CASE
ISSUE
DOCTRINE
People vs Moton (PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS)
WON Moton is guilty for illegal possession of firearm (considering that there is a new law wherein the barrio captain are not exempted from securing a firearm license)
Not liable *When a new law repeals the existing law so that the act that was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated *Retroact only when favorable to the accused, otherwise is stated in this case
Manzanaris vs People (ARTICLE 3)
WON Manzanaris is liable for infidelity in the custody of documents
Not liable *Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea *good intent, as per admin reconstitution
Relucio vs CSC (ARTICLE 3)
WON Relucio is liable for falsification No liable of official documents (re PVAO's *good faith application of her father)
US vs Ah Chong (ARTICLE 3)
Won liable in killing his room mate
Not liable *ignorance or mistake of fact (not mistake of person, blow or commit so grave a wrong)
US vs Bautista (ARTICLE 3)
WON liable for assault
Not liable *resisted arrest as he did not know that such persons arresting him are vested with authority *upon knowledge that they are of authority, he immediately submitted himself
People vs Bayambao (ARTICLE 3)
WON liable for murder of the person Not liable “throwing stone” who happened to *impulse of an uncontrollable fear of be his bro-in-law an injury
*ignorace or error in fact People vs Oanis (ARTICLE 3)
WON liable for killing of a man (who Liable they mistaken for Balagtas) *the defense of honest mistake of fact cannot be used when there is NEGLIGENCE OR FAULT on the part of the accused
People vs Apego (ARTICLE 3)
WON Genoveva is liable for murder of her bro-in-law
Not liable for murder. ONLY HOMICIDE *not justified in going so far in the exercise of her right
Cuenca vs People (ARTICLE 3)
WON liable for illegal possession (considering that he is a special watchman and guard of the Bataan Veterans Security Agency)
Not liable *good faith *not expected to ask for license from his boss
People vs Landicho (ARTICLE 3)
WON liable for illegal possession
Not liable *just doing a good deed *animus posendi shall be relaxed
People vs Mallari (ARTICLE 3)
WON liable for illegal possession
Not liable *applied for a license, but there is unreasonable delay to the application of such *cannot suffer the consequences of said delay
People vs Cagoco (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable
Liable *The fist blow on the back part of the head that caused the victim to fall and hit his head on the pavement *liable for the consequences of the acts
People vs Dalag (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable
Liable *Relentless breathing that caused
the death of his wife *liable for the consequences of the acts US vs Brobst (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable (Brobst struck Saldivar with a powerful blow using his closed fist on the left side over the ribs, at the point where the handle of Saldiviar's bolo lay against the belt of which it was suspended)
Liable *liable for natural result of act.. THO UNEXPECTED
People vs Martin (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable for parricide (Martin contends that it death of wife was due to heart disease)
Liable still *strangulation exelerated the death
People vs Piamonte (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable for death even the cause of death is mucuous colitis
Liable still *proximate cause is the stab wound that he inflicted *immediate cause is mucuous colitis arising from weak condition *liable for natural result!
People vs Itlanas (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable for death of bystander killed by a STRAY bullet coming from his firearm
Liable *Art 4
People vs Opero (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable for death due to asphyxiation by suffocation caused by the stuffed pandesal into her mouth
Liable (robbery with homicide)
People vs Sitchon (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable for death of toddler Mark Anthony even he did no intended to do such
Liable *he who is the cause of the evil cause is the cause of the evil caused *liable for the supervening death as a consequence thereof
US vs Rodriguez (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable for death (even victim was long before suffering from an internal malady)
Liable *produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis *death was hastened
People vs Quianzon (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable even if the victim died because of removing the drainage of the wound due to physical pain
Liable *restlessness and nervouseness
People vs Reloj (ARTICLE 4)
WON liable
Liable *even due to the paralysis of ileum contracted when the internal organs of the victim were exposed during the surgical operation in the abdomen caused by the wound inflicted by the accused *neglect, unskillfull and improper treatment (oks-non mortal/ not oksmortal)
US vs Marasigan (ARTICLE 4)
***doctrine VICTIM NOT OBLIGED TO SUBMIT TO A SURGICAL OPERATION in order to relieve, minimize or completely absolve from natural and ordinary consequences of felonious act.
