 (rbano was rushed to the hos4ital where he had loc8:aw and con6ulsions* !he doctor 5ound the condition to be caused b7 tetanus to@in which in5ected the healing wound in his 4alm* 'e died the 5ollowing da7* (rbano was charged with homicide and was 5ound guilt7 both b7 the trial court and on a44eal b7 the Court o5 A44eals* (rbano 9led a motion 5or new trial based on the aQda6it o5 the Baranga7 Ca4tain who

"


stated that he saw the deceased catching 9sh in the shallow irrigation canals on $o6ember * !he motion was denied< hence1 this 4etition* Issue# ;hether the wound inTicted b7 (rbano to Ya6ier was the 4ro@imate cause o5 the latterOs death 'eld# A satis5actor7 de9nition o5 4ro@imate cause is*** Vthat cause1 which1 in natural and continuous sequence1 unbro8en b7 an7 eQcient inter6ening cause1 4roduces the in:ur71 and without which the result would not ha6e occurred*VAnd more com4rehensi6el71 Vthe 4ro@imate legal cause is that acting 9rst and 4roducing the in:ur71 either immediatel7 or b7 setting other e6ents in motion1 all constituting a natural and continuous chain o5 e6ents1 each

ha6ing

a

close

causal

connection

with

its

immediate 4redecessor1 the 9nal e6ent in the chain immediatel7 e=ecting the in:ur7 as a natural and 4robable result o5 the cause which 9rst acted1 under such circumstances that the 4erson res4onsible 5or the 9rst

e6ent

should1

as

an

ordinaril7

4rudent

and

intelligent 4erson1 ha6e reasonable ground to e@4ect at

"


the moment o5 his act or de5ault that an in:ur7 to some 4erson might 4robabl7 result there5rom*V I5 the wound o5 Ya6ier inTicted b7 the a44ellant was alread7 in5ected b7 tetanus germs at the time1 it is more medicall7 4robable that Ya6ier should ha6e been in5ected with onl7 a mild cause o5 tetanus because the s7m4toms o5 tetanus a44eared on the ""nd da7a5ter the hac8ing incident or more than -0 da7s a5ter the inTiction o5 the wound* !here5ore1 the onset time should ha6e been more than si@ da7s* Ya6ier1 howe6er1 died on the second da7 5rom theonset time* !he more credible conclusion is that at the time Ya6iers wound was inTicted b7 the a44ellant1 the se6ere 5orm o5 tetanus that 8illed him was not 7et 4resent* Consequentl71 Ya6iers wound could ha6e been in5ected with tetanus a5ter the hac8ing incident*

Considering

the

circumstance

surrounding

Ya6iers death1 his wound could ha6e been in5ected b7 tetanus " or  or a 5ew but not " to "" da7s be5ore he died* !he rule is that the death o5 the 6ictim must be the direct1 natural1 and logical consequence o5 the wounds inTicted u4on him b7 the accused* And since we are dealing with a criminal con6iction1 the 4roo5 that the accused caused the 6ictims death must con6ince a

"H


rati ra tiona onall mi mind nd be be7o 7ond nd rea eason sonab able le do doubt ubt** !h !he e me medi dica call 9ndings1 howe6er1 lead us to a distinct 4ossibilit7 that the in5ection o5 the wound b7 tetanus was an eQcient inter6ening cause later or between the time Ya6ier was wounded to the time o5 his death* !he in5ection was1 there5ore1 there5or e1 distinct and 5oreign to the crime* !here is a li8 li8elihood elihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent in5ection1 5or 5ailure to ta8e necessar7 4recautions1 with tetanus ma7 ha6e been the 4ro@imate cause o5 Ya6iers death with which the 4etitioner had nothing to do* VA 4rior and remote cause cannot be made the be o5 an action i5 such remote cause did nothing more than 5urnish the condition or gi6e rise to the occasion b7 which the in:ur7 was made 4ossible1 i5 there inter6ened between such 4rior or remote cause and an d th the e in in:u :ur7 r7 a di dist stin inct ct11 su succ cces essi si6e 6e11 un unrrel elat ated ed11 an and d eQcient cause o5 the in:ur71 e6en though such in:ur7 wou ould ld not ha ha6e 6e ha ha44 44en ened ed bu butt 5o 5orr su such ch con ondi dittio ion n or occasion* I5 no danger e@isted in the condition e@ce4t because o5 the inde4endent cause1 such condition was not the 4ro@imate cause* And i5 an inde4endent negligent act or de5ecti6e condition sets into o4eration the instances which result in in:ur7 because o5 the 4rior de5ecti6e condition1 such subsequent act or condition is the 4ro@imate cause*V

".


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, PE2PLE 6 ABACA% $o* H00 +AC!& ?hingsle7 Paul ?oh and the wi5e o5 accused +rancisco Abarca1

Yenn71

had

illicit

relationshi4*

!he

illicit

relationshi4 a44arentl7 began while the accused was in Manila re6iewing 5or the -/. Bar e@aminations and his wi5e was le5t behind in their residence in !acloban* 2ne da71 u4on reaching home 5rom his 5atherOs house1 the accused 5ound Yenn7 and ?hingsle7 ?oh in the act o5 se@ual intercourse* Yenn7 and ?oh noticed the accused1 the wi5e 4u 4us shed ?oh who got his re6ol6er and the accus use ed who was then 4ee4 e4iing ab abo o6e the built,in cabinet in their room :um4ed and ran awa7* !he accused went to loo8 5or a 9rearm at !acloban Cit7 and got an M,- riTe 5rom C"C Arturo !albo1 %oing bac81 he 4r 4roc ocee eede ded d to th the e Vm Vmah ah:o :ong ng se sess ssio ionV nV an and d 9r 9red ed at ?ingsle7 ?oh three times with his riTe* Arnold and Lina Am4arado who were occu47ing a room ad:acent to the room where ?oh was 4la7ing mah:ong were also hit b7 the shots 9red b7 the accu cus sed* ?i ?in ngsl sle e7 ?oh died instantaneousl7 o5 cardiores4irator7 arrest due to shoc8 and hemorrhage as a result o5 multi4le gunshot wounds

"/


on the head1 trun8 and abdomen* Arnold Am4arado was hos4italized and o4erated on in the 8idne7 to remo6e a bullet* 'is wi5e1 Lina Am4arado1 was also treated in the hos4ital as she was hit b7 bullet 5ragments* !he court 5ound him guilt7 o5 the com4le@ crime o5 murder with double 5rustrated murder murder** I&&(E ;het ;h ethe herr or no nott Ab Abar arca ca sh shou ould ld be gu guil ilt7 t7 o5 th the e cr crim ime e charged to him

'ELD $o** Article "0H o5 the PC must be a44lied in the instan $o instantt case* A! A !* "0 "0H* H* De Deat ath h or 4h 4h7s 7sic ical al in in:u :uri ries es in inTi Tict cted ed un unde derr e@ce4tional circumstances* circumstances* \ An7 legall7 married 4erson who1

ha6ing

sur4rised

hi s

s4ouse

in

the

act

o5

committing se@ual intercourse with another 4erson1 shall 8ill an7 o5 them or both o5 them in the act or immediatel7 therea5ter1 or shall inTict u4on them an7 seri rio ous 4h 4h7 7sical in:ur7 r711 shall su=e =err the 4ena nallt7 o5 destierro*




I5 he shall inTict u4on them 4h7sical in:uries o5 an7 other 8ind1 he shall be e@ e@em4t em4t 5rom 4unishment* !hese rules shall be a44licable1 under circumstances1

to

4arents

with

res4ect

the same to

their

dau da ugh ghtter ers s under eight hte een 7ea earrs o5 age1 and th the eir sedu se duce cers rs11 wh whil ile e th the e da daug ught hter ers s are li6 i6in ing g wit ith h th thei eirr 4arents* An7 4erson who shall 4romote or 5acilitate 4rostitution o5 his wi5e or daughter1 or shall otherwise ha6e consented to the in9delit7 o5 the other s4ouse shall not be entitled to the bene9ts o5 this article* Article "0H 4rescribes the 5ollowing elements# >-3 that a legall7 married 4erson sur4rises his s4ouse in the act o5 committing se@ual intercourse with another 4erson< and >"3 that he 8ills an7 o5 them or both o5 them in the act or immediatel7 therea5ter* !hese elements are 4resent in this case* !hough quite a length o5 time1 about one hour1 had 4assed between the time the accused,a44ellant disco6ered his wi5e ha6ing se@ual intercourse with the 6ictim and the time the latter was actuall7 shot1 the shooting must be understood to

-


be the continuation o5 the 4ursuit o5 the 6ictim b7 the accused,a44ellant* !he e6ised Penal Code1 in requiring that the accused Vshall 8ill an7 o5 them or both o5 them * * * immediatel7V a5ter sur4rising his s4ouse in the act o5 intercourse1 does not sa7 that he should commit the 8illing instantl7 therea5ter* It onl7 requires that the death caused be the 4ro@imate result o5 the outrage o6erwhelming the accused a5ter chancing u4on his s4ouse in the basest act o5 in9delit7* But the 8illing should ha6e been actuall7 moti6ated b7 the same blind im4ulse1 and must not ha6e been inTuenced b7 e@ternal 5actors* !he 8illing must be the direct b7,4roduct o5 the accuseds rage* ;hen it comes to the liabilit7 o5 the accused,a44ellant 5or the in:uries su=ered b7 Lina Am4arado and Arnold Am4arado1 we cannot there5ore hold the accused liable* !his does not mean1 howe6er1 that the accused, a44ellant is totall7 5ree 5rom an7 res4onsibilit7* %ranting the 5act that he was not 4er5orming an illegal act when he 9red shots at the 6ictim1 he cannot be said to be entirel7 without 5ault* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"


