Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
3. PEOPLE VS. MARGEN, et.al., G.R. No. L-2681, March 30, 1950
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
The now deceased Diego Testor, in need of food for his children, traded the fish for camote and
he was sent for the Sergeant Margen to make him to the barracks a quantity of another kind of
fish, called kalapion. The accused was irritated by the conduct of the deceased as he threw the
fish into the latters face and had his hands tied behind his back and gave him blows. Following
their sergeant, three soldiers namely, Julian Tarravo, Domingo Ramos (now deceased), and
appellant Andres Midoranda, also maltreated Testor. Margen also forced Testor to eat two of the
kalapions. Despite medical attendance, Testor died the following day and autopsy revealed that
death was intestinal obstruction due to the fish bones
The defendants were prosecuted for murder. The herein appellant said that he did not join his
companions in maltreating the deceased but his own witness, Eleuterio Anabeso, admitted on
cross-examination that appellant took part of the act. Counsel for the defense argued that, in the
absence of proof of conspiracy, appellant should not be held liable for the said crime because he
merely obeyed the orders of his superior.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the obedience to such order is a justifying circumstance that will release the
accused from criminal liability.
HELD:
No. Art. 11, par. 6, being considered, obedience to an order of a superior is justified only when
the order is for some lawful purpose. The order to torture the deceased was illegal, and the
accused was not bound to obey it. Having taken direct part in the unlawful acts which resulted in
the death of the deceased and nothing having been proved which would exempt him from
criminal liability, appellant must be held as coprincipal of the crime of murder changed in the
information. The sentence appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellant.
5. PEOPLE VS. PAJENADO, et.al., G.R. No. L-26458 January 30, 1976
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
FACTS:
There was a celebration party at the house of Constancio Pajenado in Dapdap, Las Navas, Samar
and at the height of the festivities, Mayor Jolejole commented that the deceased Jorge Tapong
was already drunk and should be brought home. Teofilo Jorda then ordered two of his barrio
policemen to help in taking Tapong to the house of his cousin. While on their way, five armed
men suddenly emerged and beated Tapong. Jorda witnessed the crime and blew his whistle but
the accused did not heed him as they ran away after the deceased fell down. Tapong was dead on
arrival.
On the other hand, one accused name Antonio Toling admitted responsibility for the injuries
inflicted on the deceased and denied that his other co-accused took part in the crime. He claimed
that he acted in lawful performance of a duty or office being a barrio policeman. He stated that
Tapong was asking why he was taken from the party and came to know that his actions were
shameful to the mayor, that caused him to be angry and to get a bolo. Toling said that he was
only complying with the said order of the barrio captain to disarm the deceased. Toling ran away
from the scene of the crime and just reported to the police the following morning.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the killing is a justifying circumstance that will release the accused from criminal
liability.
HELD:
No. Under Art. 11, par. 5, a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There is no legal basis to justify Tolings action.
His claim that he is a barrio policeman is not believable as the appointment of such position by a
Municipal Mayor is null and void since a mayor does not have the authority to do such act. Also,
running away from the scene of the crime is indicative of guilt and it is an unnatural action that
negates and renders improbable the claim that he was acting in the fulfillment of a duty. The
crime committed is murder qualified by treachery.
6. PEOPLE vs. OANIS, et.al., G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943
MORAN, J.:
FACTS:
Police officers Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta, the appellants, and two others were called by
the Police Inspector Godofredo Monsod to arrest an escaped convict named Anselmo Balagtas
and to follow the telegram received from Major Guido which reads information received
escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive
if the fugitive try to resist. The appellants went to the house of Irene and saw her in her room a
man sleeping with her. Upon seeing the man, the defendants successively fired at him but it
turned out that an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson and not Balagtas was the one fatally
hit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the killing is a justifying circumstance that will release the accused from criminal
liability.
HELD:
No. To invoke Art.11, par.5 of the Revised Penal Code as a defense, there are two requisites to be
observed:
a. That the offender acted in the performance of a duty or the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
b. That the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the performance of
a duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office.
Only the first requisite is present as they acted in the performance of their duty. But the second
requisite is wanting since the crime committed is not the necessary consequence of such
performance. Through impatience or over-anxiety, they have exceeded in the fulfillment of such
duty by killing the person whom they believed to be the fugitive without any resistance from him
and without making any previous inquiry as to his identity. The appellants are convicted with the
crime of murder.