Criminal Law Case Digests

Criminal Law I – Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao |

Pastor
ARTICLE 2: ENGLISH RULE V. FRENCH RULE
CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG

(G.R. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922)
FACTS: Appellee is accused of having illegally smoked

opium, aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English
nationality while said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay
two and a half miles from the shores of the city. The
demurrer filed by said appellee alleged lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the lower court, which so held
and dismissed the case.
ISSUE: Whether the courts of the Philippines have

jurisdiction over crime, like the one herein involved,
committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our
jurisdiction waters.
HELD: There are two fundamental rules on this

particular matter in connection with International Law; to
wit, the French rule, according to which crimes
committed aboard a foreign merchant vessels should not
be prosecuted in the courts of the country within whose
territorial jurisdiction they were committed, unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the
territory; and the English rule, based on the territorial
1
Pastor
principle and followed in the United States, according to
which, crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are
in general triable in the courts of the country within
territory they were committed. Of this two rules, it is the
last one that obtains in this jurisdiction, because at
present the theories and jurisprudence prevailing in the
United States on this matter are authority in the
Philippines which is now a territory of the United States
(we were still a US territory when this was decided in
1922).
We have seen that the mere possession of opium
aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court
not triable by or courts, because it being the primary
object of our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the
Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the
use of this drug, its mere possession in such a ship,
without being used in our territory, does not being about
in the said territory those effects that our statute
contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere possession is
not considered a disturbance of the public order.
But to smoke opium within our territorial limits,
even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly
a breach of the public order here established, because it
causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within
our territory. It seriously contravenes the purpose that
our Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid
2
Pastor
repressive statute. Remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings in accordance with law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
US vs. Look Chaw, December 16, 1911
Facts: Several persons (including the internal-revenue

agent of Cebu) went aboard the steamship Erroll to
inspect and search its cargo. The steamship Erroll is of
English nationality and it came from HongKong bound for
Mexico via the call ports of Manila and Cebu. These
persons who inspected and search the steamship found
sacks of opium.
The fiscal filed for “unlawful possession of opium”

against defendant-appellant Look Chaw.
The opium seized in the vessel had been bought by the

defendant in HongKong, at P3.00 for each round can and
P5.00 for each of the others, for the purpose of selling it,
as contraband, in Mexico and Puerto de Vera Cruz; that
3
Pastor
the vessel arrived at Cebu and on the same day he sold
opium.
The defense moved for a dismissal of the case, on the

grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to try the
same and the facts concerned therein did not constitute
a crime.
The lower court ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction,

inasmuch as the crime had been committed within its
district, on the wharf of Cebu.
The defendant appealed. The issue to be resolved in this

case is
Issue: Whether or not the Philippine courts have

jurisdiction
Held: Yes, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction.
GR: mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these

Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their
ports, does NOT constitute a crime triable by the courts
of this country, on account of such vessel being
considered as an extension of its own nationality
EX: when the article, whose use is prohibited within the

Philippine Islands, in the present case a can of opium, is
4
Pastor
landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus
committing an open violation of the laws of the land with
respect to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in
force at the place of the commission of the crime, only
the court established in that said place itself had
competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement
under an international treaty.
Modified by reducing the imprisonment and the fine

imposed to six months and P1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978 (1917)
Cf. French vs. English rule
FACTS: The defendant is a subject of China employed as

a fireman on a steamship. The steamship is a foreign
steamer which arrived the port of Cebu on April 25,
1917, after a voyage direct from the port of Saigon. The
defendant bought eight cans of opium in Saigon, brought
them on board the steamship and had them in his
possession during the trip from Saigon to Cebu. When
the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu, the
authorities on making the search found the cans of
opium hidden in the ashes below the boiler of the
steamer's engine. The defendant confessed that he was
5
Pastor
the owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in
Saigon. He did not confess, however, as to his purpose in
buying the opium. He did not say that it was his
intention to import the prohibited drug.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of

opium into the Philippine Islands has been proven?
RULING: Yes. It is the onus of the government to prove

that the vessel from which the drug discharged came
into Philippine waters from a foreign country with the
drug on board. In this case, it is to be noted that Sec. 4
of Act No. 2381 begins, “Any person who shall unlawfully
import or bring any prohibited drug into the Philippine
Islands…” Import and bring should be construed as
synonymous terms. The mere act of going into a port,
without breaking bulk, is prima facie evidence of
importation. The importation is not the making entry of
goods at the customhouse, but merely the bringing them
into the port, and the importation is complete before the
entry to the customhouse. Moreover, possession for
personal use is unlikely, judging from the size of the
amount brought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 3
6
Pastor
PADILLA vs DIZON
FACTS
Respondent Hon. Baltazar R. Dizonpresided the criminal

case against Lo Chi Fai, who was caught by customs
guard at MIA while attempting to smuggle foreign
currency and foreign exchange instruments ( 380 pcs
amounting to US$355,349.57) out of the country.In his
decision, respondent judge acquitted Lo Chi Fai, saying
that Lo Chi Fai had no willful intention to violate the law
(sec 6, Central Bank Circular No. 96.) He also directed
the release to Lo Chi Fai of at least the amount of
US$3,000.00 under Central Bank Circular No. 960.”.
Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a

complaint against Baltazar R. Dizon for rendering
erroneous decision due to gross incompetence and gross
ignorance of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is

guilty of gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the
law. .
HELD: Yes. Respondent judge has shown gross

incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in holding
that to convict the accused for violation of cebtral bank
circular no. 960, the prosecution must establish that the
7
Pastor
accused had the criminal intent to violate the law. The
respondent judge ought to know that proof of malice or
deliberate intent is not essential in offenses punished by
special laws, w/c are malaprohibita. In requiring proof of
malice, the respondent judge has by his gross ignorance
allowed the accused to go scot free. He obviously
contrived to favor the acquittal of the accused, thereby
clearly negating his claim that he rendered the decision
in good faith. His actuations in the case amount to grave
misconduct prejudicial to the interest of sound and fair
administration of justice.
In invoking the provisions of CB No. 969 to justify the

release of US$3,000.00 to the accused, the respondent
judge again displayed incompetence and gross
ignorance of the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistake of Fact
People vs Oanis
Facts: Provincial Inspector received a telegram that

escaped convict Anselmo Balgtas and Irene must be
apprehended Dead or Alive. He then instructed Chief of
Police Oanis who knew a certain “Irene” to subdue the
escaped convict and so Oanis and others went to the
8
Pastor
said person’s house. Oanis and Galanta approached a
certain BrigadaMallare outside the house, who told them
that Irene was sleeping with her paramour in bedroom.
Oanis and Galanta then went to Irene’s room and saw a
man sleeping with his back towards the door and shot
him. That man turned out to be SerapioTecson, Irene’s
paramour.
Oanis&Galanta were charged with murder. In their

defense, they contended that they acted in innocent
mistake of favt in the honest performance of their official
duties.
The lower court held and so declared them guilty of the

crime of homicide through reckless imprudence.
Issue: w/n accused incur no criminal liability by reason

of mistake of fact
Ruling: NO.
Citing the Ah Chong case: “IgnorantiaFactiExcusat”

applies only when mistake is committed w/o fault or
carelessness.
They have exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty by

killing the person whom they believed to be Balagtas
without any resistance from him and without making any
9
Pastor
previous inquiry as to his identity. With Tecson asleep,
accused had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his
identity without hazard to themselves, considering
victim was unarmed. Thus his petition is denied, and he
is criminally liable for the murder (w/ mc of incomplete jc
#5) of Tecson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES vs AH CHONG
FACTS
Ah Chong worked as a cook at the “Officers’ quarters No.

27, Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal Province.” In a datached house,
only Ah Chong sleeps with and Pascual Gualberto, a
muchaho. It was not furnished with a permanent lock. O
August 14, 1908, around 10’o clock in the evening, Ah
Chong was suddenly awaken because someone had
been trying to open the room. Out of fear, He shouted
“who is there” but none replied. Instead, the other
person kept on forcing his entry. Ah Chong believed that
it was a thief, and shouted again “if you enter, I will kill
you!” Again none replied. Upon entry, and out of fear Ah
Chong inflicted a wound on the intruder’s stomach with a
common kitchen knife. Afterwards, he realized, that
person was his roomate Gualberto. He immediately
10
Pastor
called his employers and dressed Pascual’s wound but
he died on the following day.
Ah Chong was placed under arrest and was charged w/

crime of assassination. He was tried and found guilty by
trial court of simple homicide.
Ah Chong admitted that he killed Pascual but insisted

that he struck the fatal blow w/out any intent to do
wrongful act., in the exercise of his lawful right of self
defense.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong should be exempt from

criminal liability by reason of mistake as to the facts.
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court held that
“A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the

case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman
struck the fatal blow alleged in the information in the
firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of
his sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he
was in imminent peril, both of his life and of his property
and of the property committed to his charge; that in
view of all the circumstances, as they must have
presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he
11
Pastor
acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal
intent, in the belief that he was doing no more
than exercising his legitimate right of self-
defense; that had the facts been as he believed them
to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal
liability on account of his act; and that he can not be
said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or
even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the
facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself
from the imminent danger which he believe threatened
his person and his property and the property under his
charge.”
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 4: PROXIMATE CAUSE
US V. VALDEZ
FACTS: At about noon, on November 29, 1919, while the

interisland steamer Vigan was anchored in the Pasig
River, a small boat was sent out to raise the anchor. The
crew of this boat consisted of the accused, Calixto Valdez
y Quiri, and six others among whom was the deceased,
VenancioGargantel. The accused was in charge of the
men and stood at the stern of the boat, acting as
helmsman, while VenancioGargantel was at the bow.
12
Pastor
The work raising the anchor seems to have proceeded
too slowly to satisfy the accused, and he accordingly
began to insult the men. Upon this VenancioGargantel
remonstrated, saying that it would be better, and they
would work better, if he would not insult them. The
accused took this as a display of insubordination; and
rising in rage he moved towards Venancio, with a big
knife, threatening to stab him. At the instant when the
accused had attained to within a few feet of Venancio,
the latter, evidently believing himself in great and
immediate peril, threw himself into the water and
disappeared beneath its surface to be seen no more.
As it was full midday, and there was nothing to obstruct

the view of persons upon the scene, the failure of
VenancioGargantel to rise to the surface conclusively
shows that, owing to his possible inability to swim or the
strength of the current, he was borne down into the
water and was drowned.
ISSUE: WON Valdez was criminally responsible.
RULING: YES. Gargantel, believing himself to be in great

and immediate peril, threw himself into the water,
impelled by the instinct of self preservation, Valdez who
criminally assaulted him by threatening to stab him with
a big knife, is responsible for homicide.
13
Pastor
As to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the
death thus occasioned the likewise can be no doubt; for
it is obvious that the deceased, in throwing himself in
the river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self-
preservation and was in no sense legally responsible for
his own death. As to him it was but the exercise of a
choice between two evils, and any reasonable person
under the same circumstances might have done the
same. As was once said by a British court, "If a man
creates in another man's mind an immediate
sense of dander which causes such person to try
to escape, and in so doing he injuries himself, the
person who creates such a state of mind is
responsible for the injuries which result." (Reg. vs.
Halliday, 61 L. T. Rep. [N.S.], 701.
The accused must, therefore, be considered the

responsible author of the death of VenancioGargantel,
and he was properly convicted of the offense of
homicide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pp v. PURIFICACIONALMONTE
September 7, 1931 G.R. No. 35006
14
Pastor
FACTS: Purification lived maritally with the Chinaman
Felix Te Sue who was a married man. A certain
MguelaDawal, with whom Felix had also lived maritally,
threatened to bring suit against him unless he rejoined
her, and so Te Sue and Purification voluntarily agreed to
separate. From that time on Te Sue lived in together
with the said MiguelaDawal.
On the morning of October 1, 1930, the accused visited

her former paramour, found him with Miguela. When Te
Sue saw her, he approached and told her to go away at
once because her new paramour might get jealous and
do her harm. The accused insisted upon remaining, and
on being pushed by Te Sue and Miguela, feeling that she
was being unjustly treated, took hold of a small penknife
she carried and stabbed the man in the abdomen.
Horrified, perhaps, at her deed, she fled to the street,
leaving the blade sticking in her victim's abdomen. The
injured man was at once taken to the provincial hospital
where he was given first aid treatment, and Doctor
Ortega performed a slight operation upon him.
From the testimony of Dr. Ortega, it may be inferred:

That the deceased was stabbed on the left side of the
abdominal region, near the navel; that the wound did not
involve any internal organ; that upon arriving at the
15
Pastor
hospital, he was submitted to a minor operation which
consisted in cleaning, medicating, and suturing the
wound; that upon his arrival, the patient was in a
nervous state; that during the operation they tied down
the patient; that immediately after the operation Doctor
Ortega admonished him to keep quiet because any
movement he might make would change his pathological
state for the worse and bring about dangerous
complication; that in spite of this admonition the
deceased moved about, sitting up in bed, getting up and
pacing about the room; that because of this, the internal
vessels, already congested because of the wound, bled,
and the hemorrhage thus produced caused his death.
The defense contends, with which the Attorney-General

agrees, that according to Doctor Ortega's testimony the
determining cause of Te Sue's death was not he wound
inflicted by the accused, but his own carelessness in
moving about against the doctor's orders, which
produced the internal hemorrhage.
ISSUE: Whether the wound inflicted by the accused

would held him liable for the crime.
RULING: YES.
16
Pastor
The court concluded that the internal veins were
congested from the beginning because of the force of
the blow which produced the wound, and that what
really impelled the patient to violate the doctor's orders,
by sitting up in bed and pacing about the room, was not,
as the defense insinuates, a desire to aggravate the
criminal liability of the accused, but simply his nervous
condition, which was noted from the moment he entered
the provincial hospital. It was not the warmth of the bed
or his not being used to it that made the patient act as
he did, but the pathological state created by the illness
brought on by the wound from which he was suffering.
The court was convinced that under normal conditions, if
the patient had not been ill, he would not have violated
the doctor's orders, knowing, as he did, that the slightest
movement might occasion a complication or internal
hemorrhage capable of causing death.
The patient's nervous condition when the complication

or internal hemorrhage which caused death set in, was
an inherent physiological condition produced by the
wound in the abdomen. It goes without saying that if he
had not been wounded he would not have undergone
that extraordinary state and condition, nor have had to
leave his bed during the critical stage of his illness.
17
Pastor
Lastly, in United States vs. Zamora (32 Phil., 218),
The court held that "One who performs a criminal
act should be held to liability for the act and for
all of its consequences, although both were
inflicted upon a person other than the one whom
the felon intended to injure."
However, the appellant is entitled to the mitigating

circumstances of not having intended to commit so
serious a crime as that committed, and of having acted
with passion and obfuscation. The first is shown by the
fact that she made use of a small penknife, and the
second, by the fact that before the attack she had been
pushed out of the room where the victim was, and that
she considered such treatment as an offense or abuse.
The penalty must therefore be reduced one degree or to
prision mayor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PP v. Toling(62 SCRA 17, Jan 17,1975)
Facts: Antonio Toling and Jose Toling, twins, from

Northern Samar, visited their children in Manila on Jan 6,
1965. . On their homeward trip, the twins boarded Bicol
Express Train. After the train passed by Cabuyao,
Laguna, a murderous rampage happened allegedly
18
Pastor
caused by the twins, armed with pair of scissors and a
knife. Most of the passengers scurried away for safety
but the twins, who had run amuck, stabbed everyone
whom they encountered inside the coach.
Constabulary Sergeants Vicente Z. Rayel and Vicente

