People V Ah Chong

G.R. No. L-5272

March 19, 1910

CARSON, J.

FACTS:

Defendant Ah Chong works as a cook in one of the quarters at Fort McKinley, Rizal Province living with
the deceased, Pascual Gualberto who works as a houseboy. Due to several incidents of robbery in Ft.
McKinley, the roommates reinforced added security in the quarters by adding a chair against the door
and an understanding that when either returned at night, one should knock the door and say his name.

On the evening of August 14, 1908, Ah Chong, alone in his room was awakened by someone trying to
force open the door of the room. Defendant called out twice asking the identity of the person but heard
no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, the defendant called out that he would kill the
intruder if he tried to enter. At the very moment, the door was forced open and the defendant was
struck by the chair that had been placed the door. Believing that he was being attacked he seized a
kitchen knife and tried to defend himself by striking wildly at the intruder who turned out to be his
roommate.

He then immediately called to his employers and rushed back in the room to secure the bandages to
bind up Pascual’s room.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong may be held criminally liable for murder.

HELD: No.

The defendant is NOT criminally liable. Par. 1, Art XI of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides mistake
of fact to be held as a valid defense with the following requisites:

(1) One, that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to
be. (2) Two, that the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful, and (3) lastly, that
the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

In the case at bar, had the victim was indeed an intruder forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong,
there would have been unlawful aggression and there would have been a necessity on the part of Ah
Chong to defend himself and/or his home and the knife would have been a reasonable means to
prevent or repel such aggression.

Ah Chong acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent hence, he is exempt from criminal
liability and is therefore acquitted.
 People vs. Beronilla
G.R. No. L-4445
Feb 28, 1955

FACTS:
In 1944, accused Beronilla was appointed Military Mayor of La Paz, Abra after the then elected mayor
Arsenio Borjal moved to Bangued due to several death threats. Simultaneously upon his appointment,
Beronilla received a memorandum authorized by Lt. Col. Arbold to appoint a jury of 12 bolo men to try
persons accused of treason, espionage and aiding or abetting the enemy

To escape bombing in Bangued Borjal and his family then returned to Abra where he was placed under
custody after Beronilla received a list and instruction to investigate puppet government officials in
which Arsenio Borjal was included. After Beronilla gathered various complaints by the residents against
Borjal the latter was tried and sentenced to death by the 12 man jury.

That same day, Beronilla ordered the execution of Borjal. Jacinto was the executioner and Antonio was
the grave digger. Beronilla reported this report to Col. Arnold.

ISSUE:
W/N the accused actions are covered by justifying circumstances for obedience to lawful order of
superior.

RULING:

Yes. The accused acted upon orders of their superior officers, which as military subordinates, they could
not question and obeyed in good faith without the being aware of its illegality.

Moreover, he obeyed in good faith. Criminal intent then could not be established. The maxim here is
actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea (Crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained of to be innocent).
 People vs Oanis, 74 Phil 257

G.R. No. L-47722 J

July 27, 1943

Facts:

Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Alberto Galanta were under instructions to
arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered,
to get him dead or alive. As they proceed to the suspected house, they went into a room and upon
seeing a man, supposedly Balagtas, sleeping with his back towards the door, they simultaneously or
successively fired at him which resulted to the victim’s death. The victim turned out to be an innocent
citizen, Serapio Tecson who upon autopsy, multiple
gunshot wounds were found on his body which caused his death.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in the honest
performance of their official duties.

2. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the performance of their duty.

HELD:

1. No. Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. “Ignorance facti excusat” applies only
when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. The fact that the supposedly suspect was
sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked whether it is the real Balagtas.

2. No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the
fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are 2 requisites to justify this: (1)
the offender acted in teh perfomance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, (2) 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 this case, only the first requisite is present.
 NORBERTO CRUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 166441
October 8 ,2014

FACTS:
On December 1993, Norberto and his wife, together with their young girl helpers, AAA and BBB, went to
La Union to sell plastic and glass wares. They arrived at the destination in the evening and set up a tent
in order that they will have a place to sleep on.

Later that morning, AAA was awakened when she felt and realized Norberto was on top of her naked
body, mashing her breast and touching her private parts. To be able to stop Norberto of his lustful
desires, AAA fought back and kicked him twice. AAA was offered money in exchange for her silence.
Minutes later, when AAA returned to her tent, he again saw the accused touching private parts of BBB.