PEOPLE V ULEP >%** $o* L,..Yune "1 -/..3

+AC!&# 2n Ma7 "-1 -/H1 at nine ocloc8 in the e6ening1 in &an $icolas1 Ilocos $orte1 one Asuncion Pablo (le4 died as a result o5 4h7sical in:uries inTicted u4on her on that 6er7 da7 b7 her husband1 accused Macario(le4* !he 5ollowing da71 the Chie5 o5 Police o5 &an $icolas1 Ilocos $orte recei6ed a re4ort o5 the said death o5 Asuncion Pablo who allegedl7 died o5 a heart attac8* !he Chie5 o5 Police and the ural 'ealth 2Qcer went to the house o5 the deceased and there the7 saw the bod7 on a bamboo bed surrounded b7 relati6es1 5riends1 and the husband o5 the deceased1 Macario* !he Chie5 o5 Police suggested that an auto4s7 be conducted but the husband re5used to allow the same* 'owe6er1 the daughter o5 the deceased b7 a 4re6ious marriage as8ed 5or a da7 or two to decide on her 4re5erence* At the behest o5 the daughter1 the request 5or an auto4s7 was made shortl7 be5ore the burial* !wo wee8s a5ter the burial1 two >"3 constabular7 sergeants in6estigated Macario(le4* A statement was 4re4ared and signed b7 the accuse* In this statement1 he admitted that he caused the death o5 his wi5e b7 elbowing her because his wi5e was then drun8 and was uttering indecent words* In another in6estigation1 (l4eOs




statement subscribed to be5ore +iscal Aba7a1 reiterated that the cause o5 death o5 his wi5e1 Asuncion Pablo1 was his elbowing her on her breast* (le4 narrated that this elbowing and attac8 too8 4lace at their home at # in the a5ternoon* &he 6omitted and then went to bed1 !he accused then le5t 5or the 9elds and returned at around /# in the e6ening and 5ound his wi5e dead on her bed* 'e re4orted this death to their barrio ca4tain* Des4ite these statements1 admitting his guilt1 (le4 retracted his statement in court b7 narrating that more than a 7ear be5ore that1 and while his wi5e went to ha6e their 4ala7 milled1 their bullcart loaded with sac8s o5 rice turned u4side down and 4inned his wi5e on her breast* ;ith the 4ain in her chest1 she was treated b7 a countr7 quac8 doctor or Varbular7o*V I&&(E# ;2$ (le4 caused the death o5 his wi5e1 thus committing Parride (LI$%# FE&* +rom all the obser6ations1 9ndings1 and an incisi6e stud7 o5 the necro4s7 re4ort1 the cause o5 death o5 the wi5e,6ictim in this case is cardiac arrest and 4rimar7 shoc8 caused b7 the strong 4ressure a44lied on the u44er 5ront chest bone* !his ha44ens when one

0


ste4s1 8neels or 4resses the bod7 o5 a 6ictim against a wall* !he man,size blows coming 5rom the elbow o5 the aggressor u4on a thin,5ramed woman can onl7 bring about 5atal results* In the case o5 eg* 6* &lane1 et al*1 the deceased had recei6ed in:uries to the abdomen b7 8ic8 and blows1 but there were no mar8s o5 bruises 4resent1 or an7thing to show the cause o5 death* Death howe6er1 had 5ollowed twent7

minutes

a5ter

the

maltreatment

and

was

e6identl7 due to the shoc8* !he 4risoners were con6icted o5 murder* ;e ha6e 4re6iousl7 stated that# E6en i5 the 6ictim is su=ering 5rom an internal ailment1 li6er or heart disease1 or tuberculosis1 i5 the blow deli6ered b7 the accused \ >a3is the eQcient cause o5 death< or >b3accelerated his death< or >c3is the 4ro@imate cause o5 death< then there is criminal liabilit7* A4ro4os to all these is that time,res4ected doctrine# V'e who is the cause o5 the cause is the cause o5 the e6il caused*V !his is the rationale in Article 0 o5 the e6ised Penal Code which 4ro6ides that Vcriminal liabilit7 shall be incurred b7 a 4erson committing a 5elon7 >delito3




although the wrong5ul act done be di=erent 5rom that which he intended*V E6en though a blow with the 9st or a 8ic8 does not cause an7 e@ternal wound1 it ma7 easil7 4roduce inTammation o5 the s4leen and 4eritonitis and cause death1 and e6en though the 6ictim ma7 ha6e been 4re6iousl7 a=ected b7 some internal malad71 7et i5 the blow with the 9st or 5oot accelerated death1 he who caused such acceleration is res4onsible 5or the death as the result o5 an in:ur7 will5ull7 and unlaw5ull7 inTicted* Accused was 5ound guilt7* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, PP v.

?&'8o (A99s <, #%)#2n Ma7 1 -/1 in a tuba winesho4 in barrio mar8et o5 Calunod1 Misamis 2ccidental1 Donato Bindo7 o=ered some tuba to !iba71 +austino Pacas wi5e* &he re5used and Bindo7 threatened to in:ure her i5 she did not acce4t* Pacas ste44ed in to de5end his wi5e and attem4ted to ta8e awa7 5rom Bindo7 the bolo he carried* !he disturbance

attracted

the

attention

o5

Emigdio

2mamdam* In the course o5 the struggle1 Bindo7 succeeded in disengaging himsel5 5rom Pacas1 wrenching the bolo 5rom the latters hand1 with such 6iolence that




the 4oint o5 the bolo reached 2mamdams chest1 who was then behind Bindo7* !he trial court held that Bindo7 was guilt7 o5 the crime o5 homicide* Bindo7 a44ealed1 alleging that the death o5 2mamdam was caused accidentall7 and without malicious intent* I&&(E# ;2$ the crime o5 which Bindo7 was 5ound guilt7 o5 can be mitigated on the ground o5 accident* 'ELD# Fes* Decision is re6ersed* Bindo7 is acquitted according to Article .1 $o* . o5 the Penal Code >cant 9nd the 4ro6ision3 A!I2# -* !here is no e6idence to show that Bindo7 deliberatel7 and intentionall7 8illed 2mamdam* [ $o e6idence that 2mamdam too8 4art in the 9ght between Bindo7 and Pacas* [ $o e6idence that Bindo7 was

aware

o5

2mamdams 4resence* [ $o e6idence that there was disagreement or ill 5eelings between Bindo72mamdam* 2n the contrar71 the7 were ne4hew  uncle1  were on good terms with each other* "* !he witness 5or the de5ense corroborates the de5endant to the e=ect that Pacas and Bindo7 were actuall7 struggling 5or the 4ossession o5 the bolo1 and

H


that when the latter let go1 the 5ormer had 4ulled so 6iolentl7 that it Tew towards 2mamdam1 who was there5ore hit in the chest1 without Bindo7s seeing him1 because

2mamdam

had

4assed

behind

him*

!he

testimon7 o5 this witness was not contradicted b7 an7 rebuttal e6idence adduced b7 the 9scal* * I51 in the struggle1 the de5endant had attem4ted to wound his o44onent1 and instead o5 doing so1 had wounded 2mamdam1 he would be liable 5or his act1 since whoe6er will5ull7 commits a 5elon7 or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liabilit71 although the wrong5ul act done is di=erent 5rom that which he intended* !his is not the case here* Bindo7 did not tr7 to wound Pacas* 'e was onl7 tr7ing to de5end his 4ossession o5 the bolo1 which Pacas was tr7ing to wrench awa7 5rom him* 'is conduct was 4er5ectl7 law5ul* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, auses that roduce a dierent result

PEOPLE V GONA (0ANSACA(G.4. No. )<@$$, >5 Ph&*. $@> 0a"ch #>, #%@)+AC!&# >Pantu8an1 Da6ao1 -/".3 During a 5amil7 reunion o5 the Mansacas1 a quarrel too8 4lace between Dunca and the de5endant %ona* Dunca and his son

.


e6entuall7 le5t the house and were 5ollowed b7 Ma4udul and one Award* %ona also le5t to 5ollow them1 but in the dar8ness o5 the e6ening and in his into@icated condition1 %ona mistoo8 Ma4udul 5or Dunca and inTicated on him a mortal wound with a bolo* %ona was charged 5or homicide be5ore the C+I Da6ao* 'owe6er1 his attorne7 argues that he had no intention to 8ill the deceased and committed the crime b7 mista8e1 thus1 he should ha6e been 5ound guilt7 o5 homicide through negligence onl7 and not o5 the gra6er crime o5 intentional homicide* I&&(E# ;2$ the mista8e o5 8illing another 4erson than the one intended relie6es %ona 5rom the gra6er crime o5 intentional homicide* 'ELD# $o* In this case o5 (nited &tates 6s* Mendieta >0 Phil*1 "0"31 the court said# E6en admitting that the de5endant intended to in:ure 'ilario Lauigan instead o5 Pedro Acierto1 e6en that1 in 6iew o5 the mortal wound which inTicted u4on the latter1 in no wa7 could be considered as a relie5 5rom his criminal act* !hat he made a mista8e in 8illing one man instead o5 another1 when it is 4ro6ed that he acted maliciousl7 and will5ull71 cannot relie6e him 5rom criminal res4onsibilit7* $either do we belie6e that the 5act that he made a mista8e in 8illing the wrong man should be considered as a mitigating circumstances*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3333333333333333 PP v. 0a!93a /


+acts# !he accused and Yuana Buralo was sweethearts* Yuana had been :ealous o5 the accused on account o5 the latter ha6ing 5requentl7 6isited the house o5 one Carmen* !heir relations were such that the accused in6ited Yuana to ta8e a wal8 on the a5ternoon o5 August /1 -/"* Yuana re5used him1 later sending him a note o5 e@cuse* 2n the third da71 or the night o5 August --th1 the accused went to the threshold o5 Cirilo Ban7ans house where Yuana Buralo had gone to ta8e 4art in some de6otion* !here the accused1 re6ol6er in hand1 requested +rancisco Abellon to as8 Yuana to come downstairs and as Abellon re5used to do so1 the accused said# VI5 7ou do not want to go u4stairs1 I will get Yuana and i5 an7one tries to de5end her I will 8ill him*V !he accused waited until Yuana and her niece Per5ecta Buralo came downstairs1 when the7 went in the direction o5 their house* !he accused1 who was seen b7 the two girls1 5ollowed them without sa7ing a word* It is onl7 a short distance 5rom the house where the de6otion too8 4lace to that o5 the o=ended 4art71 the houses being ad:acent* As the two girls were going u4stairs1 the accused1 while standing at the 5oot o5 the stairwa71 9red a shot 5rom his re6ol6er which wounded Per5ecta Buralo1 the bullet 4assing through a 4art o5 her nec81 ha6ing entered the 4osterior region thereo5 and coming out through the le5t e7e1 which was com4letel7 destro7ed* Due to 4ro4er medical attention1 Per5ecta Buralo did not die and is on e o5 the witnesses who testi9ed at the trial o5 this case*

