ART4 #7 CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. ESTRADA [333 SCRA 699 (2000)] Nature: Automatic review of the death penalty Facts: December 27, 1994, at the St. John’s Cathedral, Dagupan City, while the sacrament of confirmation was being performed by the Bishop, a man from the crowd walked towards the center of the altar and sat on the Bishop’s chair. Crisanto Santillan, who was an assistant saw this. He requested the accused to vacate, but the latter refused. They called on the guard. Despite repeated request, he did not move. As the guard was attempting to strike the victim with his nightstick to make him leave accused-appellant drew a knife and stabbed Mararac. He repeated it a lot. After, he got up and shouted via the mic; No one can beat me here! SPO1 Francisco saw a man, with red stains on his shirt and a knife in one hand sitting on a chair. He advised him to drop the knife. Accused-appellant obeyed, Mararac, the security guard, was brought to the hospital where he expired a few minutes upon arrival. Accused-appellant, filed a “Demurrer to Evidence” where he claims that: prosecution failed to prove murder; that there was unlawful aggression by the victim; and that accused-appellant was of unsound mind. Inspector Valdez (Jail warden) requested the court to allow accusedappellant, to be treated at the Baguio General Hospital to determine whether he should remain in jail or be transferred to some other institution. While motion for reconsideration was pending, counsel for accused-appellant filed a “Motion to Confine Accused for Physical, Mental and Psychiatric Examination.” Appellant’s counsel informed the court that accused-appellant had been exhibiting abnormal behavior for the past weeks. There were 2 letters of the warden requesting the same. The trial court denied reconsideration of the order denying the “Demurrer to Evidence.” Dr. Maria Soledad Gawidan, a resident physician in the Department of Psychiatry at the Baguio General Hospital, testified to the accused being confined and diagnosed with “Schizophrenic Psychosis, Paranoid Type—schizophrenia, paranoid, chronic, paranoid type.” The trial court rendered a decision on June 23, 1997. It upheld the prosecution evidence and found accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged and thereby sentenced him to death, Issue: WON he was indeed insane Held: When a person commits a felonious act the act is presumed to have been done voluntarily. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the law presumes that every person is of sound mind and that all acts are voluntary. An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he has acted during a lucid interval. In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. Since the presumption is always in favor of sanity, he who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. There are certain circumstances that should have placed the trial court on notice that
appellant may not have been in full possession of his mental faculties e.g. when he attacked Mararac, then went up the microphone. Accused-appellant’s history of mental illness was brought to the courts. To test whether the accused would have a fair trial there are two distinct matters to be determined (1) whether defendant is coherent to provide his counsel with information necessary (2) whether he is able to comprehend the significance of the trial and his relation to it. To put a legally incompetent person on trial or to convict and sentence him is a violation of the constitutional rights to a fair trial. The determination of whether a sanity investigation or hearing should be ordered rests generally in the discretion of the trial court. In the case at bar, when accused-appellant moved for suspension of the arraignment on the ground of accused’s mental condition, the trial court denied the motion after finding that the questions propounded on appellant were intelligently answered by him. The fact that accused-appellant was able to answer the questions asked by the trial court is not conclusive evidence that he was competent enough to stand trial and assist in his defense. The trial court took it solely upon itself to determine the sanity of accused-appellant. The trial judge is not a psychiatrist or psychologist or some other expert equipped with the specialized knowledge. If the medical history was not enough to create a reasonable doubt in the judge’s mind of accused-appellant’s competency to stand trial, subsequent events should have done so. One month after the prosecution rested its case, there were letters requesting that accused be confined in hospital, as well as the counsel’s filing of motion. And despite all the overwhelming indications of accused-appellant’s state of mind, the judge persisted in his personal assessment and never even considered subjecting accused-appellant to a medical examination. To top it all, the judge found appellant guilty and sentenced him to death! Judgment: At this late hour, a medical finding alone may make it impossible for us to evaluate appellant’s mental condition at the time of the crime’s commission for him to avail of the exempting circumstance of insanity. Nonetheless, under the present circumstances, accusedappellant’s competence to stand trial must be properly ascertained to enable him to participate in his trial meaningfully. Remanded to the court a quo for the conduct of a proper mental examination on accused-appellant, a determination of his competency to stand trial, and for further proceedings.