Aldea were among the passengers of the train who tried
to stop the twins. CS Aldea was able to stop Antonio and
wrested the scissors away.
When they arrived at Calamba station, 4 CS escorted the

twins from the train and turned them over to the custody
of the Calamba Police.
Some of the victims were found dead in the coach while

otherd were picked up along the railroad tracks between
Cabuyao& Calamba.
Toling brothers, in their statement, topd the investigators

that while in the train they were held up by 2 or more
persons.
Filed against Toling brothers in the MTC of Cabuyao,

Laguna was an information for multiple murder (9
victims) and multiple frustrated murder(six victims) and
triple homicide( as to the persons who died from the
running train to avoid being stabbed.
19
Pastor
ISSUE: (1) Whether the accused were criminally liable for
the deaths. YES- 8 separate murders and 1 attempted
murder
(2) Whether the accused is criminally responsible

for the deaths of those who jumped from the train. NO
RULING: (1) witnesses confirmed the admissions of the

twins that they stabbed several passengers. On the
theory of self- defense is highlyincredible, as none of the
passengers noticed the alleged hold up. Also, defense
failed to prove that persons, other than the twins, could
have inflicted the stab wounds.
(2) No one testified that those 4 victims jumped from the

train. Had the necropsy reports been reinforced by
testimony showing that the proximate cause of their
deaths was the violent and murderous conduct of the
twins, then the latter would be criminally responsible for
their deaths.
Absent of eyewitness-testimony as to the jumping from

the train of four victims precludes the imputations of
criminal responsibility to the appellants for the ghastly
deaths of the said victims.
20
Pastor
People vs Ortega
FACTS:
• October 15, 1992 5:30 pm: Andre Mar Masangkay

(courting Raquel Ortega), Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega,
Roberto San Andres, Searfin, Boyet and
DiosdadoQuitlong were having a drinking spree with gin
and finger foods.
• October 15, 1992 11:00 pm: Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and

Manuel Garcia who were already drank joined them.
• October 16, 1992 midnight: Andre answering a call of

nature went to the back portion of the house and
Benjamin followed him. Suddenly, they heard a shout
from Andre “Don’t, help me!” (Huwag,
tulunganninyoako!)
• Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Benjamin on top of

Andre who was lying down being stabbed. Ariel got
Benjamin Ortega, Sr., Benjamin’s father while Diosdado
called Romeo to pacify his brother. Romeo, Benjamin and
Manuel lifted Andre from the canal and dropped him in
the well. They dropped stones to Andre’s body to weigh
the body down. Romeo warned Diosdado not to tell
anybody what he saw. He agreed so he was allowed to
go home. But, his conscience bothered him so he told
21
Pastor
his mother, reported it to the police and accompanied
them to the crime scene.
• NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat:
o cause of death is drowning with multiple stab

wounds, contributory
o 13 stab wounds
o stab wound on the upper left shoulder, near the

upper left armpit and left chest wall- front
o stab wound on the back left side of the body and the
stab wound on the back right portion of the body – back
• Manuel Garcia alibi
o He was asked to go home by his wife to fetched his

mother-in-law who performed a ritual called “tawas” on
his sick daughter and stayed home after
• Benjamin Ortega, Jr. story
o After Masangkay left, he left to urinate and he saw

Andre peeking through the room of his sister Raquel.
Then, Andre approached him to ask where his sister was.
When he answered he didn’t know, Andre punched him
so he bled and fell to the ground. Andre drew a knife and
22
Pastor
stabbed him, hitting him on the left arm, thereby
immobilizing him. Andre then gripped his neck with his
left arm and threatened to kill him. Unable to move,
Ortega shouted for help. Quitlong came, seized the
knife and stabbed Andre 10 times with it. Andre then
ran towards the direction of the well. Then, he tended
his wound in the lips and armpit and slept.
• RTC: Benjamin and Manuel through conspiracy and

the taking advantage of superior strength committed
murder
ISSUE: W/N Benjamin and Manuel should be liable for

murder.
HELD: NO. PARTLY GRANTED. Benjamin is guilty only of

homicide. Manuel deserves acquittal
• If Ortega’s version of the assault was true, he should

have immediately reported the matter to the police
authorities. If Ortega’s version of the assault was true,
he should have immediately reported the matter to the
police authorities. It is incredible that Diosdado would
stab Andre 10 times successively, completely ignoring
23
Pastor
Benjamin who was grappling with Masangkay and that
Andre was choking him while being stabbed.
• Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent

on the part of the accused to take advantage of such
superiority – none shown
o Andre was a 6-footer, whereas Ortega, Jr. was only

5’4”
• Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code states

that criminal liability shall be incurred by “any person
committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.”
o The essential requisites
1. the intended act is felonious – assisting Benjamin by

carrying the body to the well
2. the resulting act is likewise a felony - concealing

the body of the crime to prevent its discovery
3. the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily

caused by the actor’s wrongful acts (praeterintentionem)
– still alive and was drowned to death
• a person may be convicted of homicide although he

had no original intent to kill
24
Pastor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Urbano v. IAC
Facts:
On October 23, 1980, petitioner FilomenoUrbano was on

his way to his ricefield. He found the place where he
stored palay flooded with water coming from the
irrigation canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion to
see what happened, and there he saw Marcelino Javier
and Emilio Efre cutting grass. Javier admitted that he
was the one who opened the canal. A quarrel ensued,
and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm with his bolo, and
again on the leg with the back of the bolo. On October
27, 1980, Urbano and Javier had an amicable settlement.
Urbano paid P700 for the medical expenses of Javier. On
November 14, 1980, Urbano was rushed to the hospital
where he had lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor found
the condition to be caused by tetanus toxin which
infected the healing wound in his palm. He died the
following day. Urbano was charged with homicide and
was found guilty both by the trial court and on appeal by
the Court of Appeals. Urbano filed a motion for new trial
based on the affidavit of the Barangay Captain who
25
Pastor
stated that he saw the deceased catching fish in the
shallow irrigation canals on November 5. The motion was
denied; hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the

proximate cause of the latter’s death
Held:
A satisfactory definition of proximate cause is... "that

cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred."And more comprehensively, "the proximate
legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury,
either immediately or by setting other events in motion,
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under
such circumstances that the person responsible for the
first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at
26
Pastor
the moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom."
If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was

already infected by tetanus germs at the time, it is more
medically probable that Javier should have been infected
with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms
of tetanus appeared on the 22nd dayafter the hacking
incident or more than 14 days after the infliction of the
wound. Therefore, the onset time should have been
more than six days. Javier, however, died on the second
day from theonset time. The more credible conclusion is
that at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the
appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was
not yet present. Consequently, Javier's wound could
have been infected with tetanus after the hacking
incident. Considering the circumstance surrounding
Javier's death, his wound could have been infected by
tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he
died.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the

direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds
inflicted upon him by the accused. And since we are
dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the
accused caused the victim's death must convince a
27
Pastor
rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical
findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that
the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause later or between the time Javier was
wounded to the time of his death. The infection was,
therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote

cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to take
necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the
proximate cause of Javier's death with which the
petitioner had nothing to do. "A prior and remote cause
cannot be made the be of an action if such remote cause
did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise
to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if
there intervened between such prior or remote cause
and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and
efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury
would not have happened but for such condition or
occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except
because of the independent cause, such condition was
not the proximate cause. And if an independent
negligent act or defective condition sets into operation
the instances which result in injury because of the prior
defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is
the proximate cause."
28
Pastor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE v ABARCAGR No. 74433
FACTS
Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of accused Francisco