0


!he de5ense1 without abandoning its allegation that the accused is not res4onsible 5or the crime1 contends that the crime 4ro6en is not 5rustrated murder but the discharge o5 a 9rearm1 with in:uries1 it not ha6ing been 4ro6en that it was the accuseds intention to 8ill* !he relations e@isting between the accused and Yuana Buralo1 his disa44ointment at her not acce4ting his in6itation to ta8e a wal81 the 5act that the accused1 re6ol6er in hand1 went to loo8 5or Yuana Buralo at the house where the de6otion was being held1 later 5ollowing her to her house1 and es4eciall7 ha6ing aimed at her 4erson,,the head,,are 5acts which1 in our o4inion1 4ermit o5 no other conclusion than that1 in 9ring the shot1 it was the accuseds intention to 8ill* Issue# ;hether or not the accused is guilt7 o5 5rustrated murder 'eld# Fes* In the decision o5 this court in the case o5 (nited &tates 6s* Montenegro >- Phil*1 -31 it was held# ;e do not doubt that there ma7 be cases wherein the discharge o5 a 9rearm at another is not in itsel5 suQcient to sustain a 9nding o5 the intention to 8ill1 and there are man7 cases in the boo8s wherein the attendant circumstances conclusi6el7 establish that on discharging a 9rearm at another the actor was not in 5act animated b7 the intent to 8ill* But1 in see8ing to ascertain the intention with which a s4eci9c act is committed1 it is alwa7s 4ro4er and necessar7 to loo8 not merel7 to the act itsel5 but to all the attendant circumstances so 5ar as

0-


the7 are de6elo4ed b7 the e6idence< and where1 as in the case at bar1 a re6ol6er is twice discharged 4oint, blan8 at the bod7 o5 another1 and the shots directed at the most 6ital 4arts o5 the bod71 it needs but little additional e6idence to establish the intent to 8ill be7ond a reasonable doubt* !he 5act that a 4erson recei6ed the shot which was intended 5or another1 does not alter his criminal liabilit7* >Art* -1 4ar* 1 Penal Code*3 It was aggra6ated b7 the circumstance o5 treacher7*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3333333333333333 PP v. Caoco +acts# 2n Yul7 "01 -/"1 Fu Lon and Fu Fee1 5ather and son1 sto44ed total on the sidewal8* ;hile the7 were tal8ing1 a man 4assed bac8 and 5orth behind Fu Lon once or twice1 and when Fu Fee was about to lea6e his 5ather1 the man that had been 4assing bac8 and 5orth >+rancisco Cagoco3 a44roached Fu Lon 5rom behind and suddenl7 and without warning struc8 Fu Lon with his 9st on the bac8 4art o5 the head* Cagoco immediatel7 ran awa7* Fu Fee and two other witnesses 4ursued him and then lost sight o5 him* !he blow caused Fu Lon to 5all on the ground* As a consequence o5 which he su=ered a lacerated wound on the scal4 and a 9ssured 5racture on the le5t occi4ital region which were necessaril7 mortal and caused his immediate death* !he ne@t da71 Fu Fee 4rom4tl7 re4orted the incident to the 4olice* Cagoco was later

0"


a44rehended and identi9ed b7 Fu Fee as his 5ather]s assailant* Issue#;hether or not the accused is guilt7 o5 murder* 'eld#Fes* As to the contention that the deceased would ha6e 5allen on his 5ace i5 he had been struc8 on the bac8 o5 the head1 the e@4ert testimon7 shows that in such a case1 a 4erson instincti6el7 ma8es an e=ort to regain his balance* As a result1 the deceased ma7 ha6e 5allen downwards* +urther1 the sidewal8s almost in6ariabl7 slo4 towards the 4a6ement so that when the deceased straightened u41 he naturall7 tended to 5all bac8wards* !he accused struc8 the deceased on the bac8 o5 the head because it would ha6e been necessar7 5or him to go between the deceased and Fu Fee who were then con6ersing* In order that a 4erson ma7 be criminall7 liable 5or 5elon7 di=erent 5rom that which he 4ro4osed to commit1 these two requisites should be 4resent# -* that a 5elon7 was committed "* !hat the wrong done to the aggrie6ed 4erson be the direct consequence o5 the crime committed b7 the o=ender* In the case at bar1 there is nothing to indicate that Fu Lon]s death was due to some e@traneous case* It was clearl7 the direct consequence o5 the accused]s 5elonious act and the 5act that he did not intend to cause so great an in:ur7 does not relie6e him 5rom the consequence o5

0


his unlaw5ul act1 but is merel7 a mitigating circumstance* &ince the accused committed the 5elon7 with treacher71 he is guilt7 o5 murder*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3333333333333333 PP v. ?&'8o +acts# &AME I&&(E# ;2$ Bindo7 should be held liable 5or the death o5 2mamdam* 'ELD# $o* Decision is re6ersed* Bindo7 is acquitted according to Article .1 $o* . o5 the Penal Code >cant 9nd the 4ro6ision3 A!I2# -*!here is no e6idence to show that Bindo7 deliberatel7 and intentionall7 8illed 2mamdam* [ $o e6idence that 2mamdam too8 4art in the 9ght between Bindo7 and Pacas* [ $o e6idence that Bindo7 was aware o5 2mamdams 4resence* [ $o e6idence that there was disagreement or ill 5eelings between Bindo72mamdam* 2n the contrar71 the7 were ne4hew  uncle1  were on good terms with each other* "* !he witness 5or the de5ense corroborates the de5endant to the e=ect that Pacas and Bindo7 were actuall7 struggling 5or the 4ossession o5 the bolo1 and

00


that when the latter let go1 the 5ormer had 4ulled so 6iolentl7 that it Tew towards 2mamdam1 who was there5ore hit in the chest1 without Bindo7s seeing him1 because 2mamdam had 4assed behind him* !he testimon7 o5 this witness was not contradicted b7 an7 rebuttal e6idence adduced b7 the 9scal* * I51 in the struggle1 the de5endant had attem4ted to wound his o44onent1 and instead o5 doing so1 had wounded 2mamdam1 he would be liable 5or his act1 since whoe6er will5ull7 commits a 5elon7 or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liabilit71 although the wrong5ul act done is di=erent 5rom that which he intended* !his is not the case here* Bindo7 did not tr7 to wound Pacas* 'e was onl7 tr7ing to de5end his 4ossession o5 the bolo1 which Pacas was tr7ing to wrench awa7 5rom him* 'is conduct was 4er5ectl7 law5ul*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3333333333333333 I2oss&!*e C"&e INTOD, e. a*. V CA. %** $o* ---/2ctober "-1 -//" +acts# &ul4icio Intod and  other men went to &al6ador Manda7aOs house to as8 him to go with them to the house o5 BernardinaPalang4angan* !he grou4 had a meeting with AnicetoDumalagan who told Manda7a that he wanted Palang4angan to be 8illed because o5 a land dis4ute between them and that Manda7a should

0


accom4an7 the 0 men otherwise he would also be 8illed* At -# 4*m* o5 that same da71 Intod and com4anions1 all armed with 9rearms arri6ed at Palang4anganOs house* !herea5ter1 4etitioner 9red at the said room* It turned out the Palang4angan was in another cit7 and her home was then occu4ied b7 her son,in,law and his 5amil7* $o one was in the room when the accused 9red* $o one was hit b7 the gun9re* !he !C con6icted Intod o5 attem4ted murder* Petitioner Intod see8s a modi9cation o5 the :udgment on the ground that he is onl7 liable 5or an im4ossible crime ^Art* 0>"3_* Petitioner contends that1 Palang4angans absence 5rom her room on the night he and his com4anions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherentl7 im4ossible* 2n the other hand1 es4ondent Peo4le o5 the Phili44ines argues that the crime was not im4ossible instead the 5acts were suQcient to constitute an attem4t and to con6ict Intod 5or attem4ted murder* es4ondent li8ewise alleged that there was intent* +urther1 In its Comment to the Petition1 res4ondent 4ointed out that @@@* !he crime o5 murder was not consummated1 not because o5 the inherent im4ossibilit7 o5 its accom4lishment >Art 0 >"31 PC31 but due to a cause o5 accident other that 4etitionerOs and his co,accusedOs own s4ontaneous desistance >Art* 3 Palang4angan did not slee4 at her house at that time* 'ad it not been 5or this 5act1 the crime is 4ossible1 m not im4ossible* Issue# Is 4etitioner is liable onl7 5or an im4ossible crimeJ 'eld#(nder Article 0>"3 o5 the PC1 the act 4er5ormed b7 theo=ender cannot 4roduce an o=ense against 4erson or 4ro4ert7 because# -3 the commission o5 the o=ense is inherentl7 im4ossible o5 accom4lishment< or "3 the

0


means em4lo7ed ine=ectual*

is

either

a3

inadequate

or

b3

!o be im4ossible under this clause1 the act intended b7 the o=ender must be b7 its nature one im4ossible o5 accom4lishment* !here must be either -3 legal im4ossibilit71 or "3 4h7sical im4ossibilit7 o5 accom4lishing the intended act in order to quali57 the act as an im4ossible crime*