People vs Ancasan (ARTICLE 4)
Won liable for the intervening disease
Liable *such disease is associated with the wound inflicted, then liable for death
Urbano vs IAC (javier) (ARTICLE 4)
Won liable
Not liable *Efficient intervening cause *tetanus effect
People vs Reyes
****
(ARTICLE 4)
Doctrine: Death presumed to be natural consequence and result of injuries when Physical injuries are expected to result to death and when death ensues within a reasonable time
People vs Moldes (ARTICLE 4)
**** Liable if 1) there is mortal wound + 2) erroneous and unskillful medical or surgical treatment
Intod vs People (ARTICLE 4)
Won liable
Liable *impossible crime *tho there be a factual impossible due to the nature of the act
Jacinto vs People (ARTICLE 4)
Won liable
Liable *Cheque due to the extraneous circumstances of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to Jacinto *impossible crime
People vs Gutierrez (ARTICLE 5)
Won dura lex sed lex be applied
No *take into consideration the circumstances
People vs Orifon (ARTICLE 5)
Won dura lex sed lex be applied
No *raped by his father
People vs Canja (ARTICLE 5)
Won liable
Liable Appellant must be declared to have feloniously extinguished the life of her husband. He may have been unworthy. He may have been a rascal and a bully; but that is no
excuse for murdering him. His badness is not even a mitigating circumstance.
Valenzuela vs People (ARTICLE 6)
Won lible for theft
Yes (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Theft is produced when there is DEPRIVATION of personal property by one with INTENT TO GAIN. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.
People vs Salvilla (ARTICLE 6) April 12, 1986, at about noon time –
WON the crime of robbery was consummated
Yes, robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful “taking” is complete.
Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed Canasares), staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard. They were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita Habiero, an employee there who was on her way out for her meal break, and informed her that it was a hold-up. They went inside the office and the petitioner pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two daughters, Maryand Mimmie. They informed Severino that all they needed was money. Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the defense) and handed it to the petitioner. Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and Rodita werekept inside the office. According to the appellant, he stopped Severino from getting the wallet and watches.
not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber or that he should have actually carried the property away, out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with
The police and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. Major Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with the accused and appealed to them to surrender.The accused refused to surrender and release the hostages. The police and military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still wouldn’t budge after more ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as ell as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Mary’sright leg had to be amputated due to her injuries. The appellant maintained that the money, wallet and watches were all left on the counter and were never touched by them. He also claimed that they never fired on the military because they intended to surrender. IN SHORT, nag nakaw sila. However, they contended that there it is not a consummated crime as the police intercepted by making them huli. So,since no disposal daw ng goods, no robbery rin daw.
Paddayuman vs People (ARTICLE 6) If the wound is inflicted with INTENT TO KILL BUT NOT MORTAL, attempted Serrano vs People (ARTICLE 6)
1) WOUNDS; 2) NO MEDICAL TESTIMONY OF THE GRAVITY OF SUCH WOUNDS = ATTEMPTED
People vs Kalalo (ARTICLE 6)
1) NO WOUNDS + 2) OVERT ACTS = ATTEMPTED
US vs Eduave (ARTICLE 6)
Belief that the he killed the victim is immaterial What controls is the gravity of the wound inflicted
People vs Erina (ARTICLE 8) Julian Eriña charged of raping 3 yrs & 11 mo. old child. Doubt on whether actual penetration occurred. Physical exam showed slight inflammation of exterior parts of organ indicating effort to enter vagina. Mom found child’s organ covered with sticky substance
WON crime is consummated?
No. Frustrated only 1. Impossible for man’s organ to enter labia of a 3 years and 8 months old child (Kennedy v. State) 2. No conclusive evidence of penetration so give accused benefit of the doubt. Frustrated.
People vs Ruiz (ARTICLE 8)
WON there is conspiracy?
Yes. Circumstances shown the intent 1) boarding together 2) proceed to Talisay where Vito was 3) alighting vehicle upon arrival at Talisay; respective positions 4) firing simultaneously 5) get away together 6) bringing of the co-accused to the hospital 7) pattern of feigning total ignorance re incident
People vs Medios (ARTICLE 8)
WON there is conspiracy?