ART 4 #8 People v. Ortega (276 SCRA 166)
Facts : In 1992, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia and a certain John Doe were changed with murder for the killing Andre Man Masangkay. As narrated by a witness, the victim answered the called of nature and went to the back portion of the house where they were having a drinking
spree. Accused Ortega followed him and later they heard the victim shouting for help and when they ran towards the scene he saw the accused on top of the victim and stabbing the latter with a long bladed weapon. Thereafter, Ortega and Garcia brought the victim to a well and dropped him and placed stones into the well. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The accused appealed averring that the trial court erred in holding them criminally liable because at the time the victim was dropped into the well, he was still alive.
Issue: Whether or not the accused may be held criminally liable for the death of the victim which is not attributable to the stab wounds but due to drowning?
Decision: A person who commits a felony is criminally liable for the direct natural and logical consequences of his wrongful act even where the resulting crime is more serious than that intended. The essential requisites for this criminal liability to attach are as follows : 1. the intended act is felonious ; 2. the resulting act is likewise a felony; and 3. the unintended graven wrong was primarily caused by the actor’s wrongful acts.
ART 4# 10 CASE: People v Toling DATE: January 17, 1975 PONENTE: Aquino, J. Topic in Syllabus: Art. 48 – Complex Crimes FACTS: Antonio Toling and Jose Toling (both the accused), twins, both married, are natives of Barrio Nenita Samar. They are illiterate farmers tilling their own lands. Antonio's daughter, Leonora, was working in Manila. Jose's three children had stayed in Manila also since 1964. Antonio decided to go to Manila after receiving a letter from Leonora telling him that she would give him money. To have money for his expenses, Antonio killed a pig and sold the meat to Jose's wife for sixty pesos. Jose decided to go with Antonio in order to see his children. He was able to raise eighty-five pesos for his expenses. Leonora gave her father P50. Antonio's grandson, gave him P30. Antonio placed the eighty pesos in the right pocket of his After buying their tickets home, they boarded the night Bicol express train at about five o'clock in the afternoon. The train left at six o'clock that evening. The twins were in coach No. 9. Each seat in the coach faced an opposite seat. An aisle separated the two rows. The brothers were seated side by side on the fourth three-passenger seat from the rear, facing the back door. Jose was seated between Antonio, who was near the window, and a three-year old boy. Beside the boy was a woman breast-feeding her baby who was near the aisle. That woman was Corazon Bernal. There were more than one hundred twenty passengers in the coach. Some passengers were standing on the aisle. Sitting on the third seat and facing the brothers were two men and an old woman who was sleeping with her head resting on the back of the seat. On the two-passenger seat across the aisle in line with the seat where the brothers were sitting, there were seated a fat woman, who was near the window, and one Cipriano Reganet who was on her left. On the opposite seat were seated a woman, her daughter and Amanda Mapa with an eight-month old baby. They were infront of Reganet. The train stopped at Cabuyao, Laguna, and not long after it resumed regular speed, Antonio stood up and stabbed the man sitting directly in front of him with scissors. Jose stabbed the sleeping old woman sitting in front of him with a knife. The twins ran amuck and started stabbing the people in the coach. They were finally stopped when Constabulary soldiers aboard the train heard about the incident. At that time, Constabulary Sergeant Vicente Rayel was not on duty and was simply taking his wife child to
Quezon. He was at the dining car when the incident happened. Constabulary Sargeant Vicente Aldea was in the dining car as well. The dead amounted to twelve. Eight suffered from stab wounds while others died after they jumped off the train, apparently trying to escape the violence. Seven were injured, though one of them was reported to have died as well. RULING: Antonio Toling and Jose Toling were found guilty, as co-principals, of eight (8) separate murders and one attempted murder. Eight (8) reclusion perpetuas for the eight murders and to an indeterminate penalty of one (1) year of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum for the attempted Pay solidarily an indemnity of P12,000 to each set of heirs of the seven victims named in the dispositive part of the trial court's decision and of the eight victim, Susana C. Hernandez, or a total indemnity of P96,000, and an indemnity of P500 to Amanda Mapa. The forty-year limit fixed in the penultimate paragraph of article 70 of the Revised PenalCode was to be observed. HELD: On defense’s attempt to put up a theory of self -defense No evidence to corroborate the story of the twins that they were being held up and that they only began stabbing people as a form of retaliation. They were caught in flagrante delicto. Their testimony, as well as that of the witnesses, confirm them as authors of the killings Injuries they sustained could be attributed to the blows which the other passengers inflicted on them to stop their murderous rampage On defense’s contention that they should only be liable for two homicides (for the victims they admitted to killing) The heirs of the eight persons who died because of stab wounds must be indemnified. To the four persons who died from traumatic, conjecture that may be made is that they jumped from the train to avoid the wrath of the brothers. However, the absence of eyewit ness-testimony as to the jumping precludes the imputation of criminal responsibility to the appellants for the ghastly deaths of the said On whether it was a complex crime Perpetrated by means of different acts Cannot be regarded as constituting a complex crime under article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which refers to cases where "a single act constitutes two or more grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other".