Legal im4ossibilit7 occurs where the intended act1 e6en i5 com4lete would not amount to a crime* !hus# legal im4ossibilit7 would a44l7 to those circumstances where -3 the moti6e1 desire and e@4ectation is to 4er5orm an act in 6iolation o5 the law< "3 there is intention to 4er5orm the 4h7sical act< 3 there is a 4er5ormance o5 the intended 4h7sical act< and 03 the consequence resulting 5rom the intended act does not amount to a crime* !he im4ossibilit7 o5 8illing a 4erson alread7 dead 5alls in this categor7* 2n the other had1 5actual im4ossibilit7 occurs when e@traneous circumstances un8nown to the actor or be7ond his control 4re6ent the consummation o5 the intended crime* 2ne e@am4le is the man who 4uts his hand in the cot 4oc8et o5 another with the intention to steal the latterOs wallet and 9nds the 4oc8et em4t7* !he case at bar belongs to this categor7* Petitioner shoots the 4lace where he thought his 6ictim would be1 although in realit71 the 6ictim was not 4resent in said

0H


4lace and thus1 the 4etitioner 5ailed to accom4lish his end* !he 5actual situation in the case at bar 4resents a 4h7sical im4ossibilit7 which render the intended crime im4ossible o5 accom4lishment* And under Article 01 4aragra4h " o5 the e6ised Penal Code1 such is suQcient to ma8e the act an im4ossible crime*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3333333333333333 PP v. Doas&a' (0a"ch #, #%%)+AC!&# [ March --1 -/." morning# ;hile Enrico was wal8ing with !irso +erreras1 his classmate1 along oque street in the 4oblacion o5 Lo4ez1 Uuezon1 he was a44roached b7 Pablito Domasian who requested his assistance in getting his 5athers signature on a medical certi9cate* Enrico agreed to hel4 and rode with the man in a tric7cle to Calanti4a7an1 where he waited outside while the man went into a building to get the certi9cate* Enrico became a44rehensi6e and started to cr7 when1 instead o5 ta8ing him to the hos4ital1 the man Tagged a minibus and 5orced him inside1 holding him 9rml7 all the while* !he man told him to sto4 cr7ing or he would not be returned to his 5ather* ;hen the7 alighted at %umaca1 the7 too8 another tric7cle1 this time bound 5or the munici4al building 5rom where the7 wal8ed to the mar8et* 'ere the man tal8ed to a :ee4ne7 dri6er and handed him an en6elo4e addressed to Dr* Enrique Agra1 the bo7s 5ather* !he two then boarded a tric7cle headed 5or &an )icente*

0.


As Enrico was cr7ing and being 9rml7 held1 Ale@ander %rate1 the tric7cle dri6er became sus4icious and as8ed Domasian about his relationshi4 with the bo7 who told him the7 were brothers* !heir 4h7sical di=erences and the wide ga4 between their ages made %rate doubt so he immediatel7 re4orted the matter to two baranga7 tanods when his 4assengers alighted 5rom the tric7cle* %rate and the tanods went a5ter the two and saw the man dragging the bo7* $oticing that the7 were being 4ursued1 Domasian was able to esca4e1 lea6ing Enrico behind* Enrico was on his wa7 home in a 4assenger :ee4 when he met his 4arents1 who were riding in the hos4ital ambulance and alread7 loo8ing 5or him* [ At about -#0 in the a5ternoon o5 the same da71 a5ter Enricos return1 Agra recei6ed an en6elo4e containing a ransom note* !he note demanded P- million 5or the release o5 Enrico and warned that otherwise the bo7 would be 8illed* Agra thought the handwriting in the note was 5amiliar* A5ter com4aring it with some records in the hos4ital1 he ga6e the note to the 4olice1 which re5erred it to the $BI 5or e@amination [ March --1 -/." -#0 4m# Agra recei6ed an en6elo4e containing a ransom note demanding P- million otherwise Enrico will be 8illed* * Agra thought the handwriting in the note was 5amiliar so he re5erred it to the $BI 5or e@amination and it turned out to be Dr* &amson !anOs signature* [ Domasian and !an were subsequentl7 charged with the crime o5 8idna44ing with serious illegal detention in the egional !rial Court o5 Uuezon

0/


o DomasianOs alibi# at the time o5 the incident he was watching a mah:ong game in a 5riends house and later went to an o4tical clinic with his wi5e 5or the re5raction o5 his e7eglasses o

Dr* !anOs alibi# he was in Manila

[ Enrico1 !irso +erreras and %rate all 4ointed Domasian* [ !C# Domasian and !an guilt7 as charged and sentenced them to su=er the 4enalt7 o5 reclusion 4er4etua and all accessor7 4enalties [

A44ealed

I&&(E# ;N$ Domasian and !an is guilt7 o5 8idna44ing 8idna44ing with serious illegal detention 'ELD# FE&* a44ealed decision is A++IMED [ Art* "H* ?idna44ing and serious illegal detention ma7 consist not onl7 in 4lacing a 4erson in an enclosure but also in detaining him or de4ri6ing him in an7 manner o5 his libert7 [ !an claims that the lower court erred in not 9nding that the sending o5 the ransom note was an im4ossible crime which he sa7s is not 4unishable* [ !an con6enientl7 5orgets the 9rst 4aragra4hs o5 the same article1 which clearl7 a44lies to him1 thus# Art* 0* Criminal liabilit7* \ Criminal liabilit7 shall be incurred#




-* B7 an7 4erson committing a 5elon7 >delito3 although the wrong5ul act done be di=erent 5rom that which he intended* [ E6en be5ore the ransom note was recei6ed1 the crime o5 8idna44ing with serious illegal detention had alread7 been committed* !he act cannot be considered an im4ossible crime because there was no inherent im4robabilit7 o5 its accom4lishment or the em4lo7ment o5 inadequate or ine=ecti6e means* !he sending o5 the ransom note would ha6e had the e=ect onl7 o5 increasing the 4enalt7 to death under the last 4aragra4h o5 Article "H although this too would not ha6e been 4ossible under the new Constitution* [ 2n the issue o5 cons4irac71 we note 9rst that it e@ists when two or more 4ersons come to an agreement concerning the commission o5 a 5elon7 and decide to commit it1 whether the7 act through 4h7sical 6olition o5 one or all1 4roceeding se6erall7 or collecti6el7* !hese acts were com4lementar7 to each other and geared toward the attainment o5 the common ultimate ob:ecti6e1 6iz*1 to e@tort the ransom o5 P- million in e@change 5or Enricos li5e* [ !he moti6e 5or the o=ense is not diQcult to disco6er* According to Agra1 !an a44roached him  da7s be5ore the incident ha44ened and requested a loan o5 at least P-1** Agra said he had no 5unds at that moment and !an did not belie6e him1 angril7 sa7ing that Agra could e6en raise a million 4esos i5 he reall7 wanted to hel4*

-


333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3 =ac&'o v. PP ( =9* #), <@@%-

+AC!&#Bab7 Aquino handed 4etitioner %emma Yacinto a Banco De 2ro >BD23 Chec8 in the amount o5 P-1* as 4a7ment 5or the 4urchases 5rom Mega +oam Intl*1 Inc*1 and 4etitioner was then the collector o5 Mega+oam* &omehow1 the chec8 was de4osited in the Land Ban8 account o5 %eneroso Ca4itle1 the husband o5 Yacqueline Ca4itle< the latter is the sister o5 4etitioner* Later1 owena icablanca1 another em4lo7ee o5 Mega +oam1 recei6ed a 4hone call 5rom an em4lo7ee o5 Land Ban81who in5ormed her that the sub:ect BD2 chec8 de4osited in %eneroso Ca4itleOs account had been dishonored* icablanca called Anita )alencia1 a 5ormer em4lo7eeNcollector o5 Mega +oam* )alencia told icablanca that the chec8 came 5rom Bab7 Aquino1 and instructed icablanca to as8 Bab7 Aquino to re4lace the chec8 with cash* )alencia also told icablanca o5 a 4lan to ta8e the cash and di6ide it equall7 into 5our# 5or hersel51 icablanca1 4etitioner Yacinto and Yacqueline Ca4itle* icablanca1 u4on the ad6ise o5 Mega +oamOs accountant1 re4orted the matter to the owner o5 Mega +oam1 Yose4h D7hengco*!herea5ter1 Yose4h D7hengco tal8ed to Bab7 Aquino and was able to con9rm the BD2 chec8 5or P-1* as 4a7ment 5or her 4urchases 5rom Mega +oam* Bab7 Aquino 5urther testi9ed that 4etitioner Yacinto also called her on the 4hone to tell her that the BD2 chec8 bounced* )eri9cation 5rom com4an7 records

"


showed that 4etitioner ne6er remitted the sub:ect chec8 to Mega +oam* 'owe6er1 Bab7Aquino said that she had alread7 4aid Mega +oam P-1* cash as re4lacement 5or the dishonored chec8* D7hengco 9led a Com4laint with the $ational Bureau o5 In6estigation >$BI3 and wor8ed out an entra4ment o4eration with its agents* !en 4ieces o5 P-1* bills 4ro6ided b7 D7hengco were mar8ed and dusted with, Tuorescent 4owder b7 the $BI* !herea5ter1 the bills were gi6en to icablanca1 who was tas8ed to 4retend that she was going along with )alencias* 2n August "-1 "H1 the 4etitioners were arrested at Bab7 AquinoOs 5actor7 b7 $BI agents through entra4ment o4eration* Petitioners >Yacinto1 )alencia  Ca4itle were 5ound guilt7 i5 quali9ed the5t* I&&(E#;hether the crime o5 quali9ed the5t was actuall7 4roduced* 'ELD# $o* CA decision is modi9ed* Petitioner %emma :acinto is 5ound guilt7 o5 IMP2&&IBLE CIME* In this case14etitioner 4er5ormed all the acts to consummate the crime o5 quali9ed the5t* !he thing unlaw5ull7 ta8en b7 4etitioner turned out to be absolutel7 worthless1 because the chec8 was e6entuall7 dishonored1 and Mega +oam had recei6ed the cash to re4lace the 6alue o5 said dishonored chec8* equisites o5 im4ossible crime#




