CASE Fernan, Jr. vs. People GR No.
145927 August 24, 2007
FACTS:
Due to severe irregularities in release of funds for the MPH via fake LAAs and other dubious documents sometime from
February 1977 to June 1978 in Region VII particularly Cebu area, President Marcos created a Special Cabinet Committee
cracking down on the “Ghost Projects Anomalies”. These occurrences were eventually busted by the NBI, with the cases filed
with the SB, finding several MPH officials guilty of conspiracy. Among them were petitioners MPH Central Office Supervising
Accountant Leonardo Tordecilla and Cebu I HED Civil Engineer Simon Fernan, Jr. who were tried guilty of estafa thru
falsification of public and commercial documents. Petitioners submitted their supplication to the SB which was declined,
hence this petition:
ISSUE:
Did the SB err in convicting petitioners of being co-conspirators of the above-case?
HELD:
No, the SB erred not at all. First of all, the SB was able to solidly establish the essential elements of the crime of estafa.
Petitioners sealed their fate in this by their own testimonies. Arising from this, the SB correctly implied conspiracy since they
have proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the estafa cooperatively. Direct
evidence was not necessary, as was demonstrated in People vs. Pagalasan, a settled jurisprudence similar to the instant case.
CASE Eugenio vs. People GR No. 168163 March 26, 2008
FACTS:
Sometime in November 1995 in Malabon, Metro Manila, Lolita Y. Eugenio (petitioner) along with Saquitan and Ablaza
persuaded Mangali to loan them P 100,000.00 in exchange for a parcel of land owned by Saquitan. Subsequently, petitioner in
behalf of one Lourdes Ty sought another P100,000.00 loan from Mangali assured by a parcel of land owned by Ty. Convinced,
Mangali released an initial of P 75,000.00. When the loans lapsed, Mangali inquired from the Register of Deeds of Manila and
Quezon City and discovered that TCT No. 171602 deed of sale (1st lot) had been canceled on October 15, 1995 while TCT No.
92585 (2nd lot) was not registered with the said offices. This prompted Mangali to contact the NBI and an entrapment
operation was initiated arresting petitioner, Albanza, and two other unidentified persons. Upon investigation, the real Epifania
Saquitan was found who issued an affidavit denying any connection with the accused party. The case was filed with the RTC
charging petitioner’s party with Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, wherein petitioner and Albanza pleaded “not
guilty”. Albanza settled bail and went into hiding. On the part of the defense, petitioner contended that she was merely a
victim of circumstance. The RTC, contending that fraud was involved through conspiracy and misrepresentation, ruled against
petitioner and the case was brought to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision and denied the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a conspiracy was involved in the case at bar
HELD:
Not. The SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy to render petitioner liable as principal to Estafa thru
Falsification of Public Documents. The lower courts’ reliance upon mere allegations and testimonies absent the material
evidence to implicate petitioner as principal, accomplice, or accessory beyond reasonable doubt where the act of conspiracy
was being inferred from led to petitioner’s acquittal.
CASE Serrano vs. People GR No. 179038 March 6, 2010
FACTS:
On January 18, 2003 in Pasig City, a buy-bust operation by police officers and PDEA agents led to the arrest of appellants
Joseph Serrano and Anthony Serrano due to illegal sale and possession of shabu. The appellants were reported to have acted
together in carrying out the transaction. In their defense, appellants denied the charges against them. The RTC and the CA
ruled against them, hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
Did the lower courts err in finding the existence of conspiracy in the case at bar?
HELD:
No. While it was with Joseph that the police transacted regarding the acquisition of shabu and to whom they paid the buy bust
money, it was from Anthony that Joseph actually got the drugs subject of the transaction. From the above scenario, no other
conclusion can be drawn but that both accused were engaged in the illegal trade.
