Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Facts: Held:
Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino Yes. The accused acted upon orders of their
Velasco and Jacinto Adriatico file an appeal from superior officers, which as military subordinates,
the judgement of the Abra CFI, which convicted they could not question and obeyed in good faith
them of murder for the execution of Arsenio without the being aware of its illegality.
Borjal, the elected mayor of La, Paz, Abra (at the
outbreak of war), which was found to be aiding The evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of
the enemy. the defense that arrest, prosecution and trial of
Borjal was done in pursuant to express orders of
Borjal moved to Bangued because of death superiors. Additionally, it could not be established
threats was succeeded by Military Mayor Manuel that Beronilla received the radiogram from
Beronilla, who was appointed by Lt. Col. Arbold, Colonel Volckmann, overall area commander,
regimental commander of the 15th Infantry of the which called attention to the illegality of Borjal’s
Phil. Army, operating as guerilla unit in Abra. conviction and sentence. Had Beronilla known
Simultaneously upon his appointment, Beronilla the violation, he would not have dared to report it
received a memorandum which authorized him to to Arnold. The conduct of the accused also does
appoint a jury of 12 bolo men to try persons not show malice on their part because of the
accused of treason, espionage and aiding or conduct of the trial, defense through counsel
abetting the enemy. given to Borjal, suspension of trial based on
doubts of illegality and death sentence review
Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra, sent to the superior officers.
to escape bombing in Bangued, he was placed
under custody and tried and sentenced to death Criminal intent then could not be established. The
by the jury based on various complaints made by maxim here is actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea
the residents. Beronilla reported this to Col. (Crime is not committed if the mind of the person
Arnold who replied, saying “…I can only performing the act complained of to be innocent).
compliment you for your impartial but
independent way of handling the whole case.” Additionally, the lower court should not have
denied their claim to the benefits of the Guerilla
Two years thereafter, Beronilla, along with the Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 inspite of
executioner, digger and jury, were indicted for the contradictory dates of liberation of La Paz, Abra.
murder of Borjal. Soon after, President Manuel Even if the dates were contradictory, the court
Roxas issued Executive Proclamation 8, which should have found for the Beronila, et al because
granted amnesty to persons who committed acts if there are “any reasonable doubt as to whether
in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy a given case falls within the (amnesty)
against persons aiding in the war efforts of the proclamation should be resolved in favor of the
enemy. accused.”
all the amounts she received from Tabuena. The
Judgement reversed, appellants acquitted. receipt was dated January 30,1986. Tabuena and
Peralta were charged for malversation of funds,
Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan while Dabao remained at large. One of the
justices of the Sandiganbayan actively took part
Facts: in the questioning of a defense witness and of the
Then President Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena accused themselves; the volume of the questions
over the phone to pay directly to the president’s asked were more the combined questions of the
office and in cash what the Manila International counsels. On 12 October 1990, they were found
Airport Authority (MIAA) owes the Philippine guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Tabuena and
National Construction Corporation (PNCC), Peralta filed separate petitions for review,
pursuant to the 7 January 1985 memorandum of appealing the Sandiganbayan decision dated 12
then Minister Trade and Industry Roberto Ongpin. October 19990 and the Resolution of 20
Tabuena agreed. About a week later, Tabuena December 1991.
received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then private
secretary of Marcos, a Presidential Memorandum Issue:
dated 8 January 1986 reiterating in black and Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime
white such verbal instruction. In obedience to of malversation.
President Marcos’ verbal instruction and
memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo
G. Dabao and Adolfo Peralta, caused the release Held:
of P55 Million of MIAA funds by means of three Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of
(3) withdrawals. On 10 January 1986, the first the crime of malversation. Tabuena acted in strict
withdrawal was made for P25 Million, following a compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum.
letter of even date signed by Tabuena and Dabao The order emanated from the Office of the
requesting the PNB extension office at the MIAA President and bears the signature of the
the depository branch of MIAA funds, to issue a President himself, the highest official of the land.
manager’s check for said amount payable to It carries with it the presumption that it was
Tabuena. The check was encashed, however, at regularly issued. And on its face, the
the PNB Villamor Branch. Dabao and the cashier memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes
of the PNB Villamor branch counted the money the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact,
after which, Tabuena took delivery thereof. The coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution
P25 Million in cash was delivered on the same constrains one to act swiftly without question.
day to the office of Mrs. Gimenez. Mrs. Gimenez Records show that the Sandiganbayan actively
did not issue any receipt for the money received. took part in the questioning of a defense witness
Similar circumstances surrounded the second and of the accused themselves. The questions of
withdrawal/encashment and delivery of another the court were in the nature of cross examinations
P25 Million, made on 16 January 1986. The third characteristic of confrontation, probing and
and last withdrawal was made on 31 January insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta may not have
1986 for P5 Million. Peralta was Tabuena’s co- raised the issue as an error, there is nevertheless
signatory to the letter- request for a manager’s no impediment for the court to consider such
check for this amount. Peralta accompanied matter as additional basis for a reversal since the
Tabuena to the PNB Villamor branch as Tabuena settled doctrine is that an appeal throws the
requested him to do the counting of the P5 whole case open to review, and it becomes the
Million. After the counting, the money was loaded duty of the appellate court to correct such errors
in the trunk of Tabuena’s car. Peralta did not go as may be found in the judgment appealed from
with Tabuena to deliver the money to Mrs. whether they are made the subject of
Gimenez’ office. It was only upon delivery of the assignments of error or not.
P5 Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a receipt for
People v. Taneo (CASE DIGEST)
RULING:
FACTS: No. The Court concluded that the defendant
Potenciano Tadeo lived with his wife in his acted while in a dream. His acts were not
parent’s house. In January 1932, a fiesta was voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal
being celebrated, and visitors were entertained in liability.
the house including Fred Tanner and Luis
Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano Taneo, The Court took the special circumstances of the
went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got case, in which the victim was the defendant’s own
up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting wife whom he dearly loved, and taking into
his wife who tried to stop him, he wounded her in consideration the fact that the defendant tried to
the abdomen. Taneo attacked Tanner and attack also his father, in whose house and under
Malinao and tried to attack his father after which whose protection he lived, besides attacking
he wounded himself. Potenciano’s wife who was Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he himself
then seven months pregnant, died five days later invited as may be inferred from the evidence
as a result of her wound, and also the foetus presented, the Court found not only a lack of
which was asphyxiated in the mother’s womb. motive for the defendant to voluntarily commit the
acts complained of, but also motives for not
Taneo was charged with parricide. From this committing said acts.
sentence, the defendant appealed.
Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in this case, is
It appears from the evidence that the day before also of the same opinion. The doctor stated that
the commission of the crime the defendant had a considering the circumstances of the case, the
quarrel over a glass of “tuba” with Enrique defendant acted while in a dream, under the
Collantes and Valentin Abadilla. On the day of the influence of a hallucination and not in his right
commission of the crime, it was noted that the mind.
defendant was sad and weak, and early in the
afternoon he had severe stomachache. The The Court found that the defendant is not
defendant states that when he fell asleep, he criminally liable for the offense with which he is
dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him charged, and it is ordered that he be confined in
with a bolo while Abadilla held his feet, by reason the Government insane asylum, whence he shall
of which he got up; and as it seemed to him that not be released until the director thereof finds that
his enemies were inviting him to come down, he his liberty would no longer constitute a menace.
armed himself with a bolo and left the room. At
the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to People vs. Bonoan
him that she was wounded. Then he fancied
seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation Facts:
wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime of
multiply around him, he attacked everybody that murder for stabbing Carlos Guison with a knife,
came his way. which caused his death three days afterwards. An
arraignment was then called, but the defense
The evidence shows that the defendant not only objected on the ground that the defendant was
did not have any trouble with his wife, but that he mentally deranged and was at the time confined
loved her dearly. Neither did he have any dispute at the Psychopatic Hospital. After several months
with Tanner and Malinao, or have any motive for of summons for doctors, production of the
assaulting them. defendant’s complete record of mental condition
from the hospital and defendant’s admission to
ISSUE: the hospital for personal observation, assistant
Whether or not Taneo is criminally liable. alienist Dr. Jose Fernandez finally reported to the
court that Bonoan may be discharged for being a The legal presumption is always in favor of sanity;
“recovered case”. After trial, the lower court found no positive evidence of accused mental state was
Bonoan guilty and sentenced him to life established
imprisonment. Based on expert testimonies, accused was cured
of dementia praecox and later manic depressive
The defense now appeals, claiming the lower psychosis
court made errors in finding Bonoan suffered Based on observance of arresting officer Damaso
dementia only occasionally and intermittently, did Arnoco, corrobating statement of Benjamin Cruz,
not show any kind of abnormality, that the and other witnesses, accused appear sane at the
defense did not establish the defendant’s insanity time immediately after commission
and finding accused guilty. There is a motive of aggression on part of
accused is real and positive fact: deceased’s
Issue: failure to pay borrowed money
W/N the lower court erred in finding the accused
guilty People vs. Puno
Held: Facts:
Yes. The Court finds the accused demented at At about two o’ clock in the afternoon of
the time he perpetrated the crime, which September 8, 1970, defendant Ernesto Puno
consequently exempts him from criminal liability, (Puno), 27, entered a bedroom in the house of his
and orders for his confinement in San Lazaro neighbor, Francisca Col (Aling Kikay), 72. On
Hospital or other hospital for the insane. This seeing Aling Kikay sitting in bed, Puno insulted
ruling was based on the following evidence: her and shouted profanities at her, accusing her
of witchcraft. He then repeatedly slapped her and
Uncontradicted evidence that accused was stuck her several times on the head with a
confined in the insane department of San Lazaro hammer until she died. The assault was
Hospital and diagnosed with dementia praecox witnessed by Hilaria de la Cruz (Hilaria), 23, and
long before the commission of the offense and Lina Pajes (Lina), 27. de La Cruz was with Aling
recurrence of ailments were not entirely lacking Kikay inside the bedroom while Lina was in the
of scientific foundation adjoining room. Both witnesses t estified that
Persons with dementia praecox are disqualified Puno’s eyes were reddish and that he looked
from legal responsibility because they have no baleful and menacing. After the killing, Puno went
control of their acts; dementia praecox symptoms to the adjoining room of Lina where Hilaria had
similar to manic depression psychosis taken refuge, and, according to Hilaria, Puno
Accused had an insomnia attack, a symptom confessed to the killing and threatened them not
leading to dementia praecox, four days prior to to tell the police or else he would hunt them down.