-*!hat the act would be an o=ense against 4ersons or 4ro4ert7< "*!hat the act was done with e6il intent< and *!hat its accom4lishment was inherentl7 im4ossible1 or the means em4lo7ed was either inadequate or ine=ectual* !here must be either >-3 Legal im4ossibilit71 or >"3 4h7sical im4ossibilit7 o5 accom4lishing the intended act in order to quali57 the act as an im4ossible crime* &ince the crime o5 the5t is not a continuing o=ense1 4etitioners act o5 recei6ing the cash re4lacement should not be considered as a continuation o5 the the5t* !he 4lan to con6ince Bab7 Aquino to gi6e cash as re4lacement 5or the chec8 was hatched onl7 a5ter the chec8 had been dishonored b7 the drawee ban8* &ince said scheme was not included or co6ered b7 the allegations in the in5ormation1 the Court cannot 4ronounce :udgment on the accused1 otherwise1 it would 6iolate the due 4rocess clause o5 the Constitution* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, rt. / onsumated0 1rustrated0 ttemted Stages

PEOPLE v PANCHO (G.4. #)$>%<3%)5#$ SC4A >@$, Nove!e" <+, <@@)+AC!&# Pancho was charged 5or " criminal com4laints1 5or ra4e1 the other 5or attem4ted ra4e* In both cases1 his

0


6ictim was his --,7ear old ste4,daughter* 'e was charged guilt7 in the ra4e case* 'owe6er1 in the case 5or attem4ted ra4e1 he contended that it was not su44orted b7 e6idence* !hus1 the trial 4roduced the 5ollowing testimon7# A# ;hen he was coming near me1 I hit him and I saw that our door was o4ened* I tried to :um4 and that was the time he dragged and he held m7 5eet* U# And what ha44ened a5ter Manolito Pancho held 7our 5eetJ A# ;hen he was holding m7 5eet I was not able to :um4 5rom the window and thats the time the door o4ened and then I saw m7 uncle that is wh7 the ra4e was not committed* I&&(E# ;2$ there was attem4ted ra4eJ 'ELD# $2* (nder Art* 1 in relation to Art* 1 o5 the e6ised Penal Code1 ra4e is attem4ted when the o=ender commences the commission o5 ra4e directl7 b7 o6ert acts1 but does not 4er5orm all the acts o5 e@ecution which should 4roduce the crime o5 ra4e b7 reason o5 some cause or accident other than his own s4ontaneous desistance* !here is no attem4ted ra4e in this case because the accused :ust dragged the 6ictim and held her 5eet1 which are not indicati6e o5 an intent or attem4t to ra4e the 6ictim* !he 4rosecution 5ailed to 4ro6e that a44ellant started to ra4e the 6ictim and had commenced the 4er5ormance o5 acts o5 carnal 8nowledge* 'e did not 5orce her to lie down or remo6e her garment* In short1 there was no




showing that he did commence at all the 4er5ormance o5 an7 act indicati6e o5 an intent or attem4t to ra4e the 6ictim* ;hat he did was to drag her and hold her 5eet* At this :uncture1 we cannot sa5el7 conclude that he was attem4ting to ra4e her* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PP v. Laaha' +acts# At earl7 dawn on March "1 -/1 4oliceman Yose !omambing1 who was 4atrolling his beat on Delgado and C** +uentes streets o5 the Cit7 o5 Iloilo1 caught the accused in the act o5 ma8ing an o4ening with an iron bar on the wall o5 a store o5 chea4 goods located on the last named street* At that time the owner o5 the store1 !an Fu1 was slee4ing inside with another Chinaman* !he accused had onl7 succeeded in brea8ing one board and in un5astening another 5rom the wall1 when the 4oliceman showed u41 who instantl7 arrested him and 4laced him under custod7* Issue# ;hether or not the accused is liable 5or attem4ted robber7 'eld# $o* In 6iew o5 the 5oregoing1 we are o5 the o4inion1 and so hold that the 5act under consideration does not constitute attem4ted robber7 but attem4ted tres4ass to dwelling >Peo4le 6s* !a7ag and Morales1 / Phil*1 1 and decisions o5 the &u4reme Court o5 &4ain therein cited3* (nder article ". o5 the e6ised Penal Code1 this o=ense is committed when a 4ri6ate 4erson shall enter the dwelling o5 another against the latters will* !he




accused ma7 be con6icted and sentenced 5or an attem4t to commit this o=ense in accordance with the e6idence and the 5ollowing allegation contained in the in5ormation# V*** the accused armed with an iron bar 5orced the wall o5 said store b7 brea8ing a board and un5astening another 5or the 4ur4ose o5 entering said store *** and that the accused did not succeed in entering the store due to the 4resence o5 the 4oliceman on beat Yose !omambing1 who u4on hearing the noise 4roduced b7 the brea8ing o5 the wall1 4rom4tl7 a44roached the accused *** *V (nder the circumstances o5 this case the 4rohibition o5 the owner or inmate is 4resumed* >(*&* 6s* 2strea1 " Phil*1 /< (*&* 6s* &il6ano1 - Phil*1 / (*&* 6s* !icson1 " Phil*1 H< (*&* 6s* Mesina1 "- Phil*1 -< (*&* 6s* )illanue6a1 -. Phil*1 "-< (*&* 6s* Panes1 " Phil*1 "/"*3 Against the accused must be ta8en into consideration the aggra6ating circumstances o5 nighttime and 5ormer con6ictions1 \ inasmuch as the record shows that se6eral 9nal :udgments 5or robber7 and the5t ha6e been rendered against him \ and in his 5a6or1 the mitigating circumstance o5 lac8 o5 instruction* !he brea8ing o5 the wall should not be ta8en into consideration as an aggra6ating circumstance inasmuch as this is the 6er7 5act which in this case constitutes the o=ense o5 attem4ted tres4ass to dwelling* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Va*e'9e*a vs Peo2*e +AC!&# [ Aristotel )alenzuela and Yo67 Calderon were sighted outside the &u4er &ale Club1 a su4ermar8et within the

H


&hoeMart >&M3 com4le@ along $orth ED&A1 b7 Lorenzo Lago1 a securit7 guard who was then manning his 4ost at the o4en 4ar8ing area o5 the su4ermar8et* Lago saw )alenzuela1 who was wearing an ID with the mar8 ecei6ing Dis4atching (nit >D(3 who hauled a 4ush cart with cases o5 detergent o5 !ide brand and unloaded them in an o4en 4ar8ing s4ace1 where Calderon was waiting* 'e then returned inside the su4ermar8et and emerged  minutes a5ter with more cartons o5 !ide (ltramatic and again unloaded these bo@es to the same area in the o4en 4ar8ing s4ace* !herea5ter1 he le5t the 4ar8ing area and haled a ta@i* 'e boarded the cab and directed it towards the 4ar8ing s4ace where Calderon was waiting* Calderon loaded the cartons o5 !ide (ltramatic inside the ta@i1 then boarded the 6ehicle* As Lago watched1 he 4roceeded to sto4 the ta@i as it was lea6ing the o4en 4ar8ing area and as8ed )alenzuela 5or a recei4t o5 the merchandise but )alenzuela and Calderon reacted b7 Teeing on 5oot* Lago 9red a warning shot to alert his 5ellow securit7 guards* )alenzuela and Calderon were a44rehended at the scene and the stolen merchandise reco6ered worth P-"1/* [ )alenzuela1 Calderon and 0 other 4ersons were 9rst brought to the &M securit7 oQce be5ore the7 were trans5erred to the Baler &tation II o5 the Phili44ine $ational Police but onl7 )alenzuela and Calderon were charged with the5t b7 the Assistant Cit7 Prosecutor* [

!he7 4leaded not guilt7*

[ CalderonOs Alibi# 2n the a5ternoon o5 the incident1 he was at the &u4er &ale Club to withdraw 5rom his A!M

.


account1 accom4anied b7 his neighbor1 Leoncioosulada* As the queue 5or the A!M was long1 he and osulada decided to bu7 snac8s inside the su4ermar8et* ;hile the7 were eating1 the7 heard the gunshot 9red b7 Lago1 so the7 went out to chec8 what was trans4iring and when the7 did1 the7 were suddenl7 grabbed b7 a securit7 guard [ )alenzuelaOs Alibi# 'e is em4lo7ed as a bundler o5 %M& Mar8eting and assigned at the su4ermar8et* 'e and his cousin1 a %regorio )alenzuela1 had been at the 4ar8ing lot1 wal8ing beside the nearb7 BLI&& com4le@ and headed to ride a tric7cle going to Pag,asa1 when the7 saw the securit7 guard Lago 9re a shot causing e6r7on to start running* !hen the7 were a44rehended b7 Lago* [

!C# guilt7 o5 consummated the5t

[ CA# Con9rmed !C and re:ected his contention that it should onl7 be 5rustrated the5t since at the time he was a44rehended1 he was ne6er 4laced in a 4osition to 5reel7 dis4ose o5 the articles stolen* I&&(E# ;N$ )alenzuela should be guilt7 o5 consummated the5t* 'ELD# FE&* [ Article  de9nes those three stages1 namel7 the consummated1 5rustrated and attem4ted 5elonies* o A 5elon7 is consummated when all the elements necessar7 5or its e@ecution and accom4lishment are 4resent*

/


o It is 5rustrated when the o=ender 4er5orms all the acts o5 e@ecution which would 4roduce the 5elon7 as a consequence but which1 ne6ertheless1 do not 4roduce it b7 reason o5 causes inde4endent o5 the will o5 the 4er4etrator* o It is attem4ted when the o=ender commences the commission o5 a 5elon7 directl7 b7 o6ert acts1 and does not 4er5orm all the acts o5 e@ecution which should 4roduce the 5elon7 b7 reason o5 some cause or accident other than his own s4ontaneous desistance* [

Each 5elon7 under the e6ised Penal Code has a#

o sub:ecti6e 4hase , 4ortion o5 the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission o5 the crime and the last act 4er5ormed b7 the o=ender which1 with 4rior acts1 should result in the consummated crime i5 the o55ender ne6er 4asses the sub:ecti6e 4hase o5 the o=ense1 the crime is merel7 attem4ted 

o ob:ecti6e 4hase , A5ter that 4oint o5 sub:ecti6e 4hase has been breached sub:ecti6e 4hase is com4letel7 4assed in case o5 5rustrated crimes 