"Concurso formal o ideal de delitos reviste dos formas: (a) cuando un solo hechoconstituye dos o mas delitos (el llamado delito compuesto); (b) cuando uno deellos sea medio necesario para cometer otro (el llamado delito complejo)." According to Google Translate: Formal or ideal contest (?) takes two formsof crime: a) when a single act constitutes two or more offenses (offensescalled composite); and b) when one of them is a necessary means to commitother (so-called complex crime) “En al concurso real de delitos", the rule, when there is "acumulacion material de las penas", is that "si son varios los resultados, si son varias las acciones, estaconforme con la logica y con la justicia que el agente soporte la carga de cadauno de los delitos” According to Google Translate: In the competition (?) of real crimes, the rule, when there is material accumulation of penalties, is that if there are several results where there are several actions that conform to the logic and justice that the support agent load of each of the crimes (?) Twins are thus liable for eight (8) murders and one attempted murder
ART 5 #2 FACTS: On August 2, 1994, four accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide of a seven year old girl in the RTC presided by Judge Lorenzo P. Veneracion. Respondent judge however, refused to impose the corresponding penalty of death and he rather imposed reclusion perpetua to each of the accused. The city prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the penalty of death be imposed upon the four accused. The respondent judge refused to act. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge can impose penalty lower than that prescribed by law. HELD: The Supreme Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose the proper penalty provided for by the law on the accused regardless of his own religious or moral beliefs. In this case the respondent judge must impose the death penalty. This is consistent in the rule laid down in the Civil Code Article 9 that no judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the laws.
PEOPLE v. VENERACION [249 SCRA 244 (1995)] Nature: Petition for certiorari to review a decision of RTC of Manila Aug 2, 1994 - cadaver of a young girl identified as Angel Alquiza was seen floating along Del Pan St. near the corner of Lavesares St., Binondo, Manila. She was wrapped in a sack & yellow table cloth tied with a nylon cord with both feet & left hand protruding from it was seen floating along. Abundio Lagunday, a.k.a. Jr. Jeofrey and Henry Lagarto y Petilla were later charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide in an Information dated August 8, 1994 filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region Trial Court - rendered a decision on January 31, 1995 finding the defendants Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y Maristela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentenced both accused with the "penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories provided for by law." February 8, 1995 – City Prosecutor of Manila filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying that the Decision be "modified in that the penalty of death be imposed" against respondents Lagarto and Cordero, in place of the original penalty (reclusion perpetua). Feb. 10, 1995 the motion was denied by the court. Issue: WON the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to impose the mandatory penalty of death under RA 7659, after finding the accused guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide. HELD: YES. No question on the guilt of the accused. A government of laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought "to protect and enforce it without fear or favor," resist encroachments by governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own personal beliefs. The RTC judge found the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and homicide. §11 of RA No. 7659 provides: Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation. 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. . . .
Under the law the penalty imposable for the crime of rape with homicide is NOT reclusion perpetua but Death. The law provides that when by reason or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. A court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in specific & well-defined instances. People vs. Limaco - as long as that penalty remains in the statute books, and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases, it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions. It is a well settled rule that the courts are not concerned w/ the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws. Rules of Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose the proper penalty and civil liability provided for by the law on the accused.