*Medios and Cabural had with them bolo *they hacked Artemio, Manoloto and Jose *Medios and Cabural uttered, “Here are the 2 persons we are waiting for” *did the hacking simultaneously
Yes. There is collective criminal responsibility The accused waiting in ambush, one at each side of the road, suddenly attacked one victim and then the other, upon the signal, “Here are the two persons we are waiting for.” As Palpal-latoc declared, while Cabural was stabbing him (Palpallatoc), appellant was hacking Deguerto. And while the attack was ongoing, accused even shouted,“We will kill you.” There was singleness of purpose existing between the two accused, which undeniably indicate the existence of conspiracy.
People vs Abut
WON there is conspiracy?
Yes.
(ARTICLE 8) Altho Richie alone pursued the victime from situs crinimis, he was nevertheless found guilty as a principal, since conspiracy was established.
After introducing himself to the victim, appellant Winchester pulled the hand of the victim and boxed him. Ritchie broke two bottles of beer and hit the victim with the broken bottles. The appellants and Ritchie ganged up and assaulted the victim. Not content, they stabbed the victim repeatedly. People vs Balitar (ARTICLE 8) Primo argues that while Rolly Baltar was boxing the victim and later on when Francisco Baltar, Jr. shot Mariano Celino, Jr., he was not doing anything. He further states that the only act he did was to fire a warning shot at several persons who were rushing towards them in order to protect himself. (AND NOT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, so he's not liable talaga)
WON Primo is a conspirator?
YES. His presence not only gave moral support to the two other accused, but likewise reinforced the aggression by serving as a deterrent so that the people nearby would not even think of helping the victim. Accused-appellant’s contention that he merely fired a warning shot towards the crowd in order to protect himself is hardly believable because if it were true that he merely wanted to protect himself, then he could have simply moved away from where the victim was. However, instead of doing so, he remained where he was and succeeded in driving back the people who attempted to aid the
victim, thus defending assailants’ position and insuring the commission of the felony. *****It must be remembered that in conspiracy, evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. ****Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is sufficient People vs Cantuba (ARTICLE 8)
WON there is conspiracy?
Yes. Implied Conspiracy ito.
Rodolfo wanted to kill Atty. Celera. So he shared this plan with Pio, Ricardo and Pedrito
They knew of the place, date, approx time of killing
Pedrito was assigned to look for a man who could do the killing However, at the time of execution, Pio suddenly approached Atty. Celera and shot the latter. Ricardo then rushed and stabbed Atty. Celera twice on left chest They alighted, riding a tricycle People vs Paras
WON there is conspiracy?
Yes. Conspiracy is present when the
(ARTICLE 8)
People vs Portugueza People vs Caayao
accused are members of one family and the attack was done SUDDENLY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY
Won there is conspiracy kahit magkamaanak, like in the case of Paras (above)?
No.
WON mere act of accompanying makes one a conspirator?
No.
(ARTICLE 8)
People vs Varroga (ARTICLE 8) People vs Agda
Rolly did not take part. He ran away as soon as the stabbing started. What is needed to prove conspiracy?
(ARTICLE 8)
(ARTICLE 8) Maximo's participation in the killing was his presence at the locus criminis and his shouting of patayin patayin iren amen
Clear and convincing evidence! In the case at bar, no agreement, no direct participation in stabbing.
Romy and Noel left the drinking spree. Romy was standing nearby when Noel stabbed Antonio.
People vs Rafael
It must be proven. It must be real and not presumptive. Altho to SOME degree there is simultaneous acts done, that fact alone does not constitute conspiracy.
Altho no formal agreement is needed to establish conspiracy, still clear and convincing evidence is needed. Won Maximo is a conspirator or mere accomplice?