A complaint for attempted rape was filed against Norberto. Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and
Court of Appeals found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted rape and acts of
lasciviousness.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused was guilty of attempted rape.

RULING:

NO.
There is an attempt, according to Article 6 of RPC 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.

In attempted rape, therefore, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all the acts
of execution of having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia
consummates rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should
produce the felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to
have a casual relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with
the female.

The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts of
lasciviousness is committed.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO
G.R. No. 129433
March 30, 2000

FACTS

Campuhan was a helper in the business of the family of the victim, a 4-year-old girl. One time, the
mother of the victim heard the latter cry, “Ayoko!”, prompting her to rush upstairs. There, she saw
Campuhan kneeling before the victim, whose pajamas and pany were already removed, while his short
pants were down to his knees. Campuhan was apprehended. Physical examination of the victim yielded
negative results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted. Her hymen was intact and its
orifice was only .5 cm in diameter.

Trial court found him guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Campuhan is guilty of statutory rape.

2. Whether or not there is a crime of frustrated rape.

RULING:

1. NO.

In concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential
ingredient, nor is the rupture of hymen necessary; the mere touching of external genitalia by the penis
capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.

Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia by the
penis, there can be no consummated rape. the prosecution failed to prove that Campuhan’s penis was
able to penetrate the victim’s vagina however slight. Also, there were no external signs of physical
injuries on the victim’s body to conclude that penetration had taken place

What was committed was attempted rape. Under RPC 6 in relation to RPC 335, rape is attempted when
the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not perform all acts of
execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.

2. NO.

Rape was consummated from the moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim. All
elements of the offense were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do. Perfect
penetration was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight,
was sufficient.
 GEMMA JACINTO vs PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 162540
July 13 2009

FACTS:

Petitioner Gemma Jacinto, together with Anita Rivera and Jacqueline Captile was charged of Qualified
theft before the RTC. Jacinto who works as a collector of Megafoam International, received a check
amounting to P10,000 on June 1997 as payment of Baby Aquino to her purchase to Megafoam.
However, instead of delivering it to Megafoam, she deposited it to the account of Captile’s husband,
Generoso Captile. The check was later discovered to be unfunded when Rowena Recablanca, another
employee of Mega Foam, received a phone call from Landbank, who was looking for Generoso to inform
Capitle that the BDO check deposited had been dishonored. When Aquino was informed that her check
bounced, she claimed that she already paid in cash sometime in August 1997 as replacement for the
dishonored check.

Both RTC and CA ruled that the petitioner was guilty of qualified theft. Hence the Petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is correctly convicted for the crime of Qualified Theft.

RULING:

NO.
Petitioner is guilty of committing an impossible crime of theft only.
The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against
persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was
inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.

The time that petitioner took a possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had performed all
the acts to consummate that crime of theft had it not been impossible of accomplishment in this
case. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would have received the face value thereof,
which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check
being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being
produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the
check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of said
dishonored check.
 US v TORING
191 SCRA 38, 45-48
G.R. No. L-56358
October 26, 1990

Facts:

On the evening of May 25 1980 where a benefit dance was held in Lapu-lapu City, Samuel Augusto while
answering to the call of nature, was stabbed and killed. Witness barangay tanod, gang members Felix
Berdin, saw Luis Toring, Diosdado Berdon, and Carmelo Berdin, whispering in a dark area. Berdon
handed a knife to Toring who approached Augusto from behind and stabbed him in the right side. The
three were charged with conspiracy in killing Samuel Augusto in a treacherous manner.

The morning after the incident, Toring was sleeping in the hut with his older brother, Arsenio when
Edgar Augusto, the younger brother of Samuel, shot them and Arsenio was hit on the left leg. It was also
mentioned that a year before the incident, Toring was shot by Edgar.

Toring seeks his exoneration by contending that his assault on Samuel was justified because he acted in
defense of his first cousin, Joel Escobia. Toring testified that on the night of the incident Samuel
approached them, thrust the butt of his shotgun on the chin of Joel Escobia and proceeded to assault
the rest of the gang

Issue:
Whether or not there was complete defense of a relative

Held:

No. Article 11 (3) of the Revised Penal Code provides that no criminal liability is incurred by anyone "who
acts in defense of ... his relatives ... by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the
first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further
requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no
part therein."

The presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and the lack of proof of provocation on
the part of Toring notwithstanding, full credence cannot be given to Toring's claim of defense of a
relative. It cannot be said that in attacking Samuel he was impelled by pure compassion or the lawful
desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. Rather, he was motivated by revenge,
resentment or evil motive because of running feud between the Augusto and Toring brothers.
 People v. Genosa
GR No. 135981
January 15 2004

FACTS:

On November 15, 1995, appellant Marivic Benosa, attacked and wounded his husband, Ben
Genosa which ultimately led to his death. She claimed that her husband began the provocation.

Appellant invoked self defense and defense of her unborn child. The appellant said she was
frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby
safely. The appellant said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was
because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend. She testified that during their marriage she tried
leaving him at least five times, but that Ben would always pursue her and they would reconcile.

The appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been shown to be suffering from
Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self-defense admitted the killing of her
husband with the use of a gun. She was found guilty of the crime of parricide, with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep, beating him through the use of
lead pipe.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke the “battered woman syndrome” as constituting
self defense.
2. Whether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.

RULING:

1. NO.

The Court ruled in the negative as appellant failed to prove that she is afflicted with the “battered
woman syndrome”. The elements of self-defense arising from battered woman syndrome was not met,
to wit: (a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two
battering episodes between the appellant and her intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering
episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an
actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in
order to save her life, and; (c) At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable grave
harm to the accused based on the history of violence perpetuated by the former against the latter.

The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the “cycle of violence” supposedly characterizing the
relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents but appellant
failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone through a similar
pattern. Neither did appellant provided sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle.

2. NO.
There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against person by employing means, methods,
or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the offended
party might make,

In the present case, however it was not conclusively shown, that the appellant intentionally chose a
specific means of successfully attacking her husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory act
that he might make. To the contrary, it appears that the thought of using the gun occurred to her only at
about the same moment when she decided to kill her spouse. In the absence of any convincing proof
that she consciously and deliberately employed the method by which she committed the crime in order
to ensure its execution, the doubt should be resolved in her favor.
 PEOPLE vs. ROLANDO MANLULU AND DANTE SAMSON

G.R. No. 102140

April 22, 1994

FACTS:

On the evening of May 29 1986, NARCOM agent Gerardo A l f a r o , w a s s t a b b e d a n d s h o t i n

a d r i n k i n g s p r e e . H i s d r i n k i n g companions, Rolando Manlulu and Dante Samson
were apprehended hours before the accident.

Both accused invoked self- defense claiming that due to misinterpretations, Alfaro resents that Samson
is unwilling to join him on his “prospect”, so he repeatedly pointed the gun to Samson. Fearful that it
might go off, Samson held the gun and tried to ward it off, resulting in a struggle for its possession.
When Samson got hold of the ice pick on top of the drum, he stabbed Alfaro instinctively. Manlulu on
the other hand added that he picked up the ice pick when it fell, and fearing that he might be the next
victim should Alfaro succeed in shooting Samson, Manlulu stabbed Alfaro several times with the ice pick,
dropped it, and ran away.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused acted in self-defense

HELD:

NO.

For self- defense to prosper, it must be positively shown that there was a previous unlawful and
unprovoked attack that placed the life of the accused in danger which forced him to inflict more or less
severe wounds upon his assailant, employing therefore reasonable means to resist said attack.

Here, at the outset, the two accused have already failed to show that there was unlawful aggression on
the part of Alfaro. A gun aimed at the accused, without more, is insufficient to prove unlawful
aggression. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated in self-defense, there must be an actual, sudden
and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude.

Even the means employed to repel or prevent the supposed attack was not reasonable. For, even if we
disregard the gunshot wound which Samson claims to have resulted from an accidental firing, the victim
also suffered seven other stab wounds, three of which were fatal, one of which was admittedly inflicted
by Samson, while the other two, by accused Manlulu. Definitely, it was not necessary to stab, more so
repeatedly, the victim
 People vs. Narvaez,
121 SCRA 389
G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 April 20, 1983

FACTS:

On August 22, 1968, Mamerto Narvaez awoke to the sounds of construction of a fence, as ordered by
David Fleischer, that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice and rice mill. Narvaez
asked if Fleischer they could talk things over but the latter refused. Narvaez lost it and shot Fleischer
with his shotgun as well as Rubia who was running towards a jeep where Fleischer's gun was kept.

Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle
with the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. Narvaez was
convicted of homicde, but Narvaez pleaded that the shooting was justified because he was defending his
person and property.