Art. 6: Murder People vs. Borinaga Facts: Accused: Basilio Borinaga, associated with Juan Lawaan, a maker of fish corral Victims: Harry H. Mooney, American, resident of Calubian Leyte. Prior to March 4, 1929, Mooney contracted with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral. On March 4, despite the corral being only 2/3 finished, Lawaan, with some of his men, visited Mooney and attempted to collect the whole amount in their contract. Upon Mooney‘s refusal to pay, Lawaan warned and threatened him that something would happen to him (Mooney).On the evening of the same day, Mooney was in the store of his neighbor, Perpetua Najarro, sitting in front of Najarro, with his back towards a window. Suddenly, Borinaga, from the window, struck with a knife at Mooney. The knife imbedded on the back of the seat though. Mooney fell off from the impact but was not injured. Borinaga left the scene and ran for the market place, where he was heard prior to the incident to say he would kill Mooney, and now saying that he apparently hit the chair instead of Mooney. After ten minutes, Borinaga returned to have another attempt at Mooney but was warded off by Mooney and Najarro frightening him by turning a flashlight on him. Issue: Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder. Held: YES. The Court affirms the judgment of the RTC.As an essential condition of a frustrated crime, Borinaga performed all the acts of execution, attending the attack. There was nothing left that he could do further to accomplish the work. The cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason of forces independent of his will. Borinaga also voluntarily desisted from further acts. The subjective phase of the criminal act was passed. Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real: “The acts of execution perfomed by [Borinaga] did not produce the death of Mooney as a consequence not could they have produced it because the blow did not reach his body;
therefore, the culprit did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony. There was lacking the infliction of the deadly wound upon a vital spot of the body of Mooney.” What the back of the chair prevented was the wounding of Mooney, not his death. It is the preventing of death by causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, after all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence had been performed, that constitutes a frustrated felony, according to the law, and not the preventing of the performances of all the acts of execution which constitute a felony, as in the present case. Attempted murder only ART 6 #3 CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. ERIÑA [50 Phil. 998 (1927)] Facts: Julian Eriña charged of raping 3 yrs & 11 mo. old child. Doubt on whether actual penetration occurred. Physical exam showed slight inflammation of exterior parts of organ indicating effort to enter vagina. Mom found child’s organ covered with sticky substance Issue: WON crime is consummated? Held: No. Frustrated only 1. Possible for man’s organ to enter labia of a 3 years and 8 months old child (Kennedy v. State) 2. No conclusive evidence of penetration so give accused benefit of the doubt. Frustrated.
ART 6 #4 Valenzuela v. People G.R. 160188 Petitioner Valenzuela and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket, by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU),” hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the wellknown “Tide” brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space. Petitioner then left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. All these acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and
Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. The filched items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate value of P12,090.00. The Regional Trial Court convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention and affirmed petitioner’s conviction. Hence the present Petition for Review. ISSUE: Whether petitioner should be convicted of frustrated theft rather than consummated theft. HELD: The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or consummated necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts of execution have been performed by the offender. The critical distinction instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by the acts of execution. The determination of whether the felony was “produced” after all the acts of execution had been performed hinges on the particular statutory definition of the felony. The following are elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Theft is already “produced” upon the “taking of personal property of another without the latter’s consent.” U.S. v. Adiao apparently supports that notion, where, in support of its conclusion that the theft was consummated, the Court cited three (3) decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain. In those cases, the criminal actors had been able to obtain full possession of the personal property prior to their apprehension. Synthesis of the 3 decisions is in order. The determinative characteristic as to whether the crime of theft was produced is the ability of the actor “to freely dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only momentary.” Such conclusion was drawn from an 1888 decision of the Supreme Court of Spain which had pronounced that in determining whether theft had been consummated. No legal reference or citation was offered for this averment, whether the Spanish cases or authorities who may have bolstered the conclusion. For such
reasons, the Spanish cases/ authorities cannot be considered. Even if such were offered, given that there has been no reaffirmation by the SC, such rulings cannot be applied. Accordingly, it would not be intellectually disingenuous for the Court to look at the question from a fresh perspective, as the SC is not bound by the opinions of the respected Spanish commentators, conflicting as they are, to accept that theft is capable of commission in its frustrated stage. With such considerations, the SC can only conclude that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated. The petition must be denied. The SC declines to adopt said rulings in Philippine jurisdiction. Valenzuela vs. People G.R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007 Petitioner: Aristotel Valenzuela Respondents: People of the Philippines and Hon. Court of Appeals Ponente: J. Tinga FACTS: While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the cartons inside. As the taxi was about to leave, the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandize. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage. HELD: No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be present: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the
acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.