act according to Dr. Francisco He then fled to his parents’ house and then to his
Accused was sent the Psychopatic hospital on second cousin’s house. Lina, disregarding
the same day of crime and arrest, indicating the Puno’s threat, notified the police of the killing after
police’s doubt of his mental normalcy she was certain Puno had left. Corporal Daniel B.
Defendant suffered from manic depressive Cruz (Cruz) answered the call. Cruz found the
psychosis according to Dr. Joson lifeless body of Aling Kikay sprawled on her bed
all bloodied. He took down
Dissenting (Justices Imperial, Diaz and statements from Hilaria and Lina at the police
Concepcion): station. Both witnesses pointed to Puno as the
killer. Puno’s father surrendered him to the police
The dissenting opinions pose that the accused and two policemen brought him to the
committed the crime when he was sane, or at National Mental Hospital on September 10, 2970.
least, during a lucid interval. The defendant was charged with murder in the
Municipal Trial Court and he waived the second must be deprived completely of reason or
stage of the preliminary investigation. On October discernment and freedom of the will at
21, 1970, Puno was indicted for murder in the the time of committing the crime. Puno was not
Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig. Alleged in the legally insane when he killed the
information as aggravating circumstances were hapless and helpless victim. The facts and the
evident premeditation, abuse of superiority and findings of the psychiatrists reveal
disregard of sex. Five months after the killing, that on the tragic occasion he was not completely
Puno pretended that he did not remember having deprived of reason and freedom of
killed Aling Kikay. He also said that people will.
involved in witchcraft (such as “mangkukulams,” Ruling:
as he put it) must be killed. Death penalty is set aside. The accused is
Zenaida Gabriel, Puno’s wife; Aida Gabriel, sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity
Puno’s sister-in-law; and Teotimo Puno, Puno’s imposed by the trial court is affirmed.
cousin; all testified to the fact that Puno’s eyes
were reddish and that he acted bizarrely on three People vs. Rafanan
different occasions. The defense presented three
psychiatrists. However, instead of proving that FACTS: Complainant Estelita Ronaya was only
Puno was insane when he killed 14 years old when hired as a househelper by the
Aling Kikay, the medical experts testified that mother of the accused. The accused Policarpio
Puno acted with discernment because Rafaran and his family lived with his mother in the
according to Doctor Araceli Maravilla of the same house. Policarpio was married and has
Psychiatry section of the Dr. Jose R. Reyes children. One evening, the mother of the accused
Memorial Hospital, Puno was an outpatient who called complainant to help him close the door.
could very well live with society, although he was When the complainant went near him, he pulled
afflicted with “schizophrenic reaction”. Sev eral her inside the store and raped her despite her
other doctors attested to this. resistance. After that, he warned the complainant
The trial court concluded that Puno was sane or not to tell anyone about it or he will kill her. The
knew that the killing of Aling Kikay was wrong and next day, the family of the accused knew what
that he would be punished for it, as shown by the happened. Appellant claimed that he is suffering
threats which he made to Hilaria and Lina. The from schizophrenia when he inflicted violent
trial court also concluded that if Puno was a intentions to Estelita. Trial court suspended the
homicidal maniac who had gone berserk, he tria; and ordered his confinement to National
would have killed also Hilaria and Lina. The fact Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong. After 2 years,
that he singled out Aling Kikay signified that he he was reported to be behaved and in improved
really disposed of her because he thought he was condition and in mental condition to stand court in
a witch. The trial court convicted Puno of murder trial. Trial of case resumed.
and sentenced him to death and ordered
him to pay the heirs of the victim. ISSUE: W/N the reason of insanity is sufficient to
relieve him from criminal liability
Issue:
Whether Puno was legally insane and thus HELD: No. The allegation of insanity or imbecility
exempt from the conviction of murder on must be clearly proved. Without positive evidence
the ground of insanity as stated in a rticle 12 of that the defendant had previously lost his reason
the Revised Penal Code. or was demented, a few moments prior to or
during the perpetration of the crime, it will be
Held: presumed that he was in a normal condition.
No. Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code states
that insanity means that the accused People vs. Madarang
Facts: Melencio has also killed their uncle. Benjamin
Appellant was convicted of parricide for stabbing knowing what Melencio did to her sister, went to
his wife, causing her death. Appellant alleges he her sister’s house and when he was 150m away,
was in a state of insanity and claims he had no saw Melencio and the latter shouted “Its good you
recollection of the stabbing incident.He insists would see how your sister would die.” Benjamin
that he was deprived of intelligence , making his sought the help of the police.
act involuntary.His psychiatric evaluation
revealed he was suffering from schizophrenia but SPO1 saw Melencio embracing her wife uttering
after two years in the National Center for Mental the words “I will kill myself, I will kill myself”.
Health his condition improved thus, he was Lorenza, who was lying on her back and facing
released. upward, was no longer breathing. She appeared
to be dead. Appellant dropped the knife which
Held: was taken by SPO3 Martin. Appellant tried to
In the Philippines, the courts have established a resist the people who held him but was
more stringent criterion for insanity to be overpowered. The police, with the help of the
exempting as it is required that there must be a barangay officials present, tied his hands and feet
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing with a plastic rope. However, before he was
the act,i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he pulled away from the body of his wife and
acted without the least discernment because restrained by the police, appellant admitted to
there is a complete absence of the power to Rolando Valdez, a neighbor of his and a
discern, or that there is total deprivation of the barangay kagawad, that he had killed his wife,
will.Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will showing him the bloodstained knife.
not exclude imputability.The issue of insanity is a
question of fact.The state or condition of a man’s Special report showed that Lorenza Robios was
mind can only be measured and judged by his six (6) months pregnant. She suffered 41 stab
behavior.Establishing one’s insanity requires wounds on the different parts of her body and that
testimony of an expert witness, such as a the appellant was under the influence of alcohol
psychiatrist.The proof must relate to the time and also stabbed himself.
preceding or coetaneous with the commisssion of
the offense with which he is charged.None of the Melencio admitted that she killed his wife but wish
witnesses declared that he exhibited any of the to be exempted of his criminal liability invoking
symptoms associated with schizophrenia insanity. His son testified that Melencio saw
immediately before or simultaneous with the someone in their house that wanted to kill him. A
stabbing incident.Also schizophrenics have lucid nurse said that Melencio “isolated himself, laging
intervals during which they are capable of nakatingin sa malayo, rarely talked, just stared at
distinguishing right from wrong. her and murmured alone”. A detention prisoner
witnessed the appellant usually refusing to
People vs. Robios respond in the counting of prisoners. Sometimes,
he stayed in his cell even if they were required to
Facts: fall in line in the plaza of the penal colony. And
Melencio Robios was found guilty with the another prisoner said that accused sometimes
complex crime of parricide with unintentional was lying down, sitting, looking, or staring on
abortion and was sentenced of death. May 31, space and without companion, laughing and
1995, he was accused of killing his pregnant wife. sometimes crying. And Melencio said that he did
March 25, 1995 Lorenzo Robios, son of Melencio not know that he was charged for the crime of
heard his parents quarreling and saw Melencio parricide with unintentional abortion. He could not
stab her mom Lorenza with an 8-inch double remember when he was informed by his children
bladed knife on the right shoulder. On the same that he killed his wife. He could not believe that
day, Benjamin, brother of Lorenza reported that he killed his wife
Issue: Verdadero vs. People
1. Can he be exempted on the grounds of
insanity? Facts:
2. What is the proper penalty for him? On March 12, 2009, at around 3:00 o'clock in the
afternoon, Maynard Plata (Maynard) and his
Held: father Romeo were at the Baggao Police Station.