ISSUE:

Issue: WON Narvaez should be acquitted on the grounds that he was defending his person and property.

RULING:

No. The victim merely violated his property and not his person which in not under the requisites of self-
defense The argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3
requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites:
1.Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression towards appellant's
property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left him in peace before time
was up, instead of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up fence. Art. 536 of the Civil Code also
provides that possession may not be acquired through force or intimidation; while Art. 539 provides that
every possessor has the right to be respected in his possession
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack. In the case, killing was
disproportionate to the attack.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. Here, provocation made
by Fleischer is not sufficient for Narvaez’s action.
 PEOPLE V ALBERTO MEDINA
GR 113691
February 6 1998

FACTS:
June-October 1982, Medina was confined in the National Mental Hospital for schizophreniform
disorder, where he was subsequently released. Relatives say that his condition did not seem to improve.
He was referred to Dr. Adigue for further examinations. May 20 1991, 11 pm, a party was attended by
both Dalisay Adigue for further examinations. May 20 1991, 11 pm, a party was attended by both
Dalisay and Medina, as well as Larry Andal, where both Dalisay and Medina danced the chacha
together.Afterwards, Dalisay and Andal decided to walk home. While they were walking with Dalisay
walking ahead of Andal, the latter saw Medina stab Dalisay with a balisong. Dalisay fell down and two
grappled to the ground until Dalisay was able to run away but was chased onced more and stabbed
repeatedly. Appellant fled the scene thereafter.
Upon realzing that he has stabbed a person accused-appellant surrendered himself and the
weapon on the same evening of the authorities. Trial Court convicted him of murder and said that his
defense of insanity is not meritorious since Dr. Adigue was not qualified as expert witness and that he
was actually mentally agile during trial.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Medina was insane therefore exempt from criminal liability.
2. Whether or not the court should appreciate Medina’s Voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstance.

RULING:
1. No.
The decision was not based on the qualifications of Dr Adigue as a doctor but as a witness, what
mattered was the failure of Dr Adigue’s testimony to establish the legal insanity of Medina as shown in
the results of the tests she conducted which merely says that Medina has a mild depression and
emotional disturbances. The testimony also did not establish the complete deprivation of reason on
Medina’s part.
Article 12 Par 1 of RPC requires a complete absence of the power of discern.The presumption of law
under Art 800 of Civil Code always lies in favor of sanity and in the absence of proof to the contrary,
every person is presumed to be of sound mind.
2. Yes.
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been credited in favor of the appellant.
The solicitor general concurs and notes that appellant have given himself up to a desk officer at the Brgy
City Police Station hours after the stabbing incident hence sufficiently establishing the elements of
voluntary surrender as provided by the law.
 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DONATO BASCOS
G.R. No. L-19605
December 19, 1922

FACTS:

Donato Bascos killed Victoriano Romero while the latter is sleeping. The
wife of the accused, his cousin and along with testimonies from the neighbor testified that Donato had
been continuously out of his mind for years

ISSUE:

Whether or not Bascos can be aquitted on the grounds that he is insane.

Ruling:
YES.
The physician expressed the opinion that the accused was probably insane when Victoriano Romero was
killed. The official declaration of Doctor Montemayor in his capacity as acting district health officer was
"that this accused, according to a physical examination and investigation, is a violent maniac, and that
this mental state has continued through many years, constituting a danger both for himself and for the
community." The total lack of motive of Bascos to kill Romero bears out the assumption that the former
was insane.
Consequently, he is exempt from criminal liability, and should be confined in an insane asylum.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MILAN ROXAS y AGUILUZ
G.R. No. 200793
June 4, 2014

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Milan Roxas, aged 18, was found guilt by CA of five counts of rape against AAA,a
minor who was 9 years old at the time of the first rape and 10 years old at the time of the succeeding
four rapes. Accused with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
committed repeated acts of sexual assault, most of the time with knifepoint upon AAA, blindfold, and
thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will and without her consent.
AAA did not report the incident immediately because accused-appellant threatened to cut her tongue
kill her and her mother.