Abarca, Jenny, had illicit relationship. The illicit
relationship apparently began while the accused was in
Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar examinations and his
wife was left behind in their residence in Tacloban.
One day, upon reaching home from his father’s house,

the accused found Jenny and Khingsley Koh in the act of
sexual intercourse. Jenny and Koh noticed the accused,
the wife pushed Koh who got his revolver and the
accused who was then peeping above the built-in
cabinet in their room jumped and ran away.
The accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City

and got an M-16 rifle from C2C Arturo Talbo, Going back,
he proceeded to the "mahjong session" and fired at
Kingsley Koh three times with his rifle. Arnold and Lina
Amparado who were occupying a room adjacent to the
room where Koh was playing mahjong were also hit by
the shots fired by the accused. Kingsley Koh died
instantaneously of cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock
and hemorrhage as a result of multiple gunshot wounds
29
Pastor
on the head, trunk and abdomen. Arnold Amparado was
hospitalized and operated on in the kidney to remove a
bullet. His wife, Lina Amparado, was also treated in the
hospital as she was hit by bullet fragments. The court
found him guilty of the complex crime of murder with
double frustrated murder.
ISSUE
Whether or not Abarca should be guilty of the crime

charged to him
HELD
No. Article 247 of the RPC must be applied in the instant

case.
ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under

exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person
who, having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall
kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any
serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.
30
Pastor
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other
kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same

circumstances, to parents with respect to their
daughters under eighteen years of age, and their
seducers, while the daughters are living with their
parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate prostitution of

his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented
to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled
to the benefits of this article.
Article 247 prescribes the following elements:
(1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in

the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person; and
(2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or

immediately thereafter.
These elements are present in this case. Though quite a

length of time, about one hour, had passed between the
time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having
sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter
was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to
31
Pastor
be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the
accused-appellant. The Revised Penal Code, in requiring
that the accused "shall kill any of them or both of
them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in the
act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit
the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the
death caused be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his
spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing
should have been actually motivated by the same blind
impulse, and must not have been influenced by external
factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the
accused's rage.
When it comes to the liability of the accused-appellant

for the injuries suffered by Lina Amparado and Arnold
Amparado, we cannot therefore hold the accused liable.
This does not mean, however, that the accused-
appellant is totally free from any responsibility. Granting
the fact that he was not performing an illegal act when
he fired shots at the victim, he cannot be said to be
entirely without fault.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
32
Pastor
PEOPLE V ULEP (G.R. No. L-36858June 20, 1988)
FACTS: On May 21, 1970, at nine o'clock in the evening,

in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, one Asuncion Pablo Ulep
died as a result of physical injuries inflicted upon her on
that very day by her husband, accused MacarioUlep. The
following day, the Chief of Police of San Nicolas, Ilocos
Norte received a report of the said death of Asuncion
Pablo who allegedly died of a heart attack. The Chief of
Police and the Rural Health Officer went to the house of
the deceased and there they saw the body on a bamboo
bed surrounded by relatives, friends, and the husband of
the deceased, Macario. The Chief of Police suggested
that an autopsy be conducted but the husband refused
to allow the same. However, the daughter of the
deceased by a previous marriage asked for a day or two
to decide on her preference.
At the behest of the daughter, the request for an

autopsy was made shortly before the burial.
Two weeks after the burial, two (2) constabulary

sergeants investigated MacarioUlep. A statement was
prepared and signed by the accuse. In this statement, he
admitted that he caused the death of his wife by
elbowing her because his wife was then drunk and was
uttering indecent words. In another investigation, Ulpe’s
33
Pastor
statement subscribed to before Fiscal Abaya, reiterated
that the cause of death of his wife, Asuncion Pablo, was
his elbowing her on her breast.
Ulep narrated that this elbowing and attack took place at

their home at 5:30 in the afternoon. She vomitted and
then went to bed, The accused then left for the fields
and returned at around 9:00 in the evening and found
his wife dead on her bed. He reported this death to their
barrio captain.
Despite these statements, admitting his guilt, Ulep

retracted his statement in court by narrating that more
than a year before that, and while his wife went to have
their palay milled, their bullcart loaded with sacks of rice
turned upside down and pinned his wife on her breast.
With the pain in her chest, she was treated by a country
quack doctor or "arbularyo."
ISSUE: WON Ulep caused the death of his wife, thus

committing Parride
RULING: YES. From all the observations, findings, and an

incisive study of the necropsy report, the cause of death
of the wife-victim in this case is cardiac arrest and
primary shock caused by the strong pressure applied on
the upper front chest bone. This happens when one
34
Pastor
steps, kneels or presses the body of a victim against a
wall. The man-size blows coming from the elbow of the
aggressor upon a thin-framed woman can only bring
about fatal results.
In the case of Reg. v. Slane, et al., the deceased had

received injuries to the abdomen by kick and blows, but
there were no marks of bruises present, or anything to
show the cause of death. Death however, had followed
twenty minutes after the maltreatment and was
evidently due to the shock. The prisoners were convicted
of murder.
We have previously stated that:
Even if the victim is suffering from an internal ailment,

liver or heart disease, or tuberculosis, if the blow
delivered by the accused —
(a)is the efficient cause of death; or (b)accelerated his

death; or (c)is the proximate cause of death; then there
is criminal liability.
Apropos to all these is that time-respected doctrine: "He

who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused." This is the rationale in Article 4 of the Revised
Penal Code which provides that "criminal liability shall be
incurred by a person committing a felony (delito)
35
Pastor
although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended."
Even though a blow with the fist or a kick does not cause
any external wound, it may easily produce inflammation
of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death, and even
though the victim may have been previously affected by
some internal malady, yet if the blow with the fist or foot
accelerated death, he who caused such acceleration is
responsible for the death as the result of an injury
willfully and unlawfully inflicted.
Accused was found guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------PP v.
Bindoy (August 28, 1931)
On May 6, 1930, in a tuba wineshop in barrio market of

Calunod, Misamis Occidental, Donato Bindoy offered
some tuba to Tibay, Faustino Pacas' wife. She refused
and Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept.
Pacas stepped in to defend his wife and attempted to
take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. The
disturbance attracted the attention of Emigdio
Omamdam. In the course of the struggle, Bindoy
succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching
the bolo from the latter's hand, with such violence that
36
Pastor
the point of the bolo reached Omamdam's chest, who
was then behind Bindoy. The trial court held that Bindoy
was guilty of the crime of homicide. Bindoy appealed,
alleging that the death of Omamdam was caused
accidentally and without malicious intent.
ISSUE: WON the crime of which Bindoy was found guilty

of can be mitigated on the ground of accident.
HELD: Yes. Decision is reversed. Bindoy is acquitted

according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Penal Code (cant find
the provision)
RATIO:
1. There is no evidence to show that Bindoy

deliberately and intentionally killed Omamdam.
• No evidence that Omamdam took part in the
fight between Bindoy and Pacas.
• No evidence that Bindoy was aware of
Omamdam's presence.
• No evidence that there was disagreement or ill
feelings between Bindoy&Omamdam. On the
contrary, they were nephew & uncle, & were on
good terms with each other.
2. The witness for the defense corroborates the

defendant to the effect that Pacas and Bindoy were
actually struggling for the possession of the bolo, and
37
Pastor
that when the latter let go, the former had pulled so
violently that it flew towards Omamdam, who was
therefore hit in the chest, without Bindoy's seeing him,
because Omamdam had passed behind him. The
testimony of this witness was not contradicted by any
rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal.
3. If, in the struggle, the defendant had attempted to

wound his opponent, and instead of doing so, had
wounded Omamdam, he would be liable for his act, since
whoever willfully commits a felony or a misdemeanor
incurs criminal liability, although the wrongful act done is
different from that which he intended. This is not the
case here. Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas. He was
only trying to defend his possession of the bolo, which
Pacas was trying to wrench away from him. His conduct
was perfectly lawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Causes that produce a different result
PEOPLE V GONA (MANSACA)
(G.R. No. 32066, 54 Phil. 605 March 15, 1903)
FACTS: (Pantukan, Davao, 1928) During a family

reunion of the Mansacas, a quarrel took place between
Dunca and the defendant Gona. Dunca and his son
38
Pastor
eventually left the house and were followed by Mapudul
and one Award. Gona also left to follow them, but in the
darkness of the evening and in his intoxicated condition,
Gona mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicated on him a
mortal wound with a bolo.
Gona was charged for homicide before the CFI Davao.