[ the determination o5 whether a crime is 5rustrated or consummated necessitates an initial concession that all o5 the acts o5 e@ecution ha6e been 4er5ormed b7 the o=ender




[ !he determination o5 whether the 5elon7 was 4roduced a5ter all the acts o5 e@ecution had been 4er5ormed hinges on the 4articular statutor7 de9nition o5 the 5elon7* [ actus non 5acitreum1 nisi mens sit rea , ordinaril71 e6il intent must unite with an unlaw5ul act 5or there to be a crime or there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting [ In crimes mala in se1 mensrea has been de9ned be5ore as a guilt7 mind1 a guilt7 or wrong5ul 4ur4ose or criminal intent and essential 5or criminal liabilit7* [ &tatutor7 de9nition o5 our mala in se crimes must be able to su44l7 what the mensrea o5 the crime is and o6ert acts that constitute the crime [ Article . o5 the e6ised Penal Code >Elements o5 !he5t3# -* that there be ta8ing o5 4ersonal 4ro4ert7 , onl7 one o4erati6e act o5 e@ecution b7 the actor in6ol6ed in the5t "*

4ro4ert7 belongs to another

* ta8ing be done with intent to gain , descri4ti6e circumstances 0* ta8ing be done without the consent o5 the owner , descri4ti6e circumstances * ta8ing be accom4lished without the use o5 6iolence against or intimidation o5 4ersons or 5orce u4on things , descri4ti6e circumstances

-


[

Abandoned cases#

o (*&* 6* Adiao# 5ailed to get the merchandise out o5 the Custom 'ouse , consummated the5t o Di`o# Militar7 Police ins4ected the truc8 at the chec8 4oint and 5ound  bo@es o5 arm7 riTes , 5rustrated the5t o +lores# guards disco6ered that the em4t7 sea 6an had actuall7 contained other merchandise as well , consummated the5t o Em4elis 6* IAC# +led the scene1 dro44ing the coconuts the7 had seized , 5rustrated quali9ed the5t because 4etitioners were not able to 4er5orm all the acts o5 e@ecution which should ha6e 4roduced the 5elon7 as a consequence cannot attribute weight because de5inition is attem4ted 

[ !he abilit7 o5 the actor to 5reel7 dis4ose o5 the articles stolen1 e6en i5 it were onl7 momentar7* o ;e are satis9ed be7ond reasonable doubt that the ta8ing b7 the 4etitioner was com4leted in this case* ;ith intent to gain1 he acquired 4h7sical 4ossession o5 the stolen cases o5 detergent 5or a considerable 4eriod o5 time that he was able to dro4 these o= at a s4ot in the 4ar8ing lot1 and long enough to load these onto a ta@icab* [ Article . o5 the e6ised Penal Code1 the5t cannot ha6e a 5rustrated stage* !he5t can onl7 be attem4ted >no

"


unlaw5ul ta8ing3 or consummated >there is unlaw5ul ta8ing3* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PEOPLE V. E4IBA >@ Ph&*. %% (#%<+- +acts# In -/"H1 Yulian Erinia was 5ound guilt7 o5 ra4ing a child aged  7ears and -- months* A doctor who e@amined the girl hours a5ter the incident 5ound slight inTammation on the e@terior o5 the 6agina1 but e@4ressed doubt whether the mans 4enis had entered the 6agina* !he mother also testi9ed that a stic87 substance co6ered her childs genitals1 but 4enetration could not be concluded 5rom this 1 either* Issue# ;2$ crime is consummatedJ 'ELD# $o* !he &u4reme court held that the crime was in the +rustrated stage onl7 because# -* it is not 4ossible 5or a manOs organ to enter the labia o5 a  7ears and . months old child >?enned7 6* &tate3< and "* there was no conclusi6e e6idence o5 4enetration* !he &u4reme Court ruled that Erinia was entitled to the bene9t o5 the doubt due to the lac8 o5 conclusi6e e6idence o5 4enetration* !he 6erdict was modi9ed 5rom consummated ra4e to 5rustrated ra4e* Yustice Malcolm wrote a dissenting o4inion1 citing similar 4ast cases* 'e o4ined that it was consummated ra4e1




5ollowing 4ast cases where the ti4 o5 the mans 4enis had entered the li4s o5 the childs 6agina* In the same 6erdict1 Yustice 2strand also em4hasized that 4enetration is not essential to the commission o5 ra4e* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PP v. O"&a +AC!&# [ March "1 -/. Earl7 Morning# Cristina &* Aba7an1 -/,7ear old 5reshman student at the &t* Yose4hs College1 arri6ed at her boarding house a5ter her classmates brought her home 5rom a 4art7* &he 8noc8ed at the door o5 her boarding house when a 5requent 6isitor o5 another boarder held her and 4o8ed a 8ni5e to her nec8* Des4ite 4leading 5or her release1 he ordered her to go u4stairs with him* &ince the door which led to the -st Toor was loc8ed 5rom the inside1 the7 used the bac8 door to the second Toor* ;ith his le5t arm wra44ed around her nec8 and his right hand 4o8ing a VbalisongV to her nec81 he dragged her u4 the stairs* ;hen the7 reached the second Toor1 he commanded herwith the 8ni5e 4o8ed at her nec81 to loo8 5or a room* !he7 entered Aba7ans room* 'e then 4ushed her hitting her head on the wall* ;ith one hand holding the 8ni5e1 he undressed himsel5* 'e then ordered her to ta8e o= her clothes* &cared1 she too8 o= her !,shirt1 bra1 4ants and 4ant7* 'e ordered her to lie down on the Toor and then mounted her* 'e made her hold his 4enis and insert it in her 6agina* &till 4o8ed with a 8ni5e1 she did as told but since she 8e4t mo6ing1

0


onl7 a 4ortion o5 his 4enis entered her* 'e then laid down on his bac8 and commanded her to mount him* &till onl7 a small 4art o5 his 4enis was inserted into her 6agina* ;hen he had both his hands Tat on the Toor* &he dashed out to the ne@t room and loc8ed hersel5 in* ;hen he 4ursued her and climbed the 4artition1 she ran to another room then another then she :um4ed out through a window* [ &till na8ed1 she darted to the munici4al building1 -. meters in 5ront o5 the boarding house and 8noc8ed on the door* ;hen there was no answer1 she ran around the building and 8noc8ed on the bac8 door* ;hen the 4olicemen who were inside the building o4ened the door1 the7 5ound her na8ed sitting on the stairs cr7ing* Pat* Donceras1 too8 o= his :ac8et and wra44ed it around her* Pat* Donceras and two other 4olicemen rushed to the boarding house where the7 heard and saw somebod7 running awa7 but 5ailed to a44rehend him due to dar8ness* &he was ta8en to Eastern &amar Pro6incial 'os4ital where she was 4h7sicall7 e@amined* [

'er 6ul6a had no abrasions or discharges*

[

!C# 5rustrated ra4e

I&&(E# ;N$ there is 5rustrated ra4e* 'ELD# $2* !C M2DI+IED* guilt7 be7ond reasonable doubt o5 the crime o5 ra4e and sentenced to reclusion 4er4etua as well as to indemni57 the 6ictim in the amount o5 P1




[ Correlating Art*  and Art* 1 there is no debate that the attem4ted and consummated stages a44l7 to the crime o5 ra4e* [

equisites o5 a 5rustrated 5elon7 are#

o >-3 that the o=ender has 4er5ormed all the acts o5 e@ecution which would 4roduce the 5elon7 o >"3 that the 5elon7 is not 4roduced due to causes inde4endent o5 the 4er4etrators will [ attem4ted crime the 4ur4ose o5 the o=ender must be thwarted b7 a 5oreign 5orce or agenc7 which inter6enes and com4els him to sto4 4rior to the moment when he has 4er5ormed all o5 the acts which should 4roduce the crime as a consequence1 which acts it is his intention to 4er5orm o I5 he has 4er5ormed all o5 the acts which should result in the consummation o5 the crime and 6oluntaril7 desists 5rom 4roceeding 5urther1 it can not be an attem4t* [ in the crime o5 ra4e1 5rom the moment the o=ender has carnal 8nowledge o5 his 6ictim he actuall7 attains his 4ur4ose and1 5rom that moment also all the essential elements o5 the o=ense ha6e been accom4lished* An7 4enetration o5 the 5emale organ b7 the male organ is suQcient* Entr7 o5 the labia or li4s o5 the 5emale organ1 without ru4ture o5 the h7men or laceration o5 the 6agina is suQcient to warrant con6iction* $ecessaril71 ra4e is attem4ted i5 there is no 4enetration o5 the 5emale organ




[ !he 5act is that in a 4rosecution 5or ra4e1 the accused ma7 be con6icted e6en on the sole basis o5 the 6ictims testimon7 i5 credible* Dr* Zamora did not rule out 4enetration o5 the genital organ o5 the 6ictim* ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, rt. # onsiracy- Levels of onsiracy

Fe"'a' =". e. A* v. Peo2*e ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2%L4 "5 6 '1147S4S 7'% SU894% %' %:4 !2';S'7S '1 %:4 '<4

GO3TAN V. TAN G.4. No. #$>< +AC!&# &harica >4etitioner3 and &te6en !an are married with " daughters* Petitioner 9led a Petition with Pra7er 5or the Issuance o5 a !em4orar7 Protecti6e 2rder >!P23 against &te6en and her 4arents,in,law1 alleging that &te6en1 in cons4irac7 with her 4arents in law1 were causing 6erbal1 4s7chological and economic abuses u4on her in 6iolation o5 &ection  o5 *A* $o* /""1 otherwise 8nown as the Anti,)iolence Against ;omen and !heir Children Act o5 "0* es4ondents contended that the !C lac8ed :urisdiction o6er their 4ersons since1 as 4arents,in,law o5 the 4etitioner1 the7 were not co6ered b7 &ec  o5 the said law which e@4licitl7 4ro6ides that the o=ender should be