Accused claimed, through the findings Dr. Agnes Aglipay, Regional Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology, that he is suffering from a mild mental retardation with a mental age of
nine years old. He should also be exempt from criminal liability because of his mental age of a minor
although his chronological age at the time of the commission of the crime was already eighteen years
old.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Roxas is exempt from criminal responsibility on the ground that he can be considered a
minor or an imbecile or insane person

RULING:
NO.
In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344
clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of one’s birth date, and not the mental age as
argued by accused-appellant Roxas. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there
is no room for construction or interpretation. Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning
may the court interpret or construe its true intent.
 Madali v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 180380, 4 August 2009
595 SCRA 274, 296

FACTS:
On April 16 1999, policemen found the dead body of AAA emitting a foul odor, hanging from a tree with
handkerchief tied around the neck and a dog chain fastened to the handkerchief.

The accused, with the intent to kill, conspire, confederate and mutually help each other, did then and
there by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, willfully and unlawfully attacked,
assaulted, stroked with a coconut frond and brass knuckles and strangle with a dog chain, one AAA,
inflicting upon mortal wounds in different parts of his body which caused his untimely death.

The suspects, Raymund and Rodell were minors aging 14 and 16 respectively. The lower court found
them guilty of homicide. Petitioners elevated the case to the CA and during the pendency of the appeal,
RA 9344 took effect.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners may be exempt from criminal liability in view of the effectivity of RA 9344
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, which exempts them from criminal liability a minor fifteen (15)
years or below at the time of the commission of the offense

RULING:

YES.

Although the crime was committed on 13 April 1999 and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on 20
May 2006, the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Raymund who was not shown to be
a habitual criminal. This is based on Article 22 of the RPC which states that Penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal.

The exception however differs. In the case of Raymund, the case is dismissed as to hi, since he was
below 15 years old. He is to be released and custody is given to the paretns by virtue of RA 9344 Secs 6
and 20, setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility and who will have custody respectively. In the
case of Rodel, who was 16 years old at that time, it is necessary to determine whether he acted with
discernment or not. Sec 6 provides that children above 15 but below 18 will be exempt from criminal
liability unless he acted with discernment. He however should be subjected to an intervention program.
Sec 38 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence.
 People v Dequina
G.R. No. 177570
January 19, 2011

FACTS:

Respondents Dequina and jundoc were charged under the provisions of RA 6425 otherwise knocn was
Dangerous Drugs act of 1972 as amended by RA 7695, for selling distributing and transporting several
packs of marijuana weighing approxiamtely 11,000 grams per packs of 3.

The arrest took place at Tondo Manila when PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco was instructed that there
would be 1 male and 2 female coming from Baguio to deliver an unknown quantity of marijuana. At
around 6 am in the designated place, the police officers saw 3 individual heading towards the pier,
suspecting that the said persons were the one on the look-out; the police officers trailed them until they
were noticed by the 3 individual prompting them to run and dropped the bag revealing accdinentally the
dried marijuana.

Appellant Dequina’s defense was that she was only invited by a woman named Sally to join KMU, a
leftist group. She was then ordered by Sally to invite 2 more friends to accompany her in delivering the
said bag to Manila. Dequina thought of backing out, but was threatened that something bad will happen
to her child should she refuse. She was ordered to fetch some bag together with 2 friends in Pampanga
and head down to Manila. Upon arrival, they got arrested.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Dequina acted in irresistible fear in transporting the illegal drugs, thus exempting her
from criminal liabilties.

RULING:

No. The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who
acts not only without will but against will. A threat to future is not enough, The force contemplated
must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of
such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be
done.

The alleged threat on her daughter was unclear. At one point in her testimony, she claimed that her
daughter was to be under the custody of Sally while she was away. However, during the trial her lawyer
manifested that her daughter was in fact in Manila and in the court room attending the hearing.
 People of the Philippines vs RENE BARON
G.R. No. 185209
621 SCRA 646 June 28, 2010

FACTS:
In the evening of of June 28, 1995 at HCadiz City, Negros Occidental accused Rene Baron, Rey
Villatima, and alias “Dedong” bargo, conspied, confederate and helped one another with evident
premeditation and treachery and with intent to kill, assault, attack and stab to death one Juanito Berallo
in order to rob, steal and take away the latter’s sidecar and motorcycle, wallet, and wristwatch. They \
inflicted multiple stabbed wounds which directly caused the victim’s death.
Baron claimed that on earlier that evening, he bought rice and other necessities for his family
and proceeded to the public transport terminal to get a ride home where he chanced upon deceased
Berallo and his two passengers who insisted that he came along for the trip. During said trip, the two
passengers announced a hold-up and thereafter tied the Berallo’s hands and dragged him towards the
sugarcane fields while Baron stayed in the tricycle. Baron was then accompanied by the two passengers
back to his house where he and his wife were threatened at gunpoint not to report the incident to the
authorities.