However, his attorney argues that he had no intention to
kill the deceased and committed the crime by mistake,
thus, he should have been found guilty of homicide
through negligence only and not of the graver crime of
intentional homicide.
ISSUE: WON the mistake of killing another person than

the one intended relieves Gona from the graver crime of
intentional homicide.
HELD: No. In this case of United States vs. Mendieta (34

Phil., 242), the court said:
Even admitting that the defendant intended to injure

Hilario Lauigan instead of Pedro Acierto, even that, in
view of the mortal wound which inflicted upon the latter,
in no way could be considered as a relief from his
criminal act. That he made a mistake in killing one man
instead of another, when it is proved that he acted
maliciously and willfully, cannot relieve him from
criminal responsibility. Neither do we believe that the
fact that he made a mistake in killing the wrong man
should be considered as a mitigating circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
PP v. Mabug-at
39
Pastor
Facts:
The accused and Juana Buralo was sweethearts. Juana

had been jealous of the accused on account of the latter
having frequently visited the house of one Carmen. Their
relations were such that the accused invited Juana to
take a walk on the afternoon of August 9, 1925. Juana
refused him, later sending him a note of excuse. On the
third day, or the night of August 11th, the accused went
to the threshold of Cirilo Banyan's house where Juana
Buralo had gone to take part in some devotion. There
the accused, revolver in hand, requested Francisco
Abellon to ask Juana to come downstairs and as Abellon
refused to do so, the accused said: "If you do not want to
go upstairs, I will get Juana and if anyone tries to defend
her I will kill him."
The accused waited until Juana and her niece Perfecta

Buralo came downstairs, when they went in the direction
of their house. The accused, who was seen by the two
girls, followed them without saying a word. It is only a
short distance from the house where the devotion took
place to that of the offended party, the houses being
adjacent. As the two girls were going upstairs, the
accused, while standing at the foot of the stairway, fired
a shot from his revolver which wounded Perfecta Buralo,
the bullet passing through a part of her neck, having
entered the posterior region thereof and coming out
through the left eye, which was completely destroyed.
Due to proper medical attention, Perfecta Buralo did not
die and is on e of the witnesses who testified at the trial
of this case.
40
Pastor
The defense, without abandoning its allegation that the
accused is not responsible for the crime, contends that
the crime proven is not frustrated murder but the
discharge of a firearm, with injuries, it not having been
proven that it was the accused's intention to kill.
The relations existing between the accused and Juana

Buralo, his disappointment at her not accepting his
invitation to take a walk, the fact that the accused,
revolver in hand, went to look for Juana Buralo at the
house where the devotion was being held, later following
her to her house, and especially having aimed at her
person--the head--are facts which, in our opinion, permit
of no other conclusion than that, in firing the shot, it was
the accused's intention to kill.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of frustrated

murder
Held: Yes.
In the decision of this court in the case of United States

vs. Montenegro (15 Phil., 1), it was held:
We do not doubt that there may be cases wherein the

discharge of a firearm at another is not in itself sufficient
to sustain a finding of the intention to kill, and there are
many cases in the books wherein the attendant
circumstances conclusively establish that on discharging
a firearm at another the actor was not in fact animated
by the intent to kill. But, in seeking to ascertain the
intention with which a specific act is committed, it is
always proper and necessary to look not merely to the
act itself but to all the attendant circumstances so far as
41
Pastor
they are developed by the evidence; and where, as in
the case at bar, a revolver is twice discharged point-
blank at the body of another, and the shots directed at
the most vital parts of the body, it needs but little
additional evidence to establish the intent to kill beyond
a reasonable doubt.
The fact that a person received the shot which was

intended for another, does not alter his criminal liability.
(Art. 1, par. 3, Penal Code.)
It was aggravated by the circumstance of treachery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
PP v. Cagoco
Facts:
On July 24, 1932, Yu Lon and Yu Yee, father and son,

stopped total on the sidewalk. While they were talking, a
man passed back and forth behind Yu Lon once or twice,
and when Yu Yee was about to leave his father, the man
that had been passing back and forth (Francisco Cagoco)
approached Yu Lon from behind and suddenly and
without warning struck Yu Lon with his fist on the back
part of the head. Cagoco immediately ran away. Yu Yee
and two other witnesses pursued him and then lost sight
of him. The blow caused Yu Lon to fall on the ground. As
a consequence of which he suffered a lacerated wound
on the scalp and a fissured fracture on the left occipital
region which were necessarily mortal and caused his
immediate death. The next day, Yu Yee promptly
reported the incident to the police. Cagoco was later
42
Pastor
apprehended and identified by Yu Yee as his father‘s
assailant.
Issue:Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder.
Held:Yes.
As to the contention that the deceased would have fallen

on his face if he had been struck on the back of the
head, the expert testimony shows that in such a case, a
person instinctively makes an effort to regain his
balance. As a result, the deceased may have fallen
downwards. Further, the sidewalks almost invariably slop
towards the pavement so that when the deceased
straightened up, he naturally tended to fall backwards.
The accused struck the deceased on the back of the
head because it would have been necessary for him to
go between the deceased and Yu Yee who were then
conversing.
In order that a person may be criminally liable for felony

different from that which he proposed to commit, these
two requisites should be present:
1. that a felony was committed
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the

direct consequence of the crime committed by the
offender.
In the case at bar, there is nothing to indicate that Yu

Lon‘s death was due to some extraneous case. It was
clearly the direct consequence of the accused‘s felonious
act and the fact that he did not intend to cause so great
an injury does not relieve him from the consequence of
43
Pastor
his unlawful act, but is merely a mitigating circumstance.
Since the accused committed the felony with treachery,
he is guilty of murder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
PP v. Bindoy
Facts: SAME
ISSUE: WON Bindoy should be held liable for the death of

Omamdam.
HELD: No. Decision is reversed. Bindoy is acquitted

according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Penal Code (cant find
the provision)
RATIO:
1.There is no evidence to show that Bindoy deliberately

and intentionally killed Omamdam.
• No evidence that Omamdam took part in the fight

between Bindoy and Pacas.
• No evidence that Bindoy was aware of Omamdam's

presence.
• No evidence that there was disagreement or ill feelings

between Bindoy&Omamdam. On the contrary, they were
nephew & uncle, & were on good terms with each other.
2. The witness for the defense corroborates the

defendant to the effect that Pacas and Bindoy were
actually struggling for the possession of the bolo, and
44
Pastor
that when the latter let go, the former had pulled so
violently that it flew towards Omamdam, who was
therefore hit in the chest, without Bindoy's seeing him,
because Omamdam had passed behind him. The
testimony of this witness was not contradicted by any
rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal.
3. If, in the struggle, the defendant had attempted to

wound his opponent, and instead of doing so, had
wounded Omamdam, he would be liable for his act, since
whoever willfully commits a felony or a misdemeanor
incurs criminal liability, although the wrongful act done is
different from that which he intended. This is not the
case here. Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas. He was
only trying to defend his possession of the bolo, which
Pacas was trying to wrench away from him. His conduct
was perfectly lawful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Impossible Crime
INTOD, et. al. V CA.
G.R. No. 103119October 21, 1992
Facts: Sulpicio Intod and 3 other men went to Salvador