ACCOMPLICE. -no direct participation -not an indispensable act
People vs Agripa Wife tried to kill Jose as he was not able to bring home money (or his salary) ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Defense of one's life of person -For survival -Take a life of another in exchange of another People vs Luague Paulino came to the house of the Luague's to rape Natividad Natividad used the knife Paulino left on the floor ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Defense of honor -Because virginity or chastity, once defiled, cannot be restored People vs Tilos Bro fishermen have in possession fishing net, but not yet fully paid, chief of police received info from municipal president to seize the fishing net and deposit it to the mun bldg Brothers protected the said nets ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Defense of Property -Police has no judicial authority to determine the issue Cano vs People -Conrado and Orlando (+) -Rush ID in Manila -Conrado photocopied license of Orlando and used such -Orlando got mad and went to Conrado to kill the latter -Conrado was able to defend himself, however Orlando died as per Conrado's retaliation ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Actual and real danger to life and limb -Conrado did not take advantage of the situation -Does not have to think cooly of the situation or wait after each blow to determine the effects thereof -Act of having a deadly weapon with him = intent to assault Masipequina vs CA
-Leopoldo Potane showed sign of violent insanity -Father and brother ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Imminent danger to one's life and limb -reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel requested Norberto M. and Jovencio Alampayan to apprehend Leopoldo -Leopoldo rushed to them with a bolo -Patrolmen defended themselves in the expense of Leopoldo's life and prevent the attack → DEPENDS upon imminent danger of injury (not actually done to the accused) -that danger had to be repealed the best way he can -not motivated by any evil motive People vs Amante -Valentin and son Domingo, both drunk, had an heated argument -Domingo felt embarrased, killed his father with a gun ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Mere imaginary, speculative or fanciful danger does not constitute unlawful agression -No unlawful aggression; aggression must be real US vs Guysayco ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Mere imaginary, speculative or fanciful danger does not constitute unlawful aggression People vs Dala -Francisco had with him a kitchen knife -Francisco cursed his wife -Meanwhile, there came Absalon and Julio, both in high spirits -Pinagtripan siya ng dalawa -So, he sheated the kitchen knife he was holding and stabbed Absalon on the right side of chest ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Unlawful agression is the condition precedent (indispensable!) -not merely a threatening attitude and intimidating attack Rugas vs People -Defendant voluntarily and practically joined a fight ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
A person who voluntarily joins a fight cannot claim self-defense because there is no unlawful aggression -exposed himself to consequences -everything, then, became an incident of the fight US vs Sta. Ana -Antonio Santos caught by Arm Dorotea Ramos and tried to take advantage of the later. -Thus, Ramos retaliated with the bolo -Ramos charged with lesiones menos graves ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Defense of one's honor -married woman -once a woman certainly takes his life and liberty in his own hands,losing the latter, his loss thereby is no greater than he deserves US vs Merced -Pantaeleon Arabe caught wife Apolinia Patron with Catalino Merced in adultery -Catalino retaliated upon the attack of Pantaleon at the expense of the latter's life ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Paramour caught in adultery with wife cannot invoke self-defense. Deceased husband had the right to defend his honor -Article 432 of RPC -lawful right People vs Mangantilao -Florencio came home and saw that his wife and his children are being attacked so thereby he retaliated to the point of killing the unknown assailant ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Defense of one's home, wife and children US vs Salazar -Defendant was cleaning fish on board -Deceased pursued him and attacked with knife ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Absence of provocation may entitle a claim to self- defense -had a reason to believer that he was placed in alternative of killing or being killed People vs Nemeria -Ricardo Nemeria caught up with the group of Henry Montelibano -Certain Alberto Cadayuna shouted that the group and began to advance