Issue:
Is the appellant entitled to the exempting circumstances of irresistible force and/or uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury?

Held:
No. The court found all requisites for said circumstances were lacking. The appellant’s attempt to evade
criminal liability by insisting that he acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury fails to impress. A threat of future injury is insufficient.
The Court found nothing in the records to substantiate appellant’s insistence that he was under duress
from his co-accused in participating in the crime. In fact, the evidence was to the contrary. Villatima and
Bargo dragged the victim towards the sugarcane field and left the appellant inside the tricycle that was
parked by the roadside. While all alone, he had every opportunity to escape since he was no longer
subjected to a real, imminent or reasonable fear.
The appellant had other opportunities to escape since he traveled with his co-accused for more than 10
hours and passed several transportation terminals. However, he never tried to escape or at least
request for assistance from the people around him. From the series of proven circumstantial evidence,
the inescapable and natural conclusion was the three accused were in conspiracy with one another to
kill the victim and cart away the motorcycle.
 People vs. Bandian
63 Phil 530
G.R. No. 45186
September 30, 1936

FACTS:

In the morning of January 31, 1936, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor, Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket
to respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes
stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able to
support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought her to her house and placed her on the bed. He then
called the aid of Adriano Comocom, where the latter saw a body of a newborn baby near a path
adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before. Bandian affirmed the baby
was hers. Upon notification and inspection thereafter, physician D declared that the appellant gave
birth in her house in her own bed and threw the child into the thicket to kill it for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor.

Issue:
Whether or not Bandian is guilty of infanticide.

Held:
No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be committed willfully or
consciously, or at least it must be the result of a voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. The
evidence does not show that the appellant, in causing her child’s death in one way or another, or in
abandoning it in the thicket, did so willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or
abandon it, to expose it to death, because her affair with a former lover, which was not unknown to her
second lover, Kirol, took place three years before the incident; her married life with Kirol—she considers
him her husband as he considers him his wife—began a year ago; as he so testified at the trial, he knew
of the pregnancy and that it was his and that they’ve been eagerly awaiting the birth of the child. The
appellant, thus, had no cause to be ashamed of her pregnancy to Kirol.

Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth. If by going into the thicket to pee, she caused a wrong
as that of giving birth to her child in that same place and later abandoning it, not because of imprudence
or any other reason than that she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not
be blamed because it all happened by mere accident, with no fault or intention on her part. The law
exempts from liability any person who so acts and behaves under such circumstances (Art. 12(4), RPC).
 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE QUINTANA y CALIMAG and JOHN DO
174 SCRA 454
G.R. No. 83888 June 30, 1989

FACTS:
Jose Quintana was jailed in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act for having sold 100 grams of dried
marijuana leaves. According to the prosecution carried out the operation , he was arrested in the course
of a buy- bust operation conducted at Imus, Cavite, in the morning of April 27, 1989, by the NARCOM
team unit composed of Sgt. Angelito Manalo, CIC Roberto Genido and Pat. Allan Alcantara.

Testifying for himself, Quintana denied that he was a drug pusher and that the alleged buy-bust
operation ever happened. He said that on that morning, he saw the three prosecution witnesses chasing
two persons, one of whom they caught while the other got away. Suddenly, the peace officers grabbed
him and accused him of owning the marijuana leaves which Manalo was then carrying. Quintana says he
was taken to the headquarters and made to sign several papers in blank, including what turned out later
to be a receipt for the marijuana leaves supposedly taken from him

ISSUE:
Whether or not Quintana should be convicted in violation of Dangerous Drugs Acts.

RULING:

NO.
As urgent as the campaign against the drug problem must be, so must we as urgently, if not more so, be
vigilant in the protection of the rights of the accused as mandated by the Constitution. This is a different
kind of addiction. This addiction to liberty covers those who, because of excessive zeal on the part of the
law enforcers, may be unjustly accused and convicted. it should ever be borne in mind that in case of
doubt it is the innocence of the accused and not his guilt that must be presumed.
 People of the Philippines vs Romeo Dansico
644 SCRA 151
G.R. No. 178060, February 23, 2011

FACTS
In the afternoon of September 7, 1998 in Camarines Sur , Dansico and Enriquez are accused of
conspiring, confederating and helping one another to sell and deliver a pack of marijuana weighing 900
grams. The prosecution’s account showed that the appellants were caught and arrested for selling
marijuana during a buy-bust operation.