Art 6 #8 CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE V. LIZADA [January 24, 2003] November 10, 2010 Facts: Freedie Lizada was accused of raping his step daughter Analia Orilloso in four instances in their house in Tondo, Manila, sometime in August 1998, on or about Nov. 5, 1998, on or about Oct. 22, 1998 and on or about September 15, 1998. Physical examination showed no extragenital physical injuries. Hymen intact. Issue: WON Nov. 5, 1998 is consummated rape? Held: No. Attempted rape only 1. No proof of introduction of penis into pudendum of child’s vagina 2. Not act of lasciviousness, Lewd is obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous 3. RPC Art. 6 attempted is based on 4 elements (reyes) 4. Not preparatory (devise means or measure to accomplish desired end). Attempt should be equivocal. No need to complete all acts, just need to start act w/ causal relation to intended crime. 5. Acts must be directly related to consummation of act and ascertainable from facts (People v. Lamahang) 6. Accused had intended to have carnal knowledge of complainant. Acts not preparatory, he commenced execution but failed to finish due to presence of 3rd party, not spontaneous desistance.
Art 6 #11 CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. CAMPUHAN [March 30, 2000] Facts: Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four year old Crysthel Pamintuan. Campuhan was caught by child’s mother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm in their house. Campuhan, helper of
Corazon’s brother was allegedly kneeling in front of the child with both their pants downa dn child was crying “ayoko, ayoko” while Primo forced his penis into child’s vagina Issue: WON crime is rape? Held: No. Modified to attempted rape 1. Consummated rape: perfect penetration not essential. Slight penetration is equivalent to rape. Mere touching of external genitalia considered when its an essential part of penetration not just touching in ordinary sense (People v. Orita). Labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated (People v. Escober) 2. Attempted – no penetration or didn’t reach labia/mere grazing of surface 3. Failed to prove that penetration occurred. Mother’s testimony questionable with regards to her position relative to Primo and child. They failed to establish how she could have seen actual contact in her position 4. Man’s instinct is to run when caught. Primo could not have stayed or to satisfy his lust even if .. seeing Corazon 5. Child denied penetration occurred 6. People v. Villamor consummation even when penetration doubted: pain’s felt, discoloration of inner lips of vagina or red labia minora or hymenal tags not visible. Now seen in case, Medico legal officer, though penetration not needed to prove contact, no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact. Hymen intact People v. Campuhan Facts: Defendant Primo Campuhan was a helper of Conrado Plata Jr. brother of Corazon Plata Pamintuan. One afternoon when Corazon, mother of the victim Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from second floor on their house to prepare MILO chocolate drinks for her 2 daughters heard one of her daughter cries: "Ayo'ko…Ayo'ko" When she rush upstairs, she saw Primo inside her children's room kneeling before Chrysthel whose pajamas and panty were already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees. She ran out and called for help. Primo was apprehended by her brother and a certain cousin and was brought to barangay officials. Primo asserted his innocence contending that the 4 year yr old child was in a playing mood and wanted to ride on his back, when he suddenly pulled the child down causing both of them to fall down on the floor. It was that fallen position which the mother of the victim saw. He claims that it was very truly inconceivable that Corazon could give vivid description of the alleged sexual contact and the touching of the sexual organs of the victim. He asserts that the absence of any external signs of physical injuries or of penetration of Crysthel's private parts more than bolsters his innocence. Such assertion was manifested by the physical examination of the victim yielded negative results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted by the medico legal officer on victim's body as her hymen was intact and its orifice was only 0.5 cm in diameter. The trial court then found the accused guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death penalty with moral and exemplary damages. Hence, an automatic review for the Supreme Court
Issue/s: Whether the act of Primo constitutes consummated rape? Held: The Supreme Court held that it is necessary to carefully ascertain whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated. It was supported by the physical examination results that there were no external signs of physical injuries to conclude in a medical perspective that penetration had taken place. Although the absence of complete penetration of the hymen does not negate the possibility of contact, Medico legal officer clarified that there was no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact between the accused and the victim. Under Art.6 RPC provides that rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. – All the elements of attempted rape are only present; hence the accused should be punished for this. The lower court decision was modified and the accused was found guilty for ATTEMPTED RAPE.