H


related to the 6ictim onl7 b7 marriage1 a 5ormer marriage1 or a dating or se@ual relationshi4 Petitioner argued that res4ondents were co6ered b7 *A* $o* /"" under a liberal inter4retation thereo5 aimed at 4romoting the 4rotection and sa5et7 o5 6ictims o5 6iolence* *A* $o* /"" must be understood in the light o5 the 4ro6isions o5 &ection 0H o5 *A* $o* /"" which e@4licitl7 4ro6ides 5or the su44letor7 PC and1 accordingl71 the 4ro6ision on cons4irac7 under Article . o5 the PC can be su44letoril7 a44lied to *A* $o* /"" I&&(E# ;2$ *A $o* /"" ma7 be liberall7 inter4reted to include the 4arents,in,law as an ]o=ender*O 'ELD# Fes* ;hile &ection  o5 *A* $o* /"" 4ro6ides that the o=ender be related or connected to the 6ictim b7 marriage1 5ormer marriage1 or a se@ual or dating relationshi41 it does not 4reclude the a44lication o5 the 4rinci4le o5 cons4irac7 under the PC* Indeed1 &ection 0H o5 *A* $o* /"" e@4ressl7 4ro6ides 5or the su44letor7 a44lication o5 the PC1 thus# &EC* 0H* &u44letor7 A44lication* , +or 4ur4oses o5 this Act1 the e6ised Penal Code and other a44licable laws1 shall ha6e su44letor7 a44lication* Parentheticall71 Article - o5 the PC 4ro6ides# A!* -* 2=enses not sub:ect to the 4ro6isions o5 this Code* 2=enses which are or in the 5uture ma7 be 4unishable under s4ecial laws are not sub:ect to the 4ro6isions o5 this Code* !his Code shall be

.


su44lementar7 to such laws1 unless the latter should s4eciall7 4ro6ide the contrar7* 'ence1 legal 4rinci4les de6elo4ed 5rom the Penal Code ma7 be a44lied in a su44lementar7 ca4acit7 to crimes 4unished under s4ecial laws1 such as *A* $o* /""1 in which the s4ecial law is silent on a 4articular matter* ;ith more reason1 there5ore1 the 4rinci4le o5 cons4irac7 under Article . o5 the PC ma7 be a44lied su44letoril7 to *A* $o* /"" because o5 the e@4ress 4ro6ision o5 &ection 0H that the PC shall be su44lementar7 to said law*!hus1 general 4ro6isions o5 the PC1 which b7 their nature1 are necessaril7 a44licable1 ma7 be a44lied su44letoril7* !hus1 the 4rinci4le o5 cons4irac7 ma7 be a44lied to *A* $o* /""* +or once cons4irac7 or action in concert to achie6e a criminal design is shown1 the act o5 one is the act o5 all the cons4irators1 and the 4recise e@tent or modalit7 o5 4artici4ation o5 each o5 them becomes secondar71 since all the cons4irators are 4rinci4als

A!ICLE -C* &!A!E 2+ $ECE&&I!F

T V PEOPLE W%** $o* -0/"H* &e4tember "H1 "0X

/


!7s mother and her sister were con9ned at the Manila Doctors 'os4ital 5or almost " 7ears* &ince the bill reached -1H1/"*/1 !7 drew H PDCs co6ering 8 each

against Metroban8

4a7able

to

the

hos4ital*

'owe6er1 the7 were all dishonored due to insuQcienc7 o5 5unds*

&oon therea5ter1 the com4lainant hos4ital 9led

H counts o5 6iolation o5 B*P ""*

+or her de5ense1 !7

claimed that she issued the chec8s because o5 an uncontrollable 5ear o5 a greater in:ur7* &he a6erred that she was 5orced to issue the chec8s to obtain release 5or her mother whom the hos4ital inhumanel7 and harshl7 treated and would not discharge unless the hos4ital bills are 4aid* &he alleged that her mother was de4ri6ed o5 room 5acilities1 such as the air,condition unit1 re5rigerator and tele6ision set1 and sub:ect to incon6eniences such as the cutting o= o5 the tele4hone line1 late deli6er7 o5 her mothers 5ood and re5usal to change the latters gown and bedsheets* !he hos4ital also sus4ended medical treatment o5 her mother*

ISSUE:

;2$ the :usti57ing circumstance o5 state o5

necessit7 under 4ar* 01 Art* -- o5 the e6ised Penal Code ma7 9nd a44lication in this case*

HELD: $o* !he law 4rescribes the 4resence o5 three requisites to e@em4t the actor 5rom liabilit7 under this

H


4aragra4h# >-3 that the e6il sought to be a6oided actuall7 e@ists< >"3 that the in:ur7 5eared be greater than the one done to a6oid it< >3 that there be no other 4ractical and less harm5ul means o5 4re6enting it* In the instant case1 the e6il sought to be a6oided is merel7 e@4ected or antici4ated1 thus1 the de5ense is not a44licable*

!7 could ha6e ta8en ad6antage o5 an

a6ailable o4tion to a6oid committing a crime* B7 her own admission1 she had the choice to gi6e :ewelr7 or other 5orms o5 securit7 instead o5 4ostdated chec8s to secure her obligation* Moreo6er1 5or the de5ense o5 state o5 necessit7 to be a6ailing1 the greater in:ur7 5eared should not ha6e been brought about b7 the negligence or im4rudence1 more so1 the will5ul inaction o5 the actor* In this case1 the issuance o5 the bounced chec8s was brought about b7 !7s own 5ailure to 4a7 her motherOs hos4ital bills* A!ICLE -"

PEOPLE V. CO4TE/ANO  CO4TE/ANO W%** $o* -0H"* Yanuar7 "/1 ""X

H-


FACTS: Lourne7 Cortezano had  children1 one o5

whom was Leah who was still . 7ears old at that time* &he le5t her  children to the care o5 her 4arents,in,law who were li6ing under the same roo5 with their children1 accused , Yoel >-31 Butcho7 >-"31 !inggang >31 and their ne4hew Bo7et >3* Earl7 in the a5ternoon o5 Ma7 1 -//1 Yoel and Bernardo ordered their niece Leah to slee4 in their 4arents room* Yoel threatened to whi4 her i5 she re5used* &he was wo8en u4 b7 her uncles Yoel and Butcho7 who were undressing her< she struggled as the7 ra4ed her* ;hen Bo7et arri6ed1 Yoel and Bernardo ordered him to ra4e

Leah and threatened

to bo@

him i5

he

re5used* Yoel and Bernardo laughed as Bo7et was ha6ing his turn with Leah* Yoel and Bernardo then called Leah Lou and Lionel into the room1 letting them see their sister na8ed* Yoel and Bernardo threatened to 8ill her and the members o5 the 5amil7 i5 she told an7one about what ha44ened to her* Petri9ed1 Leah did not re6eal to her grand4arents what ha44ened to her* A5ter that 9rst harrowing incident1 Yoel and Bernardo sub:ected her to

H"


se@ual abuse dail7* Yoel and Bernardo were charged with 0 counts o5 ra4e*

ISSUE: ;2$ the Yoel and Bernardo1 being minors1 -" and - 7ears o5 age1 res4ecti6el71 should be e@em4t 5rom criminal liabilit7*

HELD: $2* !he7 are not e@em4t 5rom criminal liabilit7* Article -"* >3 !he 5ollowing are e@em4t 5rom criminal liabilit7# >3* A 4erson o6er nine 7ears o5 age and under 95teen1 unless he acted with discernment1 in which case1 such minor shall be 4roceeded against in accordance with the 4ro6isions o5 Article . o5 this Code* A minor who is o6er nine 7ears old and under 95teen 7ears old at the time o5 the commission o5 the crimes is e@em4t 5rom criminal liabilit7 onl7 when the said minor acted without discernment* It is the burden o5 the 4rosecution

to

4ro6e

that

a

minor

acted

with

discernment when he committed the crime charged* In determining i5 such a minor acted with discernment1 the Courts 4ronouncement in !alentin v. "u#ueaW0X is instructi6e#

H


!he discernment that constitutes an e@ce4tion to the e@em4tion 5rom criminal liabilit7 o5 a minor under 95teen 7ears o5 age but o6er nine1 who commits an act 4rohibited b7 law1 is his mental ca4acit7 to understand the di=erence between right and wrong1 and such ca4acit7 ma7 be 8nown and should be determined b7 ta8ing into consideration all the 5acts and circumstances a=orded b7 the records in each case1 the 6er7 a44earance1 the 6er7 attitude1 the 6er7 com4ortment and beha6ior o5 said minor1 not onl7 be5ore and during the commission o5 the act1 but also a5ter and e6en during the trial* In this case1 the e6idence on record shows be7ond ca6il that the a44ellants acted with discernment when the7 ra4ed the 6ictim1 thus# >a3 the7 wetted the 6ictims 6agina be5ore the7 ra4ed her< >b3 one o5 them acted as a loo8out while the other was ra4ing the 6ictim< >c3 the7 threatened to 8ill the 6ictim i5 she di6ulged to her 4arents what the7 did to her< >d3 the7 5orced Bo7et to ra4e the 6ictim< >e3 the7 laughed as Bo7et was ra4ing the 6ictim< >53 the7 ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to loo8 at their sister na8ed a5ter the a44ellants had ra4ed her*

H0


4E0IENDO V. PEOPLE

>% -.0.H0< 2ctober /1 "/3

FACTS: obert was charged with a crime o5 ra4e against a minor allegedl7 committed on March and Ma7 -//H* 'e waited 5or AAAOs 4arents to lea6e the house be5ore de9ling the latter and threatening to 8ic8 her i5 she should shout 5or hel4* 'e was a minor whose age is abo6e - but below -. 7ears old at the time o5 the crime* 'e was then con6icted o5 ra4e but on a44eal in6o8ed a sus4ension o5 sentence 4ursuant to *A* $o* /00* B7 the time he was con6icted b7 the trial court and be5ore the case was ele6ated to the Court o5 A44eals1 he was alread7 "" 7ears old*