Mandaya’s house to ask him to go with them to the
house of BernardinaPalangpangan. The group had a
meeting with AnicetoDumalagan who told Mandaya that
he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land
dispute between them and that Mandaya should
45
Pastor
accompany the 4 men otherwise he would also be killed.
At 10:00 p.m. of that same day, Intod and companions,
all armed with firearms arrived at Palangpangan’s house.
Thereafter, petitioner fired at the said room. It turned out
the Palangpangan was in another city and her home was
then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one
was in the room when the accused fired. No one was hit
by the gunfire. The RTC convicted Intod of attempted
murder. Petitioner Intod seeks a modification of the
judgment on the ground that he is only liable for an
impossible crime {Art. 4(2)}. Petitioner contends that,
Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he
and his companions riddled it with bullets made the
crime inherently impossible. On the other hand,
Respondent People of the Philippines argues that the
crime was not impossible instead the facts were
sufficient to constitute an attempt and to convict Intod
for attempted murder. Respondent likewise alleged that
there was intent. Further, In its Comment to the Petition,
respondent pointed out that “xxx. The crime of murder
was not consummated, not because of the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment (Art 4 (2), RPC), but
due to a cause of accident other that petitioner’s and his
co-accused’s own spontaneous desistance (Art. 3)
Palangpangan did not sleep at her house at that time.
Had it not been for this fact, the crime is possible, m not
impossible.
Issue: Is petitioner is liable only for an impossible crime?
Held:Under Article 4(2) of the RPC, the act performed by

theoffender cannot produce an offense against person or
property because: 1) the commission of the offense is
inherently impossible of accomplishment; or 2) the
46
Pastor
means employed is either a) inadequate or b)
ineffectual.
To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by

the offender must be by its nature one impossible of
accomplishment. There must be either 1) legal
impossibility, or 2) physical impossibility of
accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the
act as an impossible crime.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended act, even

if complete would not amount to a crime. Thus: legal
impossibility would apply to those circumstances where
1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an
act in violation of the law; 2) there is intention to
perform the physical act; 3) there is a performance of
the intended physical act; and 4) the consequence
resulting from the intended act does not amount to a
crime. The impossibility of killing a person already dead
falls in this category.
On the other had, factual impossibility occurs when

extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
intended crime. One example is the man who puts his
hand in the cot pocket of another with the intention to
steal the latter’s wallet and finds the pocket empty.
The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner

shoots the place where he thought his victim would be,
although in reality, the victim was not present in said
47
Pastor
place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his
end.
The factual situation in the case at bar presents a

physical impossibility which render the intended crime
impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient
to make the act an impossible crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
PP v. Domasian (March 1, 1993)
FACTS:
• March 11, 1982 morning: While Enrico was walking

with Tirso Ferreras, his classmate, along Roque street in
the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was approached by
Pablito Domasian who requested his assistance in
getting his father's signature on a medical certificate.
Enrico agreed to help and rode with the man in a tricycle
to Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man
went into a building to get the certificate. Enrico became
apprehensive and started to cry when, instead of taking
him to the hospital, the man flagged a minibus and
forced him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The
man told him to stop crying or he would not be returned
to his father. When they alighted at Gumaca, they took
another tricycle, this time bound for the municipal
building from where they walked to the market. Here the
man talked to a jeepney driver and handed him an
envelope addressed to Dr. Enrique Agra, the boy's father.
The two then boarded a tricycle headed for San Vicente.
48
Pastor
As Enrico was crying and being firmly held, Alexander
Grate, the tricycle driver became suspicious and asked
Domasian about his relationship with the boy who told
him they were brothers. Their physical differences and
the wide gap between their ages made Grate doubt so
he immediately reported the matter to two barangay
tanods when his passengers alighted from the tricycle.
Grate and the tanods went after the two and saw the
man dragging the boy. Noticing that they were being
pursued, Domasian was able to escape, leaving Enrico
behind. Enrico was on his way home in a passenger jeep
when he met his parents, who were riding in the hospital
ambulance and already looking for him.
• At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after

Enrico's return, Agra received an envelope containing a
ransom note. The note demanded P1 million for the
release of Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy
would be killed. Agra thought the handwriting in the note
was familiar. After comparing it with some records in the
hospital, he gave the note to the police, which referred it
to the NBI for examination
• March 11, 1982 1:45 pm: Agra received an envelope

containing a ransom note demanding P1 million
otherwise Enrico will be killed. . Agra thought the
handwriting in the note was familiar so he referred it to
the NBI for examination and it turned out to be Dr.
Samson Tan’s signature.
• Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with

the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention in
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
49
Pastor
o Domasian’s alibi: at the time of the incident he was
watching a mahjong game in a friend's house and later
went to an optical clinic with his wife for the refraction of
his eyeglasses
o Dr. Tan’s alibi: he was in Manila
• Enrico, Tirso Ferreras and Grate all pointed

Domasian.
• RTC: Domasian and Tan guilty as charged and

sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and all accessory penalties
• Appealed
ISSUE: W/N Domasian and Tan is guilty of kidnapping

kidnapping with serious illegal detention
HELD: YES. appealed decision is AFFIRMED
• Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention

may consist not only in placing a person in an enclosure
but also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner
of his liberty
• Tan claims that the lower court erred in not finding

that the sending of the ransom note was an impossible
crime which he says is not punishable.
• Tan conveniently forgets the first paragraphs of the

same article, which clearly applies to him, thus:
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be

incurred:
50
Pastor
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
• Even before the ransom note was received, the crime

of kidnapping with serious illegal detention had already
been committed. The act cannot be considered an
impossible crime because there was no inherent
improbability of its accomplishment or the employment
of inadequate or ineffective means. The sending of the
ransom note would have had the effect only of
increasing the penalty to death under the last paragraph
of Article 267 although this too would not have been
possible under the new Constitution.
• On the issue of conspiracy, we note first that it exists

when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it, whether they act through physical volition of
one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. These
acts were complementary to each other and geared
toward the attainment of the common ultimate
objective, viz., to extort the ransom of P1 million in
exchange for Enrico's life.
• The motive for the offense is not difficult to discover.

According to Agra, Tan approached him 6 days before
the incident happened and requested a loan of at least
P15,000.00. Agra said he had no funds at that moment
and Tan did not believe him, angrily saying that Agra
could even raise a million pesos if he really wanted to
help.
51
Pastor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Jacinto v. PP ( July 13, 2009)
FACTS:Baby Aquino handed petitioner Gemma Jacinto a

Banco De Oro (BDO) Check in the amount of P10,000.00
as payment for the purchases from Mega Foam Int'l.,
Inc., and petitioner was then the collector of MegaFoam.
Somehow, the check was deposited in the Land Bank
account of Generoso Capitle, the husband of Jacqueline
Capitle; the latter is the sister of petitioner.
Later, Rowena Ricablanca, another employee of Mega

Foam, received a phone call from an employee of Land
Bank,who informed her that the subject BDO check
deposited in Generoso Capitle’s account had been
dishonored. Ricablanca called Anita Valencia, a former
employee/collector of Mega Foam. Valencia told
Ricablanca that the check came from Baby Aquino, and
instructed Ricablanca to ask Baby Aquino to replace the
check with cash. Valencia also told Ricablanca of a plan
to take the cash and divide it equally into four: for
herself, Ricablanca, petitioner Jacinto and Jacqueline
Capitle.
Ricablanca, upon the advise of Mega Foam’s accountant,

reported the matter to the owner of Mega Foam, Joseph
Dyhengco.Thereafter, Joseph Dyhengco talked to Baby
Aquino and was able to confirm the BDO check for
P10,000.00 as payment for her purchases from Mega
Foam. Baby Aquino further testified that petitioner
Jacinto also called her on the phone to tell her that the
BDO check bounced. Verification from company records
52
Pastor
showed that petitioner never remitted the subject check
to Mega Foam. However, BabyAquino said that she had
already paid Mega Foam P10,000.00 cash as
replacement for the dishonored check.
Dyhengco filed a Complaint with the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI) and worked out an entrapment
operation with its agents. Ten pieces of P1,000.00 bills
provided by Dyhengco were marked and dusted with-
fluorescent powder by the NBI. Thereafter, the bills were
given to Ricablanca, who was tasked to pretend that she
was going along with Valencia's.
On August 21, 2007, the petitioners were arrested at