ART. 8 #3 JOSE INGAL, PETITIONER VS PP GR 173282, MAR 4, 2008 I. NATURE OF THE CASE: MURDER II. FACTS: THE INCIDENT HAPPENED AT THE CARINDERIA IN TONDO, MANILA. THE VICTIM ROLANDO DOMINGO WAS EATING IN THE CARINDERIA WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND WHEN JOSE INGAL APPROACHED HIM, PULLED HIS HAIR AND REPEATEDLY STABBED HIM. AFTER PETITIONER STABBED THE VICTIM, HE JUST WALKED AWAY AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED. THE VICTIM SUSTAINED FOUR STABBED, TWO OF WHICH WERE PENETRATING AND FATAL. THE WEAPON USE BY THE PETITIONER WAS A TRES CANTOS. THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF DEATH WAS DUE TO PENETRATING STAB WOUND ON THE CHEST. THE TRIAL COURT FINDS JOSE INGAL GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER. SINCE HE WAS DETAINED IN THE SERVICE OF HIS SENTENCED, HE SHALL BE CREDITED THE FULL PERIOD OF HIS TEMPORARY DETENTION.
III. ISSUES: WHETHER THE ACCUSED APPELLANT IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT PROOF TO JUSTIFY HIS CONVICTION? IV. RULINGS/ HOLDINGS: THE PROSECUTION RELIES PRIMARILY ON THE TESTIMONIES OF AIDA BONA, THE OWNER OF THE CARENDERIA WHO JUST GIVE HER WRITTEN STATEMENT AFTER YEARS OF INCIDENT AFTER THE APPREHENSION OF THE SUSPECT AND ROSALINDA TAN, THE HELPER IN THE CARINDERIA, WHO ALLEGEDLY WITNESSED THE STABBING OF THE VICTIM IN THE CARINDERIA THEY OPERATE. BUT PETITIONER RAISES THE DEFEND OF DENIAL AND ALIBI. HE CLAIMS HE WAS IN HIS PLACE OF WORK WHEN THE STABBING HAPPENED. THE DEFENSE TRY TO DESTROY THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TWO PROSECUTION WITNESS BY ARGUING THAT THEIR TESTIMONIES THAT PETITIONER WAS ALONE AT THE TIME WHEN HE STABBED THE VICTIM WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY OF SGT YANG THAT THERE WERE FOUR SUSPECTS IN THE KILLING OF THE VICTIM. THERE BEING STATEMENTS THAT THERE WERE ALLEGEDLY FOUR WITNESSES TO THE STABBING OF VICTIM DOES NOT DIMINISH THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TWO EYEWITNESSES. THE COURT FIND THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION TO BE MORE CREDIBLE THAN THAT ADDUCED BY THE PETITIONER. IT DESERVES GREAT WEIGHT AND IS EVEN CONCLUSIVE AND BINDING. THE VICTIM WAS ATTACKED FROM BEHIND WHILE HE WAS EATING AND WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF OR RETALIATE BECAUSE THE ATTACK WAS SO SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED. SINCE TREACHERY WAS PROPERLY ALLEGED IN THIS CASE, THE SAME CAN BE USED TO QUALIFY THE KILLING TO MURDER. WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE INTENTION OF THE PETITIONER WAS TO KILL THE VICTIM. THUS, ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, THE DECISION OF THE CA IS AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
People v. Sitchon 378 SCRA 68(2002) People v. Escote 400 SCRA 603(2003) Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina 102 Phil.181(1957) – OK!! People V. Amigo 252 SCRA 43(1996) – somewhat OK!!
People v. Maghirang 28 Phil. 655(1914)
Palaganas v. People 501 SCRA 533(2006) -- OK!
Martinez v. Court of Appeals 521 SCRA 176 (2007) People v. Caballero 400 SCRA 424(2003) Rivera v. People 480 SCRA 188(2006) – OK!