ISSUE: ;2$ A /00 ma7 be gi6en retroacti6e e=ect1 thus e@em4ting the 4etitioner1 who is con6icted b7 !C  alread7 "" 7No be5ore the case was ele6ated to CA*

HELD:

$2*

Pursuant to &ec* . and 0 o5 A /001

the sus4ension o5 sentence can no longer be a6ailed since b7 the time his sentence was im4osed b7 the trial court1 he was alread7 "" 7ears old* Pursuant to &ec*  o5 A /001 i5 a child is abo6e - and below -. 7ears old1 the 9nding o5 discernment is necessar7 to determine i5 he would be e@em4ted 5rom criminal liabilit7* Culled 5rom

H


the

records

o5

this

case1

it

is

mani5ested

that obert acted with discernment1 being able to distinguish between right and wrong and 8nowing 5ull7 well the consequences o5 his acts* 'is act o5 waiting 5or the AAAOs 4arents to lea6e the house be5ore de9ling the latter and threatening to 8ic8 her

i5

she

should

shout

4ro6e

that

obert

can

di=erentiate what is right and wrong* 'e was born on Yanuar7 "-1 -/."* !he Yoint Yudgment was 4romulgated on 2ctober "H1"0* !hus1 at the time o5 the im4osition o5 his sentence1 he was alread7 "" 7ears old and could no longer be considered a child 5or the 4ur4oses o5 the a44lication o5 *A* $o* /00* Discernment is the mental ca4acit7 to understand the di=erence between right and wrong* !he 4rosecution is burdened

to

discernment

4ro6e b7

that

e6idence

the

accused

o5 4h7sical

acted

with

a44earance1

attitude or de4ortment not onl7 be5ore and during the commission o5 the act1 but also a5ter and during the trial* !he surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor 8new what he was doing and that it was wrong* &uch circumstance includes the gruesome nature o5 the crime and the minorOs cunning and shrewdness* ACCIDE$!

H


PEOPLE V. GENITA

W%** $o* -"-H-* March --1 "0X

FACTS: 2ne night1 while the 6ictims e7naldo !imbal and Yesus Bascon were loading 9rewood in a truc81 a44ellant who was drun8 and armed with an M,-0 riTe1 as8ed e7naldo 5or a Christmas gi5t* 'e was told to come bac81 and so he did* 'e soon returned and 9red his gun at YesusO 5eet1 hitting his le5t leg* A44ellant then went near the truc8Os bum4er and 9red at the tire near the chassis* !hen he cha'e8 he aa&'e o1 h&s 9'

a'8 "e8 aa&' at Yesus1 this time1 hitting his right leg* e7naldo ran awa7 but a44ellant chased him and 9red at him1 hitting his na4e and right hand* !he two 6ictims died* A44ellant contended that the incident was a mere accident*

According to him1 he was a member o5 the

CA+%( and was on his wa7 to the cam41 when1 suddenl7 somebod7 gras4ed his nec8* As a result1 he accidentall7 4ulled the trigger o5 the M,-0 riTe slung on his shoulder1 which automaticall7 9red* Immediatel7 he rushed to the cam4 and re4orted the incident to >* Montealto who 4laced the cam4 on alert*

HH


ISSUE: ;2$ the a44ellant should be e@em4ted 5rom criminal liabilit7 gi6en his contention that the incident was an accident*

HELD: $2* Considering the number o5 gunshot wounds1 the

shooting

could

not

ha6e

been

an

accident*

A44ellants 6ersion that he accidentall7 shot the two 6ictims

is

incredible* Accident

is

an

e@em4ting

circumstance under Article -" o5 the e6ised Penal Code* It must be stressed that in raising this de5ense1 a44ellant has the burden o5 the e6idence and it was incumbent u4on him to establish that he was e@em4t 5rom criminal liabilit7* W/X 'e must show with clear and con6incing 4roo5s that# #- he was 4er5orming a law5ul act with due care1 <- the in:ur7 caused was b7 a mere accident1 and )- he had no 5ault or intention o5 causing the in:ur7* Considering a44ellants e6idence1 it is clear that the requisites o5 accident as an e@em4ting circumstance were not 4ro6en* 1irst 1 a44ellants manner o5 carr7ing his M,-0 riTe negates his claim o5 due care in the 4er5ormance o5 an act* ?nowing that his riTe was automatic1 he should ha6e seen to it that its sa5et7 loc8 was intact* ;orse1 he admitted that his 9nger was constantl7 on the trigger* ;ith the sa5et7 loc8 released

H.


and his 9nger on the trigger1 how can we conclude that he acted with due careJ ;e cannot acce4t his 6ersion that he was :ust 5ollowing his trainers instruction to release the sa5et7 loc8 while in a critical area* W-X +or one1 he ne6er 4resented his trainer to corroborate his statement< and 5or another1 he was not in a critical area* Second , the number o5 wounds sustained b7 the 6ictims shows that the shooting was not merel7 accidental* Both

6ictims

sustained

more

than

one

wound* ;hile it could ha6e been 4ossible that the 9rst wound sustained b7 both 6ictims was b7 accident1 howe6er1 the subsequent wounds sustained b7 them in di=erent 4arts o5 their bodies could not ha6e been similarl7 inTicted* And third 1 a44ellant mani5ested an unmista8able intent to 8ill the 6ictims when he "e

*oa8e8 h&s "&e a5ter his 9rst unsuccess5ul attem4t to 8ill them* Yesus had alread7 sought re5uge b7 :um4ing into

the

truc8 when another bullet hit his

right

leg* e7naldo was alread7 running awa7 when he was shot on his na4e and right hand* !hat a44ellant chased the 6ictims and shot them se6eral times clearl7 show that he had the intent to 8ill them* W--X 'is de5ense must necessaril7 5ail* Moreo6er1 i5 it were true that someone attac8ed a44ellant1 thus causing him to accidentall7 4ull the

H/


trigger o5 his riTe1 then his natural reaction should ha6e been to de5end himsel5* Instead1 he rushed towards the cam4* +urthermore1 he did not 4resent an7 e6idence to su44ort his allegation that the CA+%( was 4laced on alert* And not a single witness corroborated his 6ersion o5 accidental shooting1 an indication that it is 5abricated* A!ICLE - , MI!I%A!I$% CIC(M&!A$CE A* PAE!E I$!E$!I2$EM

PEOPLE

V.

NICOLAS

=AU4IGUE

a'8

AVELINA

=AU4IGUE >C*A* $o* .0 +ebruar7 "-1 -/03

FACTS: started

Amado Ca4ina is A6elinaOs admired* when

he

snatched

A6elinaOs

It all

hand8erchie5

bearing her nic8name while it was washed b7 her cousin* Later1 Amado 4ro5essed his lo6e 5or her which was re5used1 and thereu4on suddenl7 embraced and 8issed her

and

touched

her

breasts*

&he

then

him1 ga6e him 9st blows and 8ic8ed him*

sla44ed

&he armed

hersel5 with a long 5an 8ni5e whene6er she went out* +ew da7s a5ter1 Amado climbed u4 the house o5 A6elina and entered the room where she was slee4ing* &he 5elt her 5orehead and she immediatel7 screamed 5or hel4 which awa8ened her 4arents and brought them to her

.


side* Amado came out 5rom where he had hidden and 8issed the hand o5 A6elinaOs 5ather1 $icolas* Later1 the7 learned that Amado had been 5alsel7 boasting in the neighbourhood o5 ha6ing ta8en liberties with her 4erson* 2ne night1 A6elina Yaurigue and her 5ather went to the cha4el o5 &e6enth Da7 Ad6entists* Amado went and sat b7 A6elinaOs right side1 and without sa7ing a word1 4laced his hand on the u44er 4art o5 her right thigh* !his 4rom4ted her to 4ull out the 5an 8ni5e with the intention o5 4unishing AmadoOs o=ending hand* Amado seized her right hand but she quic8l7 grabbed the 8ni5e on her le5t hand and stabbed Amado once at the base o5 the le5t side o5 the nec8 inTicting u4on him a mortal wound >0  in dee43* 'e died in a 5ew minutes* A6elina was 5ound guilt7 o5 homicide* &he a44ealed to com4letel7 absol6e her o5 all criminal res4onsibilit7 5or ha6ing acted in de5ense o5 her honor1 to 9nd in her 5a6our additional mitigating circumstances and omit aggra6ating circumstance*

ISSUES:

;2$

should

mitigating circumstances

o5

9nd

the

additional

6oluntar7

surrender1

4resence o5 4ro6ocation and absence o5 intent in her 5a6our*

.-


HELD: FE&* Mitigating circumstances are considered in

her 5a6our* Circumstances include her 6oluntar7 and unconditional 4ro6ocation tem4orar7

surrender 5rom

loss

the

to

the

barrio

deceased

o5 reason

and

lieutenant1

which

4roduced

sel5,control

o5

the

de5endant and lac8 o5 intent to 8ill the deceased e6idenced b7 inTiction o5 onl7 one single wound* !he

de5endant

and

a44ellant

immediatel7

and

6oluntaril7 and unconditionall7 surrendered to the barrio lieutenant in said cha4el1 admitting ha6ing stabbed the deceased1 immediatel7 a5ter the incident1 and agreed to go to her house shortl7 therea5ter and to remain there sub:ect to the order o5 the said barrio lieutenant1 an agent o5 the authorities< and the 5urther 5act that she had acted in the immediate 6indication o5 a gra6e o=ense committed against her a 5ew moments be5ore1 and u4on such 4ro6ocation as to 4roduce 4assion and ob5uscation1 or tem4orar7 loss o5 reason and sel5,control1 should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her 5a6or* De5endant and a44ellant 5urther claims that she had not intended to 8ill the deceased but merel7 wanted to 4unish his o=ending hand with her 8ni5e1 as shown b7 the 5act that she inTicted u4on him onl7 one single

."

Crim Digests COMPILATION

Recommend Documents