CASE People vs. Tabuelog G.R. No. 178059, January 22, 2008
Elements of Self-Defense/Murder
FACTS:
An Information was filed charging appellant with murder. The accused admits that he stabbed Clinton Badinas on or about
that time on said place and as a consequence of the wound he sustained Clinton Badinas died. However, he claimed that he
acted in self-defense.
The trial court found the version of the prosecution credible thus rejecting appellant’s theory of self-defense. On May 6, 2005,
the trial court rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of murder.
Appellant alleges that the justifying circumstance of self-defense was not properly considered in his favor; that assuming the
killing was committed not in self-defense, still the courts below erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
ISSUE:
Is appellant’s contention meritorious?
RULING:
The petition is partly meritorious.
In invoking self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, the onus probandi is shifted to the accused to prove by clear and
convincing evidence all the elements of justifying circumstance, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
The accused, in cases of self-defense, must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution’s evidence since he admits the commission of the alleged criminal act. One who admits the infliction of injuries
which caused the death of another has the burden of proving self-defense with sufficient and convincing evidence, for even if
the evidence of the prosecution were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing. Self-
defense, like alibi, is a defense which can easily be concocted. If the accused’s evidence is of doubtful veracity, and it is not
clear and convincing, the defense must necessarily fail.
We agree with the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals that the defense miserably
In the instant case, appellant failed to establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; moreover, his narration of the
events was unbelievable. As correctly observed by the trial court, considering the alleged disadvantageous position of the
appellant and the relentless assault from the victim, it is surprising that appellant remained unscathed. The presence of a
pitcher and a knife conveniently within the reach of appellant was highly suspect and coincidental. As noted by the trial court,
"the presence of a pitcher of water which the accused picked up to repel the attack of the deceased and the knife which the
accused was able to grasp and swung it to the (victim) hitting him near the left armpit seems to suggest that pitchers and
knives are scattered around Fort Ilocandia."11 Moreover, if it were true that the victim was pursuing Roger Domingo with a
broken bottle, then it is preposterous for the appellant to shout at and order Domingo, instead of the victim, to stop, thus
putting Domingo’s life at risk. Further, if Domingo stopped as narrated by appellant, then it is inconceivable that he was not
harmed by his alleged pursuer.
In fine, the trial court correctly held that the defense failed to prove the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. There being no unlawful aggression, there is no need to discuss whether the means employed to repel the attack was
reasonable or whether appellant sufficiently provoked the victim into attacking him.
However, we cannot agree with the findings of the trial court that treachery attended the commission of the crime. The trial
court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because "the attack by the accused upon the victim was sudden
and coming from behind, thus, precluding any possible way for the victim to defend himself." Nevertheless, mere suddenness
of the attack does not amount to treachery.
It bears stressing that treachery cannot be presumed. It must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime
itself. The fact that the victim might have been unaware or helpless when he was stabbed does not constitute proof of
treachery. The prosecution has the burden to prove that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself, and that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method and forms of attack
employed by him. In the instant case, there was no proof that appellant consciously adopted the mode of attack, hence he may
only be held liable for homicide, not murder.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals finding appellant guilty of murder is MODIFIED. The Court finds appellant guilty of
Homicide.
EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 149652, March 24, 2006
Facts:
The... witness for the defense Insp. Joel Regimen on October 19, 1996... and Baxinela were walking... along Reyes Street...
when they were approached by a civilian named Romy Manuba who informed them of a drunken person drawing a gun and
creating trouble inside the Playboy Disco Pub
They immediately proceeded to the reported place and, upon arrival, recognized a former... colleague, SPO4 Legarda, who was
with a companion.Invited them to his table and the two obliged... they saw someone with a handgun visibly tucked at the back
of his waist... she passed by their table,... As Baxinela stood up, introduced himself as a policeman and asked the man why he
had a gun with him.
The man did not respond and, instead, suddenly drew out his gun. Baxinela then drew his sidearm and was able to fire first,
hitting the man on his upper left arm. When the man fell down, Baxinela took his gun and wallet and handed them over to
Regimen.