Defense Dansico and Enriquez denied the charges and countered that the appellants were victims of
frame-up and police extortion. Appellant Dansico admitted that the marijuana presented in court was
the same marijuana shown to him at the Tigaon Police Station. According to the defense, Dansico had a
farm where appellant Cuadra worked. In that very afternoon, Cuadra was on his way back to the farm
when he was accosted by P/Insp. Vargas who poked a gun at him. When Cuadra attempted to flee and
ask for aid, Vargas struck him on the head with his gun.
RTC found the appellants guilty. CA, on appeal, affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime.
2. Whether or not the elements of the crime – the sale and delivery of the marijuana, and the
knowledge of the sale of marijuana – properly established in evidence?
3. Whether or not evidence able to establish the existence of the buy-bust operation and not a frame up
nor instigation.

RULING:
YES . They are guilty. The court no reversible error committed by the RTC and the CA in appreciating the
presented evidence and, therefore, deny the petition for lack of merit.
(2) YES. The two elements were properly established in evidence. The fact that an actual buy-bust
operation took place involving the appellants is supported not only by the testimonies of Paz and P/Insp.
Vargas, but also by the presented documentary evidence consisting of (a) the photocopy of the serial
numbers of the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, (b) the Tigaon Police Station police
blotter showing the arrest of the appellants and the cause of their arrest, (c) the booking sheet and
arrest report against the appellants, and (d) the Joint Affidavit of Arrest executed.
(3) YES. The defenses of denial, frame-up, and police extortion only become weighty when
inconsistencies and improbabilities cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution evidence. The court
does not not see these inconsistencies and improbabilities in the presented evidence. Besides, the
failure of the appellants to file appropriate criminal and administrative cases against the concerned
police officers in light of their allegations highly indicates that the appellants’ claims are mere concocted
afterthought.

The evidence on record belies that the appellants were instigated to sell marijuana. Instigation
presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense originated from the inducer and not the
accused who had no intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were it not for the
initiatives by the inducer. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in
order to trap or capture a lawbreaker.
 People vs Ortega
276 SCRA 166
G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997

FACTS
In 1992, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., at al were charged with murder for the killing Andre Man Masangkay. As
narrated by a witness, the Masangkay answered the call of nature and went to the back portion of the
house where they were having a drinking spree. Accused Ortega then followed him and later they heard
the victim shouting for help. When witness ran towards the scene they saw the accused on top of the
victim and stabbing the latter with along bladed weapon. Thereafter, Ortega and Garcia lifted the victim
and dropped him into the well, dropping stone to weight the victim’s body down. Witness was warned
not to tell anybody what he saw.

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?

RULING:

YES. 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 drowning
was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony that the accused had intended to commit.

It exemplifies praeter intentionem covered by Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code. Under this
paragraph, a person may be convicted of homicide. 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 3. the
unintended graven wrong was primarily caused by the actor’s wrongful acts.
 Navarro vs. Court of Appeals
313 SCRA 153
G.R. No. 121087. August 26, 1999

FACTS:
Reporters Enriquez Lingan with friends went to the police station to report an incident in Entertainment
City . At the station, a heated confrontation followed between victim Lingan and accused policeman
Navarro who was then having drinks outside the headquarters. Navarro was challenged by Lingan to a
fight and the former thereafter hit the victim with the handle of his gun below the left eyebrow,
followed by a fist blow on Lingan’s head. Lingan died under treatment. The heated exchange of words
was recorded on tape, specifically the frantic exclamations made by Navarro after the altercation that it
was the victim who provoked the fight, which the court admitted as evidence.

The court admitted in evidence the recorded the allegedly containing the heated exchange between
Navarro

ISSUE:
Whether the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated in favor of the accused.

RULING:

YES. The remarks of Lingan, which immediately preceded the acts of the accused, constituted sufficient
provocation. Provocation is said to be any unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of
exciting, annoying or irritating someone. The provocation must be sufficient and must immediately
precede the act; and in order to be sufficient, it must be adequate to excite a person to commit the
wrong, which must be accordingly proportionate in gravity.