People v. Grande(orande?) 415 SCRA 699 (2003) People v. Marquez 365 SCRA 200(2001) People v. Reyes 581 SCRA 691 (2009) Herrera v. Sandiganbayan 579 SCRA 32(2009) People v. Guittap 403 SCRA 167 (2003) People v. Miranda 417 SCRA 383 (2003)
BATACLAN V MEDINA 102 PHIL 181MONTEMAYOR; October 22, 1957 FACTS Juan Bataclan rode Bus No. 30 of the Medina T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , d r i v e n b y S a y l o n , s h o r t l y a f t e r mid night. While the bus was running very fast on a highway,
one of the front tires burst. The bus fell into acanal and turned turtle. Four passengers could not get out, including Bataclan. It appeared that gasoline began to leak from the overturned bus. Ten men came to help. One of them carried a torch and when he approached the bus, a fierce fire started, burning the four passengers trapped inside.- The trial court was of the opinion that the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was not the overturning of the bus, but rather, the fire that burned the bus, including himself and his copassengers who were unable to leave it; that at the time the fire started,Bataclan, though he must have suffered phy sicalinjuries, perhaps serious, was still alive, and s odamages were awarded, not for his death, but for the physical injuries suffered by him. ISSUES What is the proximate cause of death of the four passengers? HELD The proximate cause of death is the overturning of the bus.see definition of proximate cause under A1 - It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus over turns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing him physical injuries, "If through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highway men after looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the passenger is burned to death, one might still contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the
overturning of the vehicle. But in the present case and under the circumstances obtaining in the same, we do not hesitate to hold that the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was the overturning of the bus, this for the reason that when the vehicle turned not only on 'Its side but completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help, made not only by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning),the rescuers had to carry a light with them; and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available, they had to use a torch, the most handy and available; and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach the overturned vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them. In other words, the coming of the men with the torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. What is more, the burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligence of the carrier, through its driver and its conductor. According to the witnesses, the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back and forth. They, or at least, the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was, gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled, specially over a large area, can be smelt and detected-even from a distance, and yet
neither the driver nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus (I guess this case says, if not for the overturning of the bus… then the leak and the fire wouldn’t have happened People vs Patricio Amigo GR 116719 Facts:
Accused-Appellant Patricio Amigo was charged and convicted of murder by the regional trial court, Davao City and was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Issue:
Whether or not that the penalty or reclusion perpetua is too cruel and harsh and pleads for sympathy. Held:
The duty of court is to apply the law disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for the accused. "Dura lex sed lex".
PALAGANAS vs. PPL G.R. No. 165483 September 12, 2006 Facts: The petioner was sentenced by RTC and Affirmed by the CA for the guilty of crime of Homicide and two counts of Frustrated Homicide. A rumble, caused by the song “my way” at videoke bar resulted in the shooting by the petitioner, who answer the call of help of his brother who was involved in rumble incident. Petitioner invoked self-defense to justify his shooting. Issue: Whether or not self-defense is validly invoked. Held: For a valid self-defense, primarily unlawful aggression must be existed. In the case at bar no unlawful aggression that comes from the victim since the throwing of stones to the
accused does not puts in actual or imminent peril the life, limb, or right of the accused. The accused has other options other than shooting , either by running or taking cover or calling proper authorities. The justification of self-defense is not correctly be appreciated. As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of selfdefense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. Presidential Decree No. 1866,  as amended by Republic Act No. 8294,  which is a special law which states that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance – generic. Whereas, the used of unlicensed firearm that was alleged in the information and must be proven during trial is considered special aggravating circumstances and it cannot be offset by mitigating circumstance unlike generic that it may be offset. Generic aggravating circumstances are those that generally apply to all crimes such as those mentioned in Article 14, paragraphs No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 and 20, of the Revised Penal Code. It has the effect of increasing the penalty for the crime to its maximum period, but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. It must always be alleged and charged in the information, and must be proven during the trial in order to be appreciated. Moreover, it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Temperate or moderate damages (P25,000) may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. gunshot wound sustained by Michael in his right shoulder was not fatal or mortal since the treatment period for his wound was short and he was discharged from the hospital on the same day he was admitted therein
RIVERA VS PEOPLE FACTS: As the victim, Ruben Rodil, went to a nearby store to buy food, accused Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being jobless and dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a heated exchange of words ensued. In the evening of the following day, when Ruben and his threeyear-old daughter went to the store to buy food, Edgardo, together with his brother Esmeraldo Rivera and Ismael Rivera, emerged from their house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their house only when the policemen arrived. Ruben sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital. The doctor declared