Enlisted the services of the pub's security guard to bring the wounded man to the hospital... report the matter... to the Officer-
in-Charge, Col. Bianson.
To rebut the claim of self-defense, the prosecution presented... witness Alvarez. A security guard assigned... to the Kingsmen
building during the incident in question Baxinela and Legarda and Regimen, already in the Superstar Disco Pub as early as 11:00
p.m. of October 18, 1996 drinking.
At around 12:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. there was a minor altercation between the deceased Sgt. Lajo and another... customer at
the pub but eventually the two were able to patch things up. Lajo was then on his way out when Baxinela followed Lajo with a
gun already drawn out.
Baxinela held Lajo's left arm
Lajo responded
Alvarez heard an explosion coming from Baxinela's gun
Issues:
The RTC found the version of the prosecution, that Baxinela shot Lajo as the latter was turning around and without having
drawn his gun, more convincing, and rendered a decision convicting Baxinela. The RTC, however, considered in favor of
Baxinela the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and provocation.
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE VERSION OF THE
PROSECUTION.
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SELF DEFENSE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
THE LAWFUL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY UNDER ARTICLE 11 PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 5, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE.
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED.
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE QUALIFIED MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.
The Court now proceeds to determine if, following the prosecution's version of what happened, Baxinela can claim the
justifying circumstances of self-defense and fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.
The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense. It is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no
self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[23] On this requisite alone, Baxinela's defense fails. Unlawful aggression...
contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an
Ruling:
The Court now proceeds to determine if, following the prosecution's version of what happened, Baxinela can claim the
justifying circumstances of self-defense and fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.
The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense. It is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no
self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[23] On this requisite alone, Baxinela's defense fails.
we consider the alternative defense of fulfillment of a duty.
Baxinela's duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun... tucked behind his waist in a public place.
The Court will, however, attribute to Baxinela the incomplete defense of fulfillment of a duty as a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
The Court commiserates with our policemen who regularly thrust their lives in zones of danger in order to maintain peace and
order and acknowledges the apprehensions faced by their families whenever they go on duty. But the use of unnecessary force
or wanton violence is not... justified when the fulfillment of their duty as law enforcers can be effected otherwise.
HEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. The conviction of appellant Eduardo Baxinela for the crime of
homicide is AFFIRMED.
PEOPLE v. EULOGIO IGNACIO G.R. No. 134568 February 10, 2000
The RTC convicted Eulogio Ignacio of murder.The trial court ruled that appellant failed to prove by credible, clear and
convincing evidence that he had acted in lawful defense of the landowner’s property. There was no legal reason for him to
shoot the victim, an unarmed minor at the time of the incident. The said court qualified the killing to murder because of the
presence of treachery.
HELD:
In the present case, we find ample evidence that appellant did shoot the victim. It should be stressed that appellant’s conduct
cannot be justified as a lawful defense of property rights. For this justifying circumstance to be appreciated, the accused has
the burden of proving unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it. In this case, the first requisite was not proven, because he was not attacked by the victim. In fact, he did not
even see the victim steal the crabs; he merely suspected him of doing so. Furthermore, assuming that unlawful aggression was
proven, there was no necessity to shoot because, according to him, the victim was already running away when hit.
There is treachery when the accused unexpectedly and deliberately shoots an unarmed minor who is thus not in a position to
put up a defense or to inflict harm on the former. Voluntary surrender is not appreciated even if the accused submits himself
to the members of the barangay tanod who, by their presence in his house, precluded his escape.
In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be appreciated, the defense must clearly satisfy three
requisites: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrenders himself to a person in authority or the
latter’s agent; and (c) the surrender is voluntary. The defense must show an intent to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, because of an acknowledgement of guilt or because of a wish to spare them the trouble and the expense
concomitant to the search and the capture of the accused.