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Assuming that the victim gives provocation, the accused's response by repeatedly hacking the victim to death can by no account be considered justified menacingly at them -So, Ricardo retaliated and thereby killed Alberto *modified from murder to homicide US vs Domen -Victoriano Gadlit & Urbano Dome quarelled about a carabao wc gotten to the corn of Victoriano -Victoriano struck Domen ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Stand ground when in right -element of impracticability made it impossible to determine during the heat WON to increase the risk to which he was exposed to stand or step aside People vs Genosa -5 beating up -beaten up (while being 8 months preggers) -retailated and killed husband Ben ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE Battered Woman Syndrome -2 stages only -No unlawful aggression -Mitigated: Par 9 & 10 -ISLAW People vs Agapinay Virgilio Paino allegedly said injurious words and threats againt Agapinay brother. Thus, the latter's deadly retaliation ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE There must be unlawful agression! -also, SD does not justify the unnecessary killing of aggressor retreating from fray People vs Eduarte -Roberto Trinidad & Fredeswindo was fighting -when Roberto was about to give his final blow (after all the clubbing done), Florentino Eduarte intercepted and shot Roberto in defense of Fredeswindo ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE Requisites be proved with CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence -too self-serving and corroborated People vs Yncierto -Olimpio & Fidel fistfighting -Aniceto ran with a hunting knife -Narciso tried to stop Aniceto, but latter resisted
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE -Not justified, imagine 13 cm deep! Aww man! -Also, remember the factors! Strength and weight! :) -Narciso then held and pressed Aniceto against stump of a coconut tree -Father of Aniceto, Teodolfo killed Narciso -remember: stab on back and breast (13 cm deep) Olbinar vs CA -Romeo Cahilog & Fernando Jimenez was physically assaulting Emiliano Olbinar -His wife, Procerfina, having no knowledge of what transpired prior, quickly acted to rescue his wife and retailed for her husband with bolo. -thereby, killing Romeo & Fernando ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending his/her relative -compelling urgency -no time to think -no way of thinking if his husband provoked the fight or not, as long as no suff provocation on her part, okay tayo :) -using bolo is justified, as she is of no match to one or both of the assailants US vs Rivera -Cayetano challenged Domingo to a fight -Father of Domingo rescued the latter & a certain Canuto ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF SON They did no more than manifest necessities of the occasion demanded Solely to save a son & a friend from IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH AT THE HANDS of his much stronger and better-armed adversary People vs Padilla -Bro in law Severino was trying to abuse the wife of Dario -Dario, then, struck Severino with a bolo (left forearm and left thumb, 60 days to cure – rendered the left hand useless) ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF WIFE NO provocation on the part of the husband or wife Obliged to employ rational means People vs Ammalun -Wife shouting for help -A certain Moro Djumalin was on the top of Moro ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF WIFE Ammalum's wife -Latter drew bolo and hacked him at the base of his neck -Until Djumalin was hacked until latter died
US vs Paz ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF HUSBAND -Perversity and malicious intent to do injury of the aggressor, and not of the parties attacked US vs Esmedia -Santiago and Gregorio was fighting -Sons of Gregorio arrived -These sons immediately rescued their father and killed Santiago -However, the father of Santiago, who was just standing, was also killed ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF FATER AND RIGHT TO ACT ON MERE APPEARANCE -Liable for the death of the 80 year old father, as they were not in danger of bodily harm from the old man People vs Cabungcal -Rocking of boat ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF WIFE AND SON Eslabon vs People ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF FIRST COUSIN -Cousin already suffered substantial wounds -who feared for the life of Francisco People vs Punzalan -the nagwawalang pulis sa bar ART 11, PAR 3 DEFENSE OF A STANGER Not to be induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive -Police man who was wearing plain clothes (skilled) -Nothing was done by the victims to invite the ire of the policeman -No revenge, resentment or other evil motive US vs Subingsubing -Old man being assaulted by a young man ART 11, PAR 3 DEFENSE OF A STANGER People vs Valdez ART 11, PAR 3 Had to deal with a -His own wife and his (friend's) wife DEFENSE OF A STANGER desperate or possibly insan person who had to be rendered harmless
People vs Ayaya ART 11, PAR 4 STATE OF NECESSITY Thrusting an umbrella, wc hit the husband's eyes, to prevent her son's head from being crushed by the door People vs Oanis ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE NO NEGLIGENCE DAPAT -ascertain first identity by inquiring before firing (regardless of the person's criminality haha?) Frias vs People -neighbors for help -As police, Gervacio brought with him his gun -Saw Bartolome, also armed with a gun, left the place of Manuel -Refused to surrender, so fire a shot ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE -necessary consequences of duty -2 warning shots -not required that police be exposed to peril Masipequina vs CA -Leopoldo Potane showed sign of violent insanity -Father and brother requested Norberto M. and Jovencio Alampayan to apprehend Leopoldo -Leopoldo rushed to them with a bolo -Patrolmen defended themselves in the expense of Leopoldo's life ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE -ordered by their substation commander to apprehend Leopoldo People vs Delima ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE -even extreme means, in the right to bring back the escapee Valcorza vs People ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE -escapee too -demoralizing police officer -great detriment to public interest People vs Lagata ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE Absolute necessity can authorize a prison guard to fire against escapees