1. Testimonies from both prosecution and Together with Ronnie Elaydo (Ronnie), they went
defense witnesses show no substantial evidence there to report that Verdadero had stolen the fan
that appellant was completely deprived of reason belt of their irrigation pump.[7]After a
or discernment when he perpetrated the brutal confrontation with Verdadero at the police station,
killing of his wife. The fact that appellant admitted the three men made their way home on a tricycle
to responding law enforcers how he had just killed but stopped at a drugstore as Maynard intended
his wife may have been a manifestation of to buy some baby supplies. Romeo proceeded
repentance and remorse -- a natural sentiment of towards a store near the drugstore while Ronnie
a husband who had realized the wrongfulness of stayed inside the tricycle. From the drug store,
his act. His behavior at the time of the killing and Maynard saw Verdadero stabbing Romeo, after
immediately thereafter is inconsistent with his he was alerted by the shouts of
claim that he had no knowledge of what he had Ronnie.[8]Verdadero stabbed Romeo on the left
just done and he was not insane during the side of the latter's upper back with the use of a
commission of the crime. Rambo knife. He again struck Romeo's upper
2. Since appellant was convicted of the back, just below the right shoulder. Maynard tried
complex crime of parricide with unintentional to help his father but Verdadero attempted to
abortion, the penalty to be imposed on him should attack him as well. He defended himself using a
be that for the graver offense which is parricide small stool, which he used to hit Verdadero in the
and punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. chest.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is exempt in Mantalaba: the lower court gravely erred in
the crime alleged by reason of minority convicting him and that there was no evidence of
actual sale between him and the poser-buyer
HELD: Yes, the petitioner is exempt from criminal during the buy-bust operation. He also claims that
liability. For one who acts by virtue of any of the the chain of custody of the seized shabu was not
exempting circumstances, although he commits a established.
crime, by the complete absence of any of the
conditions which constitute free will or Issue: Whether Mantalaba is guilty of drug
voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability trafficking and possession.
arises. Hence, while there is a crime committed,
no criminal liability attaches. Ruling:
By virtue of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act The petition is without merit.
of 2006 (R.A. 9344), the age of criminal The buy-bust operation was valid, establishing
irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
old. Petitioner was only 13 years old at the time seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
of the commission of the alleged rape. The first the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefore. From the above testimony of the from the medium period of reclusion temporal,
prosecution witness, it was well established that there being no other mitigating circumstance nor
the elements have been satisfactorily met. The aggravating circumstance.
seller and the poseur-buyer were properly
identified. The subject dangerous drug, as well as US vs. Tanedo
the marked money used, were also satisfactorily
presented. The testimony was also clear as to the Facts:
manner in which the buy-bust operation was That on or about the 26th day of January of this
conducted. year, the accused, with the intention of killing
Feliciano Sanchez, invited him to hunt wild
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust chickens, and, upon reaching the forest, with
team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there premeditation shot him in the breast with a
is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the shotgun which destroyed the heart and killed him.
integrity and the evidentiary value of the After seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved ran back to his workers and asked one,
by the apprehending officer/team. Its non- Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the body,
compliance will not render an accused arrest which they did by putting it amidst the tall cogon
illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him grass, and later burying in an old well.
inadmissible. Only one shot was heard that morning and a
chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken
As to his minority, Mantalaba was minor during feathers were found at the scene of the crime.
the buy-bust operation but was of legal age Prior to the trial, the accused denied all
during the promulgation of the decision. It must knowledge of the crime, but later confessed
be noted that RA 9344 took effect after the during the trial. The CFI of Tarlac found the
promulgation of the RTC's decision against accused guilty of homicide, having invited the
Mantalaba. The RTC did not suspend the deceased into the forest and intentionally
sentence in accordance with PD 603 (Child and shooting him in the chest.
Youth Welfare Code) and Rule on Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law that were applicable at the So far as can be ascertained, there was no
time of the promulgation of the judgment. enmity and no unpleasant relations between
However, as ruled in People vs Sarcia, them. There appears to have been no motive
suspension of sentence can still be applied but whatever for the commission of the crime. The
NOT when the offender upon the promulgation of only possible reason that the accused could have
judgment is 21 yrs old. or older. Mantalaba is now for killing the deceased would be found in the fact
21 yrs old, therefore his suspension of sentence of a sudden quarrel between them during the
is already moot and academic. hunt. That idea is wholly negative by the fact that
the chicken and the man were shot at the same
But as to the penalty, CA must have appreciated time, there having been only one shot fired.
Mantalaba's minority as privileged mitigating Hence, the decision was appealed.
circumstance in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying
the rules stated above, the proper penalty should Issue: W/N the court is correct in ruling that there
be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, is criminal liability. NO
which is reclusion temporal, the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority having been Held:
appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the If life is taken by misfortune or accident while in
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the the performance of a lawful act executed with due
minimum penalty should be taken from the care and without intention of doing harm, there is
penalty next lower in degree which is prision no criminal liability. In this case there is absolutely
mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken no evidence of negligence upon the part of the
accused. Neither is there any question that he 9. However, the trial court nonetheless
was engaged in the commission of a lawful act found him guilty on the ground that the evidence
when the accident occurred. Neither is there any showed that the infliction of the fatal injury upon
evidence of the intention of the accused to cause his wife was preceded by a quarrel between her
the death of the deceased. The only thing in the and the appellant, thus negating the latter’s
case at all suspicious upon the part of the defense.
defendant are his concealment and denial. 10. The same was affirmed on appeal.
Where accidental killing is relied upon as a 11. In the present petition, the appellant
defense, the accused is not required to prove contends that assuming that he was the one who
such a defense by a preponderance of the killed his wife the same was accidental and not
evidence, because there is a denial of intentional intentional.
killing, and the burden is upon the State to show
that it was intentional. ISSUE: Is the exempting circumstance of
Evidence of misadventure gives rise to an accident applicable in the instant case?
important issue in a prosecution for homicide,
which must be submitted to the jury. And since a HELD:
plea of misadventure is a denial of criminal intent
which constitutes an essential element in criminal 1. No. Article 12, par. 4 of the Revised
homicide, to warrant a conviction it must be Penal Code, provides: ART. 12. Circumstances
negative by the prosecution beyond a reasonable which exempt from criminal liability. — The
doubt. Thus the judgment is reversed. following are exempt from criminal liability: Any
person who, while performing a lawful act with
People vs. Castillo due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it.
FACTS: 2. "Accident" is an affirmative defense
1. In the evening of 5 November 1993, the which the accused is burdened to prove, with
accused-appellant came home drunk and angry. clear and convincing evidence. The defense
2. His father-in-law (Guillermo) tried to miserably failed to discharge its burden of proof.
subdue him but to no avail which caused the The essential requisites for this exempting
former to leave the house. circumstance, are:
3. As he was leaving, Guillermo saw him i. A person is performing a lawful act;
take out his sling and arrow. ii. With due care;
4. Consorcia, the accused’s wife, was iii. He causes an injury to another by mere
heard crying and screaming. accident;
5. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was iv. Without fault or intention of causing it.
seen carrying the bloodied body of Consorcia out 3. By no stretch of imagination could
of the house and was later taken to the hospital playing with or using a deadly sling and arrow be
but to no avail. considered as performing a "lawful act."
6. Cause of death was the cut jugular vein 4. Thus, on this ground alone, appellant's
caused by a fatal weapon which could have been defense of accident must be struck down
a “pointed instrument like a nail.” because he was performing an unlawful act
7. Appellant was charged with parricide for during the incident.
allegedly shooting his wife with a dart from a 5. Also, the fact that the accused-appellant
rubber sling, hitting her at the neck and causing disappeared while his wife was in the hospital is
her instantaneous death. unbecoming of a husband with a dying wife.
8. In his defense, the accused said that he 6. Accused was found guilty of the crime of
had no intention of killing his wife and that he was Parricide wherein the court imposed the penalty
practicing the use of the weapon when his wife of reclusion perpetua.
was accidentally hit by the arrow.
People vs. Retubado then rushed to his house to change clothes. He
placed the gun on the dining table. When he went
Facts: back to the dining room his sister told him that
Someone played a joke on Edwin Retubado, the their brother Edwin had taken the gun and thrown
appellant’s younger brother who was mentally ill. it into the sea.
Someone inserted a lighted firecracker in a
cigarette pack and gave it to Edwin. While Edwin Trial court convicted Jesus of murder, and
and his father were having dinner, it exploded. sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The suspect was their neighbor Emmanuel Caon,
Jr. The matter was brought to the attention of the Issue:
barangay captain who conducted an 1. WON Jesus was merely performing a
investigation. It turned out that Emmanuel Caon, lawful act with due care hence, cannot be held
Jr. was NOT the culprit. The appellant, however, criminally liable for the victims death - No!
was bent on confronting Emmanuel Caon, Jr. 2. WON Jesus is liable for murder - No!