that the wounds were slight and superficial, though the victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder. An appeal was made by the accused, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification, changing the crime to attempted murder and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 2 years of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not there was intent to kill. 2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted murder. 3) Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of treachery was properly applied. 4) Whether or not the correct penalty was imposed. HELD: 1) Yes. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. In the present case, Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Even though the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, intent to kill was presumed. 2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Although the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, it does not negate criminal liability of the accused for attempted murder. The intent to kill was already presumed based on the overt acts of the accused. In fact, victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened. 3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, which gives no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself. In the present case, the accused attacked the victim in a sudden and unexpected manner as he was walking with his three-year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent peril to his life. He was overwhelmed with the assault of the accused and had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. Thus, there was treachery. 4) No. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the accused were guilty only of attempted murder, the penalty should be reduced by two degrees, in accordance to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, under Article 61 (2), in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty should be prision mayor. In the absence of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor which has a range of from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision
mayor should be reduced by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the accused were sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from two (2) years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.
People vs. Oanis (G.R. No. 47722. July 27, 1943) Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines Defendants-appellants: Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta Ponente: J. Moran FACTS: Upon receiving a telegram from Major Guido ordering the arrest of Anselmo Balagtas, Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, asked that he be given four men, one of whom who reported was defendant Alberto Galanta. The same instruction was given to defendant Antonio Oanis, chief of police of Cabanatuan, who was likewise called by the Provincial Inspector. The Provincial Inspector divided the party into two groups with defendants Oanis and Galanta taking the route leading to the house of a bailarina named Irene, where Balagtas was believed to be staying. Upon arriving, the group went to the Irene’s room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door where they were, simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. It turned out later that the person shot and killed was not Balagtas but an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene’s paramour. ISSUE: 1) Whether or not the defendants are criminally liable for the death of Serapio Tecson. 2) Whether or not the defendants are entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance in case they are found criminally liable HELD: 1) Yes. If a person acted in innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of his official duties, then he incurs no criminal liability. Nonetheless, the maxim ignorantia facti excusat, applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. In the instant case, the defendants found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action, as the person in the room being then asleep would give them ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity. Moreover, they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him. Thus, the crime committed by defendants was not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not accidental. 2) Yes. The Court held that the defendants committed the crime of murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, but may be entitled to an incomplete justifying circumstance as provided in Article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code. There are two requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In the instant case, only the first requisite is present. Thus, Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law in case the crime committed is not wholly excusable, was imposed, entitling the defendants to a privileged mitigating circumstance.
US vs. Ah Chong G.R. No. L-5272. March 19, 1910 Plaintiff-appelle: The United States Defendant-appellant: Ah Chong Ponente: J. Carson FACTS: The accused, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook in Fort Mckinley and was sharing the house with the deceased, Pascual Gualberto, who was employed as a house boy. The door of the room they were occupying was not furnished with a permanent lock, and as a measure of security, they fasten the door by propping a chair against it. One evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by someone trying to force open the door of their room.The deceased and the accused had an understanding that when either returned late at night, he should knock at the door and acquaint his companion with his identity. Ah Chong sat up in bed and called out twice, “Who is there?” but heard no answer. The room was quite dark, and as there had been recent robberies in Fort McKinley, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, he leaped to his feet and called out. “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” Suddenly, he was struck by the edge of the chair which had been placed against the door. Believing that he was being attacked, he seized a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow and wildly struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, Pascual. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was criminally liable. HELD: No. The rule is that one is not criminally liable if he acted without malice (criminal intent), negligence, and imprudence. In the present case, the accused acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of selfdefense. Had the facts been as he believed them to be, he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act. Moreover, the accused cannot be said to have been negligent or reckless as the facts as he saw them threatens his person and his property. Under such circumstances, there is no criminal liability, as the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.