People vs Dela Cruz ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE No murder, please -Don't use as an excuse (especially when victim was not committing any offense) People vs Wilson -falsification of cable/telegraphic dispatch -estafa of mercantile document to defraud the employer and BPI -falsify of a mercantile document to prejudice San Carlos Milling (where they work) ART 11, PAR 6 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR OFFICER Order to falsify documents is illegal -Should be acting within limitations prescribed by law People vs Barroga -with full knowledge of their falsity -falsification of documents ART 11, PAR 6 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR OFFICER Obedience must be due An inferior must obey his superior but between general law which enjoins obedience to a superior giving just orders and a prohibitive law which plainly forbids what that superior commands, THE CHOICE IS DOUBTFUL” People vs Margen ART 11, PAR 6 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR OFFICER Order to torture is illegal -Goes to show only a common grievance against the deceased People vs Bernadez ART 11, PAR 6 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR OFFICER Order by a military officer addressed to a subordinate to immediately execute death penalty → ILLEGAL
ARTICLE 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES *PRESUPPOSES EXISTENCE OF BOTH CRIMES AND CRIMINAL *as distinguished from EXEMPTING: recognizes felonious act but no criminal offender (as no voluntariness) *privilege exempting- DEGREE; No offset *ordinary- PERIOD; Can be offset 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
De Luna vs CA -Unlawful aggression is an indispensible requisite to claim incomplete self-defense People vs Buenafe -Unlawful aggression + (requirement 2 or requirement 3) = incomplete self-defense -Subordinate People vs Pasca (incomplete self-defense) -Genaro’s terrible force was not reasonable necessity for the means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression People vs Lucero (incomplete self-defense) -Ciriaco threw a stone at Epifanio, causing the latter to swerve as to prevent being hit by the coming vehicle. The said swerving caused Epifanio to be thrown to the ground -Of course, Epifanio was infuriated and thus, struck Ciriaco with a bolo -Not reasonable ulit (tho there was unlawful aggression + lack of sufficient provocation) People vs Toring (incomplete defense of a relative) -motivated by RRO Pepito vs CA -Ceasing of Unlawful Aggression = no incomplete defense of relative -No justification for attacking the victim, as the latter stopped about 8 meters from door of Pepito and turned towards his mother-in-law’s house before Sinonor went after him People vs Gonzales -CURSING & SHOUTING NOT CONSTITUTED UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION People vs Jaurigue (incomplete defense of honor) -Chapel, stabbed with a fan knife as the man put his hand on the legs of the accused -Means employed WERE EVIDENTLY EXCESSIVE
People vs Narvaez (incomplete defense of property) -unlawful aggression: as to destroying and causing damage or closing his accessibility to the highway -no provocation: 1) he was asleep at first, just got awakened by the noise of the victims and their laborers; 2) pleaded “pare, if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over – what is good” People vs Apolinar (attack against one’s property attack against person) -believing that the man stole his palay, he shot this man -primacy of rights (life over property)
2. A child above fifteen but below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense who acted with discernment, in which case he shall be subjected to appropriate diversion programs under Sec 23 to 31 of this Act.
DIMUNITION OF INTELLIGENCE Privileged Mitigating ONE DEGREE No discernment Diversion measures o CONDITIONS OF DIVERSION PROGRAM A) Not more than 6 years imprisonment Who: LEO, Punong Barangay (with assistance of local social welfare and devt officer or other LCPC member) What to do: conduct Mediation, Family Conferencing and Conciliation, (where appropriate) Adopt indigenous modes of conflict resoln in accord with best INTEREST of the child with a view to accomplishing the objectives of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE and formulation of a diversion program CHILD & HIS/HER FAMILY SHALL BE PRESENT B) VICTIMLESS CRIMES, not more than years imprisonment Local social welfare & devt officer shall meet with CHILD &/ PARENTS/GUARDIANS FOR the development of the appropriate DIVERSION OR REHAB PROGRAM (in coordination with BCPC) C) EXCEEDS 6 years Only by court resolution o WHERE MAY BE CONDUCTED Katarungang Pambarangay
ALL STAGES: police investigation, inquest, PI, at all levels & phases of proceeding including JUDICIAL LEVEL o CONFERENCE, MEDIATION, CONCILIATION Contract of diversion may be entered during this stage
o CONTRACT OF DIVERSION Voluntary admits the commission of act However, such admission shall not be used against the children in judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative Effective upon approval o DUTIES OF CHILD UNDER DIVERSION CONTRACT o DUTY OF PUNONG BRGY WHEN NO DIVERSION o DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER o NOT BE SUBJECTED TO DIVERSION MEASURES o PUBLIC PROSEC = CONDUCT PI Over 70 years bawal na mahatulan ng reclusion perpetua
3. The offender had no intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed 4.