Thereafter, the father of Emmanuel Jr., 50 y.o. Homicide only
Emmanuel Caon, Sr., (pedicab driver) was
confronted by Jesus when the former was on his Ruling:
way home. Emmanuel Sr. ignored Jesus so the The phrase state of necessity is of German origin.
latter pushed the pedicab which nearly fell into a Countries which have embraced the classical
canal. Jesus followed Emmanuel Sr. to his house. theory of criminal law, like Italy, do not use the
His wife, Norberta Caon was in the balcony of phrase. The justification refers to a situation of
their house, above the porch waiting for him to grave peril (un mal), actual or imminent (actual o
arrive. Emmanuel, Jr., meanwhile, was already imminente). The word propiedad covers diverse
asleep. Emmanuel Sr. demanded to know why he juridical rights (bienes juridicos) such as right to
was being followed. Jesus told Emmanuel that he life, honor, the integrity of ones body, and
just wanted to talk to Emmanuel Jr., but property (la vida, la integridad corporal, el pudor,
Emmanuel Sr. told the appellant that his son was el honor, bienes patrimoniales) belonging to
already asleep. Norberta went down from the another. It is indispensable that the state of
balcony and placed her hand on her husbands necessity must not be brought about by the
shoulder to pacify him. Jesus forthwith pulled out intentional provocation of the party invoking the
a handgun from under his T-shirt and shot same.
Emmanuel on the forehead. The latter fell to the
floor as the appellant walked away from the The defense of a state of necessity is a justifying
scene. Emmanuel was brought to the Tuburan circumstance under Article 11, paragraph 4 of the
District Hospital, but he died shortly thereafter. RPC. It is an affirmative defense that must be
Jesus surrendered to the police but failed to proved by the accused with clear and convincing
surrender the firearm he used to kill the victim. evidence. By admitting causing the injuries and
killing the victim, the accused must rely on the
Jesus admitted shooting the victim but claimed strength of his own evidence and not on the
that he was merely performing a lawful act with weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.
due care hence, cannot be held criminally liable Whether the accused acted under a state of
for the victims death. He testified that when he necessity is a question
insisted that Emmanuel wake up his son, of fact, which is addressed to the sound discretion
Emmanuel went to his room and emerged of the trial court.
therefrom holding a handgun. Jesus grabbed
Emmanuel’s hand, they struggled for the gun but There is no basis to deviate from the findings of
eventually, Emmanuel fell on his knees. Jesus the trial court that the appellant was the
pulled the gun to the level of Emmanuel’s provocateur, the unlawful aggressor and the
forehead, and the gun suddenly went off. Jesus author of a deliberate and malicious act of
shooting the victim at close range on the was being followed. Jesus told Emmanuel that he
forehead. The court came to this conclusion just wanted to talk to Emmanuel Jr., but
based on: Emmanuel Sr. told the appellant that his son was
1. Norberta Caon’s testimony. already asleep. Norberta went down from the
2. There is no evidence that the appellant balcony and placed her hand on her husbands
informed the police authorities that he killed the shoulder to pacify him. Jesus forthwith pulled out
victim in a state of necessity and that his brother, a handgun from under his T-shirt and shot
Edwin, threw the gun into the sea. Emmanuel on the forehead. The latter fell to the
3. The appellant had the motive to shoot floor as the appellant walked away from the
and kill the victim. scene. Emmanuel was brought to the Tuburan
District Hospital, but he died shortly thereafter.
There is no treachery in the present case to Jesus surrendered to the police but failed to
qualify the crime to murder. To appreciate surrender the firearm he used to kill the victim.
treachery, two (2) conditions must be present,
namely, (a) the employment of the means of Jesus admitted shooting the victim but claimed
execution that give the person attacked no that he was merely performing a lawful act with
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and due care hence, cannot be held criminally liable
(b) the means of execution were deliberately or for the victims death. He testified that when he
consciously adopted. The prosecution failed to insisted that Emmanuel wake up his son,
adduce an iota of evidence to support the Emmanuel went to his room and emerged
confluence of the abovementioned conditions. therefrom holding a handgun. Jesus grabbed
Emmanuel’s hand, they struggled for the gun but
The appellant is entitled to the mitigating eventually, Emmanuel fell on his knees. Jesus
circumstance of voluntary surrender. pulled the gun to the level of Emmanuel’s
forehead, and the gun suddenly went off. Jesus
Pomoy vs. People then rushed to his house to change clothes. He
placed the gun on the dining table. When he went
Facts: back to the dining room his sister told him that
Someone played a joke on Edwin Retubado, the their brother Edwin had taken the gun and thrown
appellant’s younger brother who was mentally ill. it into the sea.
Someone inserted a lighted firecracker in a
cigarette pack and gave it to Edwin. While Edwin Trial court convicted Jesus of murder, and
and his father were having dinner, it exploded. sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The suspect was their neighbor Emmanuel Caon,
Jr. The matter was brought to the attention of the Issue:
barangay captain who conducted an 1. WON Jesus was merely performing a
investigation. It turned out that Emmanuel Caon, lawful act with due care hence, cannot be held
Jr. was NOT the culprit. The appellant, however, criminally liable for the victims death - No!
was bent on confronting Emmanuel Caon, Jr. 2. WON Jesus is liable for murder - No!
Thereafter, the father of Emmanuel Jr., 50 y.o. Homicide only
Emmanuel Caon, Sr., (pedicab driver) was
confronted by Jesus when the former was on his Ruling:
way home. Emmanuel Sr. ignored Jesus so the The phrase state of necessity is of German origin.
latter pushed the pedicab which nearly fell into a Countries which have embraced the classical
canal. Jesus followed Emmanuel Sr. to his house. theory of criminal law, like Italy, do not use the
His wife, Norberta Caon was in the balcony of phrase. The justification refers to a situation of
their house, above the porch waiting for him to grave peril (un mal), actual or imminent (actual o
arrive. Emmanuel, Jr., meanwhile, was already imminente). The word propiedad covers diverse
asleep. Emmanuel Sr. demanded to know why he juridical rights (bienes juridicos) such as right to
life, honor, the integrity of ones body, and
property (la vida, la integridad corporal, el pudor, US vs. Caballeros
el honor, bienes patrimoniales) belonging to
another. It is indispensable that the state of FACTS:
necessity must not be brought about by the The defendants have been sentenced by the CFI
intentional provocation of the party invoking the of Cebu to the penalty of seven years of presidio
same. mayor as accessories after the fact in the crime
of assassination or murder perpetrated on the
The defense of a state of necessity is a justifying persons of the American school-teachers
circumstance under Article 11, paragraph 4 of the ,because, without having taken part in the said
RPC. It is an affirmative defense that must be crime as principals or as accomplices, they took
proved by the accused with clear and convincing part in the burial of the corpses of the victims in
evidence. By admitting causing the injuries and order to conceal the crime.
killing the victim, the accused must rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not on the The evidence does not justify, in our opinion, this
weakness of the evidence of the prosecution. sentence. As regards Roberto Baculi, although
Whether the accused acted under a state of he confessed to having assisted in the burial of
necessity is a question the corpses, it appears that he did so because he
of fact, which is addressed to the sound discretion was compelled to do so by the murderers of the
of the trial court. four teachers. And not only does the defendant
affirm this, but he is corroborated by the only
There is no basis to deviate from the findings of eyewitness to the crime, Teodoro Sabate, who,
the trial court that the appellant was the by the way, is a witness for the prosecution. This
provocateur, the unlawful aggressor and the witness says he was present when the Americans
author of a deliberate and malicious act of were killed; that Roberto Baculi was not a
shooting the victim at close range on the member of the group who killed the Americans,
forehead. The court came to this conclusion but the he was in a banana plantation on his
based on: property gathering some bananas; that when he
1. Norberta Caon’s testimony. heard the shots he began to run; that he was,
2. There is no evidence that the appellant however, seen by Damaso and Isidoro, the
informed the police authorities that he killed the leaders of the band; that the latter called to him
victim in a state of necessity and that his brother, and striking him with the butts of their guns they
Edwin, threw the gun into the sea. forced him to bury the corpses.
3. The appellant had the motive to shoot
and kill the victim. ISSUE:
Whether or not defendants are criminally liable.