Baby Aquino’s factory by NBI agents through entrapment
operation.
Petitioners (Jacinto, Valencia & Capitle were found guilty

if qualified theft.
ISSUE:Whether the crime of qualified theft was actually

produced.
HELD: No. CA decision is modified. Petitioner Gemma

jacinto is found guilty of IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.
In this case,petitioner performed all the acts to

consummate the crime of qualified theft. 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.
Requisites of impossible crime:
53
Pastor
1.That the act 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.
There must be either (1) Legal impossibility, or (2)

physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act
in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.
Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense,

petitioner's act of receiving the cash replacement should
not be considered as a continuation of the theft. The
plan to convince Baby Aquino to give cash as
replacement for the check was hatched only after the
check had been dishonored by the drawee bank.
Since said scheme was not included or covered by the

allegations in the information, the Court cannot
pronounce judgment on the accused, otherwise, it would
violate the due process clause of the Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 6 Consumated/ Frustrated/ Attempted Stages
PEOPLE v PANCHO
(G.R. 136592-93416 SCRA 506, November

27, 2003)
FACTS: Pancho was charged for 2 criminal complaints, 1

for rape, the other for attempted rape. In both cases, his
54
Pastor
victim was his 11-year old step-daughter. He was
charged guilty in the rape case. However, in the case for
attempted rape, he contended that it was not supported
by evidence. Thus, the trial produced the following
testimony:
A: When he was coming near me, I hit him and I saw that
our door was opened. I tried to jump and that was the
time he dragged and he held my feet.
Q: And what happened after Manolito Pancho held your

feet?
A: When he was holding my feet I was not able to jump

from the window and thats the time the door opened
and then I saw my uncle that is why the rape was not
committed.
ISSUE: WON there was attempted rape?
HELD: NO. Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the

Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted when the
offender commences the commission of rape directly by
overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the crime of rape by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. There is no attempted rape in this case
because the accused just dragged the victim and held
her feet, which are not indicative of an intent or attempt
to rape the victim.
The prosecution failed to prove that appellant started to

rape the victim and had commenced the performance of
acts of carnal knowledge. He did not force her to lie
down or remove her garment. In short, there was no
55
Pastor
showing that he did commence at all the performance of
any act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape the
victim. What he did was to drag her and hold her feet. At
this juncture, we cannot safely conclude that he was
attempting to rape her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PP v. Lamahang
Facts:
At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose

Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Delgado and
C.R. Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caught the
accused in the act of making an opening with an iron bar
on the wall of a store of cheap goods located on the last
named street. At that time the owner of the store, Tan
Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman. The
accused had only succeeded in breaking one board and
in unfastening another from the wall, when the
policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and
placed him under custody.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is liable for attempted

robbery
Held: No. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion,

and so hold that the fact under consideration does not
constitute attempted robbery but attempted trespass to
dwelling (People vs. Tayag and Morales, 59 Phil., 606,
and decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain therein
cited). Under article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, this
offense is committed when a private person shall enter
the dwelling of another against the latter's will. The
56
Pastor
accused may be convicted and sentenced for an attempt
to commit this offense in accordance with the evidence
and the following allegation contained in the
information: "... the accused armed with an iron bar
forced the wall of said store by breaking a board and
unfastening another for the purpose of entering said
store ... and that the accused did not succeed in entering
the store due to the presence of the policeman on beat
Jose Tomambing, who upon hearing the noise produced
by the breaking of the wall, promptly approached the
accused ... ." Under the circumstances of this case the
prohibition of the owner or inmate is presumed. (U.S. vs.
Ostrea, 2 Phil., 93; U.S. vs. Silvano, 31 Phil., 509' U.S. vs.
Ticson, 25 Phil., 67; U.S. vs. Mesina, 21 Phil., 615; U.S.
vs. Villanueva, 18 Phil., 215; U.S. vs. Panes, 25 Phil.,
292.) Against the accused must be taken into
consideration the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime and former convictions, — inasmuch as the
record shows that several final judgments for robbery
and theft have been rendered against him — and in his
favor, the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.
The breaking of the wall should not be taken into
consideration as an aggravating circumstance inasmuch
as this is the very fact which in this case constitutes the
offense of attempted trespass to dwelling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Valenzuela vs People
FACTS:
• Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were sighted

outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the
57
Pastor
ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo
Lago, a security guard who was then manning his post at
the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw
Valenzuela, who was wearing an ID with the mark
“Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)” who hauled a push
cart with cases of detergent of “Tide” brand and
unloaded them in an open parking space, where
Calderon was waiting. He then returned inside the
supermarket and emerged 5 minutes after with more
cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these
boxes to the same area in the open parking space.
Thereafter, he 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. As Lago watched, he proceeded to stop the
taxi as it was leaving the open parking area and asked
Valenzuela for a receipt of the merchandise but
Valenzuela and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot.
Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security
guards. Valenzuela and Calderon were apprehended at
the scene and the stolen merchandise recovered worth
P12,090.
• Valenzuela, Calderon and 4 other persons were first

brought to the SM security office before they were
transferred to the Baler Station II of the Philippine
National Police but only Valenzuela and Calderon were
charged with theft by the Assistant City Prosecutor.
• They pleaded not guilty.
• Calderon’s Alibi: On the afternoon of the incident, he

was at the Super Sale Club to withdraw from his ATM
58
Pastor
account, accompanied by his neighbor, LeoncioRosulada.
As the queue for the ATM was long, he and Rosulada
decided to buy snacks inside the supermarket. While
they were eating, they heard the gunshot fired by Lago,
so they went out to check what was transpiring and
when they did, they were suddenly grabbed by a
security guard
• Valenzuela’s Alibi: He is employed as a “bundler” of

GMS Marketing and assigned at the supermarket. He
and his cousin, a Gregorio Valenzuela, had been at the
parking lot, walking beside the nearby BLISS complex
and headed to ride a tricycle going to Pag-asa, when
they saw the security guard Lago fire a shot causing
evryon to start running. Then they were apprehended
by Lago.
• RTC: guilty of consummated theft
• CA: Confirmed RTC and rejected his contention that it

should only be frustrated theft since at the time he was
apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely
dispose of the articles stolen.
ISSUE: W/N Valenzuela should be guilty of consummated

theft.
HELD: YES.
• Article 6 defines those three stages, namely the

consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies.
o A felony is consummated “when all the elements

necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.”
59
Pastor
o It is frustrated “when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it
by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.”
o It is attempted “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.”
• Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a:
o subjective phase - portion of the acts constituting the

crime included between the act which begins the
commission of the crime and the last act performed by
the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime
 if the offender never passes the subjective phase of

the offense, the crime is merely attempted
o objective phase - After that point of subjective phase

has been breached
 subjective phase is completely passed in case of

frustrated crimes
• 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
60
Pastor
• 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.
• “actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea” - ordinarily,

evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be
a crime or there can be no crime when the criminal mind
is wanting
• In crimes mala in se, mensrea has been defined

before as “a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or
criminal intent” and “essential for criminal liability.”
• Statutory definition of our mala in se crimes must be

able to supply what the mensrea of the crime is and
overt acts that constitute the crime
• Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (Elements of

Theft):
1. that there be taking of personal property - only one

operative act of execution by the actor involved in theft
2. property belongs to another
3. taking be done with intent to gain - descriptive

circumstances
4. taking be done without the consent of the owner -

descriptive circumstances
5. taking be accomplished without the use of violence

against or intimidation of persons or force upon things -
descriptive circumstances
61
Pastor
• Abandoned cases:
o U.S. v. Adiao: failed to get the merchandise out of the