The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong must also be considered.
The exclamations made by Navarro after the scuffle that it was Lingan who provoked him showed that
he had no intent to kill the latter.
 Perez vs. People;
544 SCRA 532;
G.R. No. 164763 February 12, 2008

FACSTS
An audit team conducted a cash examination on the account of petitioner Perez, who was then the
acting municipal treasurer of Tubigon, Bohol. In the course of the audit, the amount of P21,331.79 was
found in the safe of petitioner The audit team embodied their findings in the Report of Cash
Examination, which also contained an inventory of cash items. Based on the said audit, it was found
that the public funds that he was entrusted to is short of Php72,784.57.
When asked by the auditing team, as to the location of the missing funds, the petitioner
explained that part of the money was used to pay for the loan of his late brother, another portion was
spent for the food of his family, and the rest for his medicine.
Petitioner remitted to the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Bohol the amounts of 10k and
15k until the full restitution of the missing money on April 1989.

Issue:

Whether or not Perez is guilty of malversation attended by the mitigating circumstance akin to
voluntary surrender

RULING:
YES.
YES. Malversation is defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The failure of a
public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable upon
demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds
or property to personal uses

Under the law, the refund of the sum misappropriated, even before the commencement of the criminal
prosecution, does not exempt the guilty person from liability for the crime.85 At most, then, payment of
the amount malversed will only serve as a mitigating circumstance

The Court also holds that aside from voluntary surrender, petitioner is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong, again in relation to paragraph 10 of Article 13.
The records bear out that petitioner misappropriated the missing funds under his custody and control
because he was impelled by the genuine love for his brother and his family. Per his admission, petitioner
used part of the funds to pay off a debt owed by his brother. Another portion of the misappropriated
funds went to his medications for his debilitating diabetes.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RODEL LANUZA
G.R. No. 188562 August 17 2011

Facts:
Accused-appellant, Rodel Lanuza, was found guilty by the RTC of the crime of frustratedhomicide and
for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacking, assaulting and shooting Joel Butay. Accdg to

Accused claimed that he did not intend to shoot tha the victim. Lanuza was apparently reprimanded by
Butay for not reporting to work in the morning while the latter was handling down his shotgun to
Lanuza. That Butay held the shotgun with both hands with the muzzle pointed at Butay and the butt
towards Lanuza. At that moment, the accused gripped the firearm with one hand, with his pointer finger
inside the trigger guard and on top of the trigger itself. Lanuza almost slip the shotgun while in the act of
gripping and then immediately the gun went off -- the incident happened so fast he didn't realized he
accidentally shot Butay at the left side of the waist. That he went to the telephone upstairs to call for an
ambulance. However, he saw Butay leaving the premises on a motorcycle. He thereafter surrendered at
the Laoag Police center.

Issue:
Whether or not the act of Lanuza qualifies as an exempting circumstance, thus his sentence should be
decreased.

RULING:

NO. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, of 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 of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; the circumstances
under which the crime was committed; and the motive of the accused. These elements are extant in the
case at bar. The prosecution has satisfactorily proven that accused-appellant intended to kill private
complainant based on the method of attack, the weapon used, and the location of the gunshot wound.
Accused-appellant shot private complainant with a shotgun at close range hitting the latter’s abdomen.
As a resultant, private complainant sustained a wound that could have caused his death if not for the
timely medical attention given to him.
 People v Marcelino Oloverio
GR No. 211159
March 18 2015

FACTS:
On October 2, 2005, in Polompon, Leyte Marcelino Oloverio hacked Rodulfo Gulanes with a Bolo while
he was walking. Gulane eventually died right after. Before that incident, Gulane had been repeatedly
accusing Oloverio of having an incestuous relationship with his mother. The latter just kept his cool and
told him to go home but Gulane kept on insulting him. Gulane had also threatened the accused that he
will molest Oloverio’s daughter.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of Passion and obfuscation is present in this case.

Held:
Yes. In order to plead the Mitigating Circumstance of Passion and obfuscation the accused must
successfully prove the presence of these two elements: 1. that there be an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and 2. that said act which produced the obfuscation was
not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.

Gulane not only threatened to molest accused-appellant’s daughter but also accused him in public of
having incestuous relations with his mother. Gulane was said to have insulted accused-appelant in full
view of his immediate superior, the barangay captain.

Both victim and accused-appellant lived in the small locality of Palompon, Leyte. As with any small town,
it was a place where a person’s degrading remarks against another could be made the measure of the
latter’s character. Gulane’s insults would have been taken into serious consideration by the town’s
residents because of his wealth and stature in the community.

There was neither a reason given why Gulane acted that way towards accused-appellant nor any
evidence to show that accused-appellant had previously wronged him.