There is no treachery in the present case to
qualify the crime to murder. To appreciate RULING:
treachery, two (2) conditions must be present,
namely, (a) the employment of the means of The Penal Code exempts from liability any person
execution that give the person attacked no who performs the act by reason of irresistible
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and force (par. 9, art. 8). Baculi acted, doubtless,
(b) the means of execution were deliberately or under such circumstances when he executed the
consciously adopted. The prosecution failed to acts which are charged against him.
adduce an iota of evidence to support the
confluence of the abovementioned conditions. As regards the other defendant, Apolonio
Caballeros, there is no proof that he took any part
The appellant is entitled to the mitigating in any way in the execution of the crime with
circumstance of voluntary surrender which he has been charged; there is conclusive
proof to the contrary, since Baculi, as well as one The alleged NPA members robbed the family of
of the witnesses for the prosecution, Teodoro several belongings. Moreover, the man in the
Sabate, expressly declare that he, Caballeros, dark sweater raped the 2 daughters of Elias,
did not take any part in the burial of the aforesaid Cristina & Monica. Elias, Cristina, Monica & Fabie
corpses, nor was he even in the place of the positively identified Loreno as 1 of the robbers.
occurrence when the burial took place. The Fabie also identified Marantal.
confession of his supposed liability and guilt,
made before an official of the division of Issue: WON Loreno and Marantal are exempted
information of the Constabulary, Enrique from criminal liability under the defenses of Article
Calderon, as the latter states when testifying as a 12(5) and (6)
witness, can not be considered as legal proof,
because the same witness says that Roberto Held: No. Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and
Baculi was the only one of the defendants who Jimmy Marantal claimed that they acted under
made a confession to him voluntarily. It appears the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or
besides, from the statements of another witness under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal
for the prosecution, Meliton Covarrubias, that the or greater injury. They admitted that they were in
confession of Caballeros was made through the the house of Elias that night but they were only
promise made to him and to the other defendants forced by a man wearing black sweater and his
that nothing would be done to them. Confessions five companions who claimed to be members of
which do not appear to have been made freely the NPA, with the threat that if they did not obey,
and voluntarily, without force, intimidation, or appellants and their families would be killed. This
promise of pardon, can not be accepted as proof was found untenable.
on a trial. (Sec. 4, Act No. 619 of the Philippine A person who acts under the compulsion of an
Commission). irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater
The fact of the defendants not reporting to the injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he
authorities the perpetration of the crime, which does not act with freedom. The force must be
seems to be one of the motives for the conviction irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument
and which the court below takes into who acts not only without will but against his will.
consideration in his judgment, is not punished by The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be
the Penal Code and therefore that can not render present, imminent and impending and of such a
the defendants criminally liable according to law. nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if
By virtue, then, of the above considerations, and the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not
with a reversal of the judgment appealed from, we enough. The compulsion must be of such
acquit the defendants, appellants, with the costs character as to leave no opportunity to the
de oficio in both instances. accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
People vs. Loreno
Loreno and Marantal had admitted their
Facts: participation in the commission of the crimes of
Barangay Captain Elias Monge, his family & robbery and rape against Elias and is family.
Francisco Fabie, their farm helper were home Facts inconsistent with the appellants’ defense
preparing for the barrio dance when Loreno & a were established: (a) having been armed with a
man in a dark sweater came by their house, firearm, (b) Loreno positioning himself near the
saying there was a letter from the chief (hepe). post of the balcony without prior instructions, (c)
Elias let them in & when they read the letter, it Loreno furnishing the rattan to tie the victims, and
said that they were NPA. They were made to lie (d) Loreno pointing his gun to the other victims
on the ground while other men went in the house. when Monica was being raped. Furthermore,
Loreno brought Beata, Elias’s wife to the different appellants and their families would be killed. This
rooms to open the trunks and closets, without the was found untenable.
threat and assistance of the man in dark sweater. A person who acts under the compulsion of an
And lastly, Loreno tried to molest Cristina after irresistible force, like one who acts under the
being raped by the man in dark sweater. impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater
injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he
When Marantal kicked Fabie when the latter saw does not act with freedom. The force must be
his face, it was due to the fact the Fabie had irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument
recognized him & the blows which he gave to who acts not only without will but against his will.
Fabie who was still tied was a warning not to The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be
report his presence & participation in the crime. present, imminent and impending and of such a
Furthermore, there was no showing that Jimmy nature as to induce a well-grounded
Marantal raised a voice of protest nor did an act apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if
to prevent the commission of the crimes. All these the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not
demonstrated the voluntary participation & the enough. The compulsion must be of such
conspiracy of the appellants. Not only was their character as to leave no opportunity to the
defense untenable, but the facts show that that accused for escape or self-defense in equal
there was conspiracy. combat.
People vs. Del Rosario Loreno and Marantal had admitted their
participation in the commission of the crimes of
Facts: Barangay Captain Elias Monge, his family robbery and rape against Elias and is family.
& Francisco Fabie, their farm helper were home Facts inconsistent with the appellants’ defense
preparing for the barrio dance when Loreno & a were established: (a) having been armed with a
man in a dark sweater came by their house, firearm, (b) Loreno positioning himself near the
saying there was a letter from the chief (hepe). post of the balcony without prior instructions, (c)
Elias let them in & when they read the letter, it Loreno furnishing the rattan to tie the victims, and
said that they were NPA. They were made to lie (d) Loreno pointing his gun to the other victims
on the ground while other men went in the house. when Monica was being raped. Furthermore,
The alleged NPA members robbed the family of Loreno brought Beata, Elias’s wife to the different
several belongings. Moreover, the man in the rooms to open the trunks and closets, without the
dark sweater raped the 2 daughters of Elias, threat and assistance of the man in dark sweater.
Cristina & Monica. Elias, Cristina, Monica & Fabie And lastly, Loreno tried to molest Cristina after
positively identified Loreno as 1 of the robbers. being raped by the man in dark sweater.
Fabie also identified Marantal.
When Marantal kicked Fabie when the latter saw
Issue: WON Loreno and Marantal are exempted his face, it was due to the fact the Fabie had
from criminal liability under the defenses of Article recognized him & the blows which he gave to
12(5) and (6) Fabie who was still tied was a warning not to
report his presence & participation in the crime.
Held: No. Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Furthermore, there was no showing that Jimmy
Jimmy Marantal claimed that they acted under Marantal raised a voice of protest nor did an act
the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or to prevent the commission of the crimes. All these
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal demonstrated the voluntary participation & the
or greater injury. They admitted that they were in conspiracy of the appellants. Not only was their
the house of Elias that night but they were only defense untenable, but the facts show that that
forced by a man wearing black sweater and his there was conspiracy.
five companions who claimed to be members of
the NPA, with the threat that if they did not obey, People vs. Bandian
or another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did
FACTS: so willfully, consciously, or imprudently. She had
At About 7 in the morning of January 31, 1936, no cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to
Valentine Aguilar, the apellant’s neighbor, saw death, because her affair with a former lover, Kirol
the appellant go to the thicket about four or five took place three years before the incident. The
brazas from her house, apparently to respond to husband of the appellant testified at the trial
a call of nature because it was there that the affirming the belief that the child was his.
people of the place used to go for that purpose. A
few minutes later, he then again saw her emerge Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be
from the thicket with her clothes stained with punishable must be committed willfully and
blood both in front and back, stagerring and consciously, or at least it must be the result of a
visibly showing signs of not being able to support voluntary, conscious and free act or omission.
herself. He ran to her aid and having noted that Even in cases where said crimes are committed
she was very weak and dizzy, he supported and through mere imprudence, the person who
helped her back to her house and placed her in commits them, under said circumstances, must
her bed. be in the full enjoyment of his mental facilities, or
must be conscious of his acts, in order that he
Aguilar asked what had happened to her. The may be held liable.
appellant answered that she was very dizzy.
Aguilar called Adriano Comcom who lived nearby The law exempts from criminal liability any person
to be there and help. He asked Comcom to take who acts under the circumstances in which the
bamboo leaves to stop the hemhorrage of the appellant acted in this case, by giving birth to a
appellant. Comcom had scarcely gone about five child in the thicket and later abandoning it, not
brazas when he saw the body of newborn baby because of imprudence or any other cause than
near a path adjoining the thicket where the that she was overcome by severe dizziness and
appellant had gone a few moments before. extreme debility, with no fault or intention on her
Comcom informed Aguilar of it and the latter told part, she should not be blamed therefor because
him to bring the body to the appellant’s house. it all happened by mere accident, from liability any
Upon being asked whether the baby was hers or person who so acts and behaves under such
not, the appellant answered in the affirmative. circumstances (Art. 12, subsection 4, RPC).
In the afternoon of the said day, Dr. Emilio Taking into account the foregoing facts and
Nepomuceno went to the appellant’s house and considerations, and granting that the appellant
found her still lying in bed still bleeding. In his was aware of her involuntary childbirth in the
opinion, the physician declared that the appellant thicket and that she later failed to take her child
gave birth in her house, and afterwhich, she threw therefrom, having been so prevented by reason
the child into the thicket to kill it for the purpose of of causes entirely independent of her will, and it
concealing her dishonor from her husband, appearing that under such circumstances said
because the child was not his but with another appellant has the fourth and seventh exempting
man with whom she had previously has amorous circumstances in her favor, is hereby acquitted of
relations. Nepomuceno testified that the the crime of which she had bee accused and
appellant admitted killing her child. convicted.