Custom House - consummated theft
o Diño: Military Police inspected the truck at the check

point and found 3 boxes of army rifles - frustrated theft
o Flores: guards discovered that the “empty” sea van

had actually contained other merchandise as well -
consummated theft
o Empelis v. IAC: Fled the scene, dropping the coconuts

they had seized - frustrated qualified theft because
petitioners were not able to perform all the acts of
execution which should have produced the felony as a
consequence
 cannot attribute weight because definition is

attempted
• The ability of the actor “to freely dispose of the

articles stolen, even if it were only momentary.”
o We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the

taking by the petitioner was completed in this case. With
intent to gain, he acquired physical possession of the
stolen cases of detergent for a considerable period of
time that he was able to drop these off at a spot in the
parking lot, and long enough to load these onto a
taxicab.
• Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot

have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted (no
62
Pastor
unlawful taking) or consummated (there is unlawful
taking).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE V. ERIÑA [50 Phil. 998 (1927)]
Facts: In 1927, Julian Erinia was found guilty of raping a

child aged 3 years and 11 months. A doctor who
examined the girl hours after the incident found slight
inflammation on the exterior of the vagina, but
expressed doubt whether the man's penis had entered
the vagina. The mother also testified that a sticky
substance covered her child's genitals, but penetration
could not be concluded from this , either.
Issue: WON crime is consummated?
HELD: No. The Supreme court held that the crime was in
the Frustrated stage only because:
1. it is not possible for a man’s organ to enter the labia

of a 3 years and 8 months old child (Kennedy v. State);
and
2. there was no conclusive evidence of penetration.
The Supreme Court ruled that Erinia was entitled to the

benefit of the doubt due to the lack of conclusive
evidence of penetration. The verdict was modified from
consummated rape to frustrated rape.
Justice Malcolm wrote a dissenting opinion, citing similar

past cases. He opined that it was consummated rape,
63
Pastor
following past cases where the tip of the man's penis
had entered the lips of the child's vagina.
In the same verdict, Justice Ostrand also emphasized

that penetration is not essential to the commission of
rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PP v. Orita
FACTS:
• March 20, 1983 Early Morning: Cristina S. Abayan,

19-year old freshman student at the St. Joseph's College,
arrived at her boarding house after her classmates
brought her home from a party. She knocked at the door
of her boarding house when a frequent visitor of another
boarder held her and poked a knife to her neck. Despite
pleading for her release, he ordered her to go upstairs
with him. Since the door which led to the 1st floor was
locked from the inside, they used the back door to the
second floor. With his left arm wrapped around her neck
and his right hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, he
dragged her up the stairs. When they reached the
second floor, he commanded herwith the knife poked at
her neck, to look for a room. They entered Abayan's
room. He then pushed her hitting her head on the wall.
With one hand holding the knife, he undressed himself.
He then ordered her to take off her clothes. Scared, she
took off her T-shirt, bra, pants and panty. He ordered her
to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He made
her hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. Still poked
with a knife, she did as told but since she kept moving,
64
Pastor
only a portion of his penis entered her. He then laid
down on his back and commanded her to mount him.
Still only a small part of his penis was inserted into her
vagina. When he had both his hands flat on the floor.
She dashed out to the next room and locked herself in.
When he pursued her and climbed the partition, she ran
to another room then another then she jumped out
through a window.
• Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, 18

meters in front of the boarding house and knocked on
the door. When there was no answer, she ran around the
building and knocked on the back door. When the
policemen who were inside the building opened the
door, they found her naked sitting on the stairs crying.
Pat. Donceras, took off his jacket and wrapped it around
her. Pat. Donceras and two other policemen rushed to
the boarding house where they heard and saw
somebody running away but failed to apprehend him
due to darkness. She was taken to Eastern Samar
Provincial Hospital where she was physically examined.
• Her vulva had no abrasions or discharges.
• RTC: frustrated rape
ISSUE: W/N there is frustrated rape.
HELD: NO. RTC MODIFIED. guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the
amount of P30,000
65
Pastor
• Correlating Art. 335 and Art. 6, there is no debate
that the attempted and consummated stages apply to
the crime of rape.
• Requisites of a frustrated felony are:
o (1) that the offender has performed all the acts of

execution which would produce the felony
o (2) that the felony is not produced due to causes

independent of the perpetrator's will
• attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be

thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes
and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he
has performed all of the acts which should produce the
crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to
perform
o If he has performed all of the acts which should

result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily
desists from proceeding further, it can not be an
attempt.
• in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender

has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his
purpose and, from that moment also all the essential
elements of the offense have been accomplished. Any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ,
without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina
is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is
attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ
66
Pastor
• The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused
may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victim's
testimony if credible. Dr. Zamora did not rule out
penetration of the genital organ of the victim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 8 Conspiracy- Levels of Conspiracy
Fernan Jr. et. Al v. People
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 10 – OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE

PROVISIONS OF THE CODE
GO-TAN V. TAN
G.R. No. 168852
FACTS: Sharica (petitioner) and Steven Tan are married

with 2 daughters. Petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer
for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO)
against Steven and her parents-in-law, alleging that
Steven, in conspiracy with her parents in law, were
causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon
her in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262, otherwise
known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004.
Respondents contended that the RTC lacked jurisdiction

over their persons since, as parents-in-law of the
petitioner, they were not covered by Sec 3 of the said
law which explicitly provides that the offender should be
67
Pastor
related to the victim only by marriage, a former
marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship
Petitioner argued that respondents were covered by R.A.

No. 9262 under a liberal interpretation thereof aimed at
promoting the protection and safety of victims of
violence. R.A. No. 9262 must be understood in the light
of the provisions of Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 which
explicitly provides for the suppletory RPC and,
accordingly, the provision on conspiracy under Article 8
of the RPC can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No. 9262
ISSUE: WON R.A No. 9262 may be liberally interpreted to

include the parents-in-law as an ‘offender.’
HELD: Yes. While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides

that the offender be related or connected to the victim
by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the
principle of conspiracy under the RPC.
Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides

for the suppletory application of the RPC, thus:
SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this

Act, the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws,
shall have suppletory application.
Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides:
ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this

Code. Offenses which are or in the future may be
punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
68
Pastor
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary.
Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code

may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes
punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in
which the special law is silent on a particular matter.
With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy

under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to
R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of
Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said
law.Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their
nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily.
Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A.

No. 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to
achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the
act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or
modality of participation of each of them becomes
secondary, since all the conspirators are principals
ARTICLE 11
C. STATE OF NECESSITY
TY V PEOPLE
[G.R. No. 149275. September 27, 2004]
69
Pastor
Tys mother and her sister were confined at the
Manila Doctors Hospital for almost 2 years. Since the bill
reached 1,075,592.95, Ty drew 7 PDCs covering 30k
each against Metrobank payable to the hospital.
However, they were all dishonored due to insufficiency of
funds. Soon thereafter, the complainant hospital filed
7 counts of violation of B.P 22. For her defense, Ty
claimed that she issued the checks because of an
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. She averred that
she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for
her mother whom the hospital inhumanely and harshly
treated and would not discharge unless the hospital bills
are paid. She alleged that her mother was deprived of
room facilities, such as the air-condition unit, refrigerator
and television set, and subject to inconveniences such
as the cutting off of the telephone line, late delivery of
her mothers food and refusal to change the latters gown
and bedsheets. The hospital also suspended medical
treatment of her mother.
ISSUE: WON the justifying circumstance of state of

necessity under par. 4, Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code
may find application in this case.
HELD: No. The law prescribes the presence of three

requisites to exempt the actor from liability under this
70
Pastor
paragraph: (1) that the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists; (2) that the injury feared be greater than
the one done to avoid it; (3) that there be no other
practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is

merely expected or anticipated, thus, the defense is not
applicable. Ty could have taken advantage of an
available option to avoid committing a crime. By her own
admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other
forms of security instead of postdated checks to secure
her obligation.
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be

availing, the greater injury feared should not have been
brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more
so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, the
issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by
Tys own failure to pay her mother’s hospital bills.
ARTICLE 12
PEOPLE V. CORTEZANO & CORTEZANO
[G.R. No. 140732. January 29, 2002]
71
Pastor
FACTS: Lourney Cortezano had 3 children, one of
whom was Leah who was still 8 years old at that time.
She left her 3 children to the care of her parents-in-law
who were living under the same roof with their children,
accused - Joel (13), Butchoy (12), Tinggang (6), and their
nephew Boyet (6).
Early in the afternoon of May 6, 1990, Joel and

Bernardo ordered their niece Leah to sleep in their
parents room. Joel threatened to whip her if she refused.
She was woken up by her uncles Joel and Butchoy who
were undressing her; she struggled as they raped her.
When Boyet arrived, Joel and Bernardo ordered him

to rape Leah and threatened