The “plain view” doctrine applies when the He did not know exactly what the box contained
following requisites concur: (a) the law that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has contents. It was not immediately apparent to PO3
a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a Manlangit that the content of the box was
position from which he can view a particular area; marijuana. The marijuana was not in plain view
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is and its seizure without the requisite search
inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the warrant was in violation of the law and the
officer that the item he observes may be evidence Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and
of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to should have been excluded and never
seizure. The law enforcement officer must considered by the trial court.
lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in
a position from which he can particularly view the The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos
area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he of marijuana was found in the house of accused-
came inadvertently across a piece of evidence appellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that
incriminating the accused. The object must be she herself is guilty of the crime charged.
open to eye and hand and its discovery
inadvertent. In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, what is material is the submission of proof
It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object that the sale took place between the poseur-
itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty buyer and the seller thereof and the presentation
arises when the object is inside a closed of the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in
container. Where the object seized was inside a court.The prosecution has clearly established the
closed package, the object itself is not in plain fact that in consideration of P1,600.00 which he
view and therefore cannot be seized without a received, accused-appellant Doria sold and
warrant. However, if the package proclaims its delivered nine hundred seventy (970) grams of
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer.
its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to The prosecution, however, has failed to prove
an observer, then the contents are in plain view that accused-appellant Gaddao conspired with
and may be seized. In other words, if the package accused-appellant Doria in the sale of said drug.
is such that an experienced observer could infer
from its appearance that it contains the prohibited 1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria is
article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
must be immediately apparent to the police that perpetua
the items that they observe may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to 2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao is
seizure. acquitted.
PO3 Manlangit and the police team were at Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vs.
appellant Gaddao’s house because they were led People
there by appellant Doria. The Narcom agents
testified that they had no information on appellant Facts:
Mediatrix Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the
appointed administratrix of petitioner intestate Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies
estate of her deceased mother Manolita of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under
Gonzales vda. De Carungcong, filed a complaint- the said provision, the State condones the
affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law, criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of
William Sato, a Japanese national. It was alleged theft, swindling and malicious mischief. As an act
that the said accused feloniously induced of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute
Manolita Gonzales, the owner of the estate and the offender for the said crimes but leaves the
herein deceased, to sign and thumb mark a private offended party with the option to hold the
special power of attorney (in the pretense of offender civilly liable.
presenting a document pertaining to taxes) which However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly
authorized the sale, assignment, transfer and limited to the felonies mentioned therein. The
disposition of the latter’s properties. In relation to plain, categorical and unmistakable language of
this, the accused moved for the dismissal of the the provision shows that it applies exclusively to
case. the simple crimes of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. It does not apply where any
As a defense against his arrant prosecution, the of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is
accused here applies Art 332 of the Revised complexed with another crime, such as theft
Penal Code. He cites that he falls under the through falsification or estafa through
enumeration of those relatives who shall be falsification.
exempt from criminal prosecution. Being a
relative by affinity, he cannot be held liable for the Sato, the accused, could not avail of the
crime of estafa as stated in the law. He further beneficial application of ART 332 considering that
counters that the same law makes no distinction the crime he committed falls under the nature of
that the relationship may not be invoked in case a complex crime which is the crime estafa
of death of spouse at the time the crime was through falsification of public document and does
allegedly committed. Thus, the death of his not anymore concern private relations of family
spouse Zenaida Carungcong Sato though members. He then can be held criminally liable.
dissolved the marriage with the accused, did not
on the other hand dissolve the mother in-law and People vs. Jaurigue
son-law relationship between Sato and his wife’s
mother, Manolita. He then cannot be removed Facts. Victim Amado was courting Avelina. In one
from the protective mantle of Art 332. occasion, while Avelina’s cousing washed the
latter’s hankerchief, Amado stole it. Amado
Issues: proposed her love to Avelina. Avelina refused.
Whether or not the death of William’s wife and Amado grabbed her, kissed her, and touched her
Manolita’s daughter, Zenaida, extinguished the chest. To this, Avelina slapped him, threw fist
relationship by affinity between William and blows, and kicked him. Avelina told her mother
Manolita. the next day. Her mother gave her a fan knife for
Whether or not William should be exempt from protection.
criminal liability for reason of his relationship to
Manolita. Not long after, Amado intruded in Avelina’s house
while she was asleep. He kissed her hand which
Held: woke her up. She screamed for help, he hid under
No. Relationship by affinity between the surviving the bed. Her parents arrive in the room. He
spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse apologized.
continues even after the death of the deceased
spouse, regardless of whether the marriage Days after, Avelina and her family attended
produced children or not. services in the Seventh Day Adventists chapel.
Avelina’s father got there first, Avelina followed ahead." Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot
and sat on one of the benches. Amado saw Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia who
Avelina, sat beside her and put his hand in her was running towards the jeep where the
right thigh. Avelina tried to get her knife with right deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the
hand. Amado held her right hand to stop her. shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of
Avelina quickly grabbed the knife with her left Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle
hand and stabbed Amado in the neck. with the defendant and other land settlers of
Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the
Amado staggered. Avelina’s father saw Amado time of the shooting, the civil case was still
bleeding. Her father asked why she did it, she pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting
said she could not endure it anymore. CFI found of property to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At
Avelina guilty of homicide wit the aggravating time of the shooting, defendant had leased his
circumstance of having committed the act in a property from Fleisher (though case pending and
place of worship, inter alia. Avelina appealed. ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June
25, defendant received letter terminating contract
Issue. Is the AC of offending a place of worship because he allegedly didn't pay rent.
applicable? -No He was given 6 months to remove his house from
the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after
Ratio. While it is true that the crime occurred in a letter. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his
chapel, this does not necessarily denote the person and property. CFI ruled that Narvaez was
attachment of said AC. As per law, for a proper guilty. Aggravating circumstances of evident
appreciation of AC of having committed the crime premeditation offset by the mitigating
in a place of worship, there should be circumstance of voluntary surrender. For both
premeditation that the offender intended to do it murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion
in the place of worship. As the facts show, Avelina perpetua, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay for
did not plan to kill Amado nor to kill him in a moral damages.
chapel. Avelina had in her case the fan knife just
for protection whenever and wherever she might ISSUES:
need it. It just so happened that Amado provoked 1. Whether or not CFI erred in convicting
her in the chapel and that was where Avelina defendant-appellant despite the fact that he acted
could not bear it anymore. With this in mind, the in defense of his person.
present court ruled that the lower court erred in
assigning the AC in its judgment against Avelina. No. The courts concurred that the fencing and
chiselling of the walls of the house of the
People vs. Narvaez defendant was indeed a form of aggression on
the part of the victim. However, this
FACTS: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of aggression was not done on the person of the
murder (qualified by treachery) of David Fleischer victim but rather on his rights to property. On the
and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, first issue, the courts did not err. However, in
Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during consideration of the violation of property rights,
the time the two were constructing a fence that the courts referred to Art. 30 of the civil code
would prevent Narvaez from getting into his recognizing the right of owners to close and fence
house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a their land.
nap when he heard sounds of construction and
found fence being made. He addressed the group Although is not in dispute, the victim was not in
and asked them to stop destroying his house and the position to subscribe to the article because his
asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer ownership of the land being awarded by the
responded with "No, gadamit, proceed, go government was still pending, therefore putting
ownership into question. It is accepted that the No. He is not liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned
victim was the original aggressor. for nonpayment of civil indemnity. RA 5465 made
the provisions of Art. 39 applicable to fines only
2. WON the court erred in convicting defendant- and not to reparation of damage caused,
appellant although he acted in defence of his indemnification of consequential damages and
rights. costs of proceedings. Although it was enacted
only after its conviction, considering that RA 5465
Yes. However, the argument of the justifying is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if delinquent, it may be given retroactive effect
the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC pursuant to Art. 22 of the RPC.
enumerates these requisites:
Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there Judgment: Defendant guilty of homicide but w/
was unlawful aggression towards appellant's mitigating circumstances and extenuating
property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 circumstance of incomplete self defense. Penalty
months and he should have left him in peace is 4 months arresto mayor and to indemnify
before time was up, instead of chiseling each group of heirs 4,000 w/o subsidiary
Narvaez's house and putting up fence. Art. 536 of imprisonment and w/o award for moral damages.
the Civil Code also provides that possession may Appellant has already been detained 14 years so
not be acquired through force or intimidation; his immediate release is ordered.
while Art. 539 provides that every possessor has
the right to be respected in his possession Gutierrez, dissenting. Defense of property can
Reasonable necessity of means employed to only be invoked when coupled with form of attack
prevent or repel attack. In the case, killing was on person defending property. In the case at bar,
disproportionate to the attack. this was not so. Appellant should then be
Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person sentenced to prision mayor. However, since he
defending himself. Here, there was no has served more than that, he should be
provocation at all since he was asleep released.
Since not all requisites present, defendant is
credited with the special mitigating circumstance People vs. Ulep
of incomplete defense, pursuant to Art. 13(6)
RPC. These mitigating circumstances are: Facts: Macario Ulep, accused, elbowed her wife
voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation on her breast, upon being drunk and uttering
(read p. 405 explanation) Crime is homicide (2 indecent words. Subsequently, the victim
counts) not murder because treachery is not vomited and then went to bed. The accused then
applicable on account of provocation by the left for the fields and upon returning home, found
deceased. Also, assault was not deliberately his wife dead. He immediately reported this death
chosen with view to kill since slayer acted to their barrio captain. Medical reports show that
instantaneously. There was also no direct the victim’s cause of death is due to cardiac arrest
evidence of planning or preparation to kill. Art. and primary shock.
249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is reclusion Issue: WON the accused is criminally liable for
temporal. However, due to mitigating the death of his wife.
circumstances and incomplete defense, it can be Held: Yes. Even though a blow with the fist or a
lowered three degrees (Art. 64) to arrestomayor. kick does not cause any external wound, it may
easily produce inflammation of the spleen and
3. WON he should be liable for subsidiary peritonitis and cause death, and even though the
imprisonment since he is unable to pay the civil victim may have been previously affected by
indemnity due to the offended party. some internal malady, yet if the blow with the fist
or foot accelerated death, he who caused such
acceleration is responsible for the death as the albeit the reasonable necessity of the means
result of an injury willfully and unlawfully inflicted. employed to repel it was not found as he stabbed
There is that clear and categorical showing that Alon 3 times. There was also a disproportionate
on the appellant fell the blame for these in human difference between an actual blade and a broken
acts on his wife. He should answer for her tragic beer bottle. All this would lead to an incomplete
death. self-defense, which is a mitigating circumstance
Though, the appellant presented a witness to only, and not a justifying one. His sentence is
prove that sometime,his wife was pinned down by modified accordingly.
a sack of rice and the side portion of a bullcart
and was attended to by a town quack doctor People vs. Ural
called an arbularyo. This witness said that two (2)
ribs on each side of the chest were fractured, FACTS:
without stating which particular ribs were so - Alberio went to the municipal building
affected. However, it was being held that even if and saw Ural, a policeman inside the jail where
the victim is suffering from an internal ailment, he was boxing prisoner Napola (who was
liver or heart disease, or tuberculosis, if the blow imprisoned for being drunk). When Napola fell to
delivered by the accused — the ground he U kicked him and poured some
(a) is the efficient cause of death; or liquid on N and then ignited N’s body.
(b) accelerated his death; or - Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim,
(c) is the proximate cause of death; then there is said that he sustained 2nd degree burns on the
criminal liability. arms, neck, left side of the face and one half of
Apropos to all these is that time-respected the body including the back. She also testified
doctrine: "He who is the cause of the cause is the that without any medical intervention, the burns
cause of the evil caused." This is the rationale in would have caused death
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code which - Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death
provides that "criminal liability shall be incurred by certificate indicated burn as the cause of death.
a person committing a felony (delito) although the - During the trial, the prosecutors failed to
wrongful act done be different from that which he present the detention prisoners who saw the
intended." burning of Napola as witnesses as well as the
wife of the deceased
Guillermo vs. People - Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of
Facts: Noel Guillermo, Arnaldo Socias, and murder, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and
Joemar Palma was charged for the killing of was ordered to pay for costs
Winnie Alon, of the 3, only Guillermo, was found
guilty of Homicide with the special or privileged ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the prosecution
mitigating circumstance of incomplete was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond
justification, and sentenced to 6 years of prision reasonable doubt.
correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision
mayor, as maximum, with indemnity of P50,000. Held: TC did not err in convicting Ural for
Appellant contends that self-defense should have murder.
been appreciated. - Ural had his own version of the story.
According to him he heard a scream for help from
ISSUE: WON self-defense should be Napola whose shirt was in flames when found by
appreciated. him, he removed the shirt, but did not summon
the doctor because he thought that the burns
HELD: Yes. Self-defense must be appreciated as were not serious.
Alon was about to attack Guillermo with a broken o SC: this statement cannot prevail over
bottle when Guillermo realized he had a knife. the testimony of Alberio
Guillermo had attacked Alon in self-defense,
o This statement does not prove that he opened the car window just wide enough to talk
was not the one who burned Napola, at most this back to appellant’s son, Dino. In the meantime,
could only mean that he was alarmed by the appellant, thinking that Andres was going to get
consequences of his evil act something from his car, took a gun. However, he
- Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as was pushed by his daughter-in-law which made
a witness, saying that he was not listed as a him lost his balance and accidentally fired the gun
prosecution witness and that he was convicted of hitting Andres’ wife, and two sons.Appellant was
murder in the past charged and convicted of Murder, Double
o Wouldn’t preclude him from being a Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder in the
credible witness. RTC.
o Since there was no police investigation The appellant seeks a reversal and prays that
(accused a police officer), the investigation that judgment be rendered exempting him from
ensued was done by a special counsel of the criminal and civil liabilities contending that he had
fiscal’s office. A possible explanation of alberio no intention to shoot Noel Andres much less his
not being listed at first. wife nor the children. He lost his balance when
o The statements of the witnesses for the his daughter Trisha approached and pushed him
defense were not inconsistent with that of backwards to stop him from joining Dino and Noel
Alberio’s. Andres but the appellant tried to free his right
hand holding the gun and it accidentally fired.
Therefore, there is no reason to not believe in
Alberio’s testimony. ISSUE: Whether or not there was treachery
- The present case is covered by article 4 attendant in the crime.
(par.1-result greater than what was intended).
o Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1). RULING: No. Treachery under par.16 of Article
o TC erred in not appreciating the 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the
Mitigating circumstance “that the offender had no deliberate employment of means, methods or
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that forms in the execution of a crime against persons
committed” which tend directly and specially to insure its
No intent to kill but only to maltreat the execution, without risk to the offender arising from
drunk napola who might have been making a the defense which the intended victim might
nuisance of himself raise. For treachery to be appreciated two
He realized the fearful consequence of elements must concur: 1) the employment of
his felonious act, he allowed Napola to secure means of execution that would insure the safety
medical treatment at the municipal dispensary of the accused from retaliatory acts of the
- Since the mitigating circumstance offset intended victim and leaving the latter without an
the aggravating circumstance, TC correctly opportunity to defend himself and 2) the means
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which employed were deliberately or consciously
is the medium period of the penalty for murder. adopted by the offender.8
DECISION: TC decision AFFIRMED. We affirm the recommendation of the Solicitor-
General that the shooting was not attended by
People vs. Gonzales treachery and accordingly the crime committed
FACTS: After their vehicles almost collided with for the death of Feliber Andres is homicide and
each other, Andres and Appellant had an not murder.
altercation. Thereafter, Andres went back inside
to his car when he was blocked by the appellant’s People vs. Pagal
son who said, "Anong problema mo sa erpat ko."
Andres testified that he felt threatened and so he Facts. Guan had in his employ Pagal and
immediately boarded his vehicle, sat at the Torcelino. Guan supposedly maltreated Pagal
driver’s seat, closed the door, and partially and Torcelino during their employment. Pagal
and Torcelino sought to rob Guan, but Guan the compound of the Lingayen Water District
would not open the kaha de yero. Because of (LIWAD)
Guan’s resistance, the two resorted to violence,
stabbed Guan with an icepick, and clubbed him , having just arrived from a picnic in the nearby
with an iron pipe. The beating later caused town, where... they drunk beer in a restaurant.
Guan’s death. The two got approximately P1,000 While inside the compound, the two had a heated
from the event. altercation in the course of which Tomelden
hurled insulting remarks at petitioner. Reacting,
Informations were filed against Pagal and petitioner asked why Tomelden, when drunk, has
Torcelino of Guan’s death. The two, in their police the penchant of insulting petitioner.
statements confessed to the crime. Thereafter, a
criminal case was filed against them for the crime The exchange of words led to an exchange of
of robbery with homicide with the aggravating blows. Then petitioner delivered a "lucky punch,"
circumstance of lack of respect for aged, among as described by... eyewitness... on Tomelden's
others. face, which made Tomelden topple down.
Tomelden was on the verge of hitting his head on
Upon arraignment, Pagal and Torcelino, through the ground had their companions not caught him
their counsel sought to plead guilty provided that and prevented the fall. The blow, however,
they be able to prove the existence of the caused Tomelden's nose to bleed and rendered
mitigating circumstances (MC) of sufficient him... unconscious.
provocation and acted on impulse which
produced passion obfuscation. The lower court Upon arriving home Tomelden informed his wife,
allowed them. They pleaded guilty and explained Rosario,... of the fight the previous night and of
their case. But the court was not convinced and his having been rendered unconscious. He
later found Pagal and Torcelino guilty of robbery complained of pain in his nape, head, and ear.
with homicide and sentenced them to death The attending doctors observed the patient to be
penalty. in a state of drowsiness and frequent vomiting.
attending physician,... diagnosed Tomelden
Pagal files a petition in the present court. suffering from "brain injury, secondary to mauling
to consider cerebral hemorrhage."
Issue. Was lower court correct in AC of disrespect
of age? -No Tomelden died... to "cardio-respiratory arrest
secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant
Ratio. No because the said AC applies only when cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident."...
the crime committed is against persons. The defense presented petitioner who denied having
present court found that the lower court’s any intention to kill, asserting that hypertension,
attaching of AC on account of disrespect of age for which Tomelden was receiving treatment, was
is mistaken. Said AC attaches only when the the cause of the latter's death.
crime is against persons. The crime at hand,
robbery with homicide, is a crime against RTC rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty
property. Their being incongruent, the AC of as charged
disrespect of age is not applicable to this case.
CA rendered a decision, affirming the conviction
Urbano vs. People of petitioner
Petitioner maintained that he only boxed the Moreover, the mitigating circumstance that
victim in retaliation, landing that lucky punch in petitioner had no intention to commit so grave a
the course of parrying the latter's blows. wrong as that committed should also be
appreciated in his favor. While intent to kill may
Issues: be presumed from the fact of the death of the
victim, this mitigating factor may still be...
Erred in not appreciating the mitigating considered when attendant facts and
circumstances of sufficient provocation on the circumstances so warrant
part of the victim and lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong in favor of the petitioner. Consider: Petitioner tried to avoid the fight, being
very much smaller than Tomelden. He tried to
Ruling: parry the blows of Tomelden, albeit he was able,
during the scuffle, to connect a lucky punch... that
petition is partly meritorious. ended the fight.
we agree with petitioner.
A bare-knuckle fight as a means to parry the
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Art. 13, RPC provide as challenge issued by Tomelden was
follows: commensurate to the potential violence petitioner
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances.--The following was facing. It was just unfortunate that Tomelden
are mitigating circumstances: died from that lucky punch, an eventuality that
could have possibly been averted... had he had
When the law speaks of provocation either as a the financial means to get the proper medical
mitigating circumstance, the reference is to an attention.
unjust or improper conduct of the offended party
capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone;... Thus, it is clear that the mitigating circumstance
it is not... enough that the provocative act be of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
unreasonable or annoying;... the provocation that committed" must also be appreciated in favor
must be sufficient to excite one to commit the of petitioner while finding him guilty of homicide.
That... petitioner landed a lucky punch at
Tomelden's face while their co-workers were OSG said that the defamatory remark was not
trying to separate them is a compelling indicium specifically directed at Benito. SC said that even
that he never intended so grave a wrong as to kill assuming that Moncayo's remark was directed at
the victim. Benito, Benito "had more than sufficient time to
suppress his emotion over said remark if he ever
People vs. Benito did resent it.” The six-hour interval between the
alleged grave offense committed by Moncayo
FACTS: Benito was a former employee of the against Benito and the assassination was more
Civil Service Commission at its main office and than sufficient to enable Benito to recover his
was assigned as Clerk 2 in the Administrative serenity. But instead of using that time to regain
Division from Nov. 1963 continuously up to Nov. his composure, he evolved the plan of liquidating
1965 when he was suspended for Moncayo after office hours. Benito literally
"DISHONESTY" After two months, he was ambushed Moncayo just a few minutes after the
reinstated but was criminally charged for victim had left the office. He acted with treachery
QUALIFIED THEFT, MALVERSATION OF and evident premeditation in perpetrating the
PUBLIC FUNDS, ESTAFA and FALSIFICATION cold-blooded murder. Also, SC said that the facts
OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS and administratively of the case strongly suggest that what really
charged for "DISHONESTY" culminating in his impelled Benito to assassinate Moncayo was not
dismissal from the Civil Service on February the latter's alleged defamatory remark but the
1966. October 21, 1965 the victim Moncayo, as refusal of Moncayo to change his report so as to
an administrative officer, reported to the favor Benito. Benito did not act primarily to
Commissioner of Civil Service that Benito vindicate an alleged grave offense to himself but
admitted having malversed an amount between mainly to chastise Moncayo for having exposed
P4,000 and P5,000 from his sales of examination the alleged anomalies or defraudation committed
fee stamps. At eleven o'clock in the morning of by Benito and for obstinately refusing to change
December 12, 1969 Moncayo, allegedly made his report. Because according also to Benito’s
upon seeing Benito in the compound of the Civil testimony, he saw Moncayo three hours later
Service Commission near the canteen: after the remark or at two o'clock in the afternoon
"Nagiistambay pala dito and magnanakaw."; or, and inquired from him about his case and
as Benito testified, Moncayo said: "Hindi ko alam Moncayo said that he had already submitted his
na itong Civil Service pala ay istambayan ng report and he could not do anything more about
magnanakaw." At about 5:25 p.m. of that same Benito's case
day, Dec. 12, 1969, the suspect shot the victim
eight (8) times on the head and different parts of DISPOSITION: SC denied his petition.
the body at closer range which consequently
caused the latter's death on the spot inside his Bacabac vs. People
car. Benito contends that there’s mitigating
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense Facts: Bacabac’s failure to assist the victims after
since Moncayo insulted him when he remarked the shooting reinforces this Court’s appreciation
that a thief was loitering in the premises of the of community of design between him and his co-
Civil Service Commission. NOTE: Benito was accused to harm the victims. Following a heated
later on acquitted of the crime that Moncayo argument in a dance hall which resulted in a
alleged he had committed. brawl, Jose Talanquines, Jr. (Jose), and Edzel
Talanquines (Edzel), herein referred to as
ISSUE/RULING: Talanquines brothers, proceeded to confront their
1. W/N the defamatory remark by the victim may enemies armed with guns. They were
give rise to the mitigating circumstance of accompanied by Jonathan Bacabac, Pat. Ricardo
vindication of a wrong? NO. Bacabac, and Jesus Delfin (Jesus). In the dance
hall, they encountered Hernani Quidato and US vs. Hicks
Eduardo Selibio. After a physical confrontation,
The Talanquines brothers shot Quidato and FACTS:
Selibio. Quidato and Selibio later died from their • For 5 years, Augustus Hicks, an Afro-
wounds. The Talanquines brothers, together with American, and his mistress Agustina Sola, a
Jonathan Bacabac, Pat. Ricardo Bacabac, and Christian Moro woman, were illicitly living
Jesus Delfin was charged and found guilty of the together. However, Sola quitted living with Hicks.
crime of Murder. Ricardo Bacabac (Bacabac) • A few days later, she contracted a new
appealed his conviction, contending that he relationship with Corporal Wallace Current,
cannot be deemed to be in conspiracy with the another negro, who then went to live with her in
other accused because he was not the one who the house of her brother-in-law.
pulled the trigger. He also alleged that even if he • One evening, Hicks, with soldier Lloyd
was convicted of Murder, in gratis argumenti, the Nickens, went to the said house. He shooked
correctness of the pronouncement of guilt should hands and started conversing with Current. But,
have been attended by the mitigating Current told Hicks that Sola did not want to live
circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave with Hicks anymore, which promted Hicks to pull
offense, in the same manner as the other out his revolver and fired at Sola who was close
accused. by in the sala. The bullet hit the left side of her
breast.
ISSUE: • Hicks gave himself up to the police even
Whether or not there is conspiracy among before the police received the information of the
Jonathan Bacabac, Pat. Ricardo Bacabac, and killing.
Jesus Delfin in the murder of the victims. • He pleaded not guilty. His defense was
that when he fell backward when Current seized
HELD: him, his revolver wen off hitting the deceased.
Bacabac‘s failure to assist the victims after the The trial court convicted him with the crime of
shooting reinforces this Court’s appreciation of murder with the penalty of death.
community of design between him and his co-
accused to harm the victims. What is decisive in ISSUE: WON Hicks can avail of himself of the
treachery is that “the attack was executed in such mitigating circumstance of passion and
a manner as to make it impossible for the victim obfuscation when he killed Sola, his former
to retaliate.” In the case at bar, petitioner, a mistress? NO
policeman, and his co-accused were armed with
two M-16 armalites and a revolver. The victim and RULING:
his companions were not armed. The attack was • The only causes which mitigate the
sudden and unexpected, and the victim was criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control
already kneeling in surrender when he was shot are such which originate from legitimate feelings,
the second time. Clearly, the victim and his not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and
companion Eduardo had no chance to defend immoral passions.
themselves or retaliate. Conspiracy presupposes • Likewise, the crime was committed with
the existence of evident premeditation does not the presence of treachery (alevosia), as Sola was
necessarily imply that the converse ─ that evident unexpectedly fired at close range while she was
premeditation presupposes the existence of a unarmed and unprepared at a time she was just
conspiracy ─ is true. In any event, a link between listening to a conversation.
conspiracy and evident premeditation is • The presence of other aggravating
presumed only where the conspiracy is directly circumstances, such as premeditation and the
established and not where conspiracy is only fact that the crime was committed in the dwelling
implied, as in the present case. of the deceased. Premeditation was proven when
Hicks asked a leave to be absent from work and
that he was carrying a loaded revolver when he Should Eduardo be granted the
had lunch that day. It was also testified that Hicks exceptional circumstance under Art. 247 of the
was heard that the time of Sola had come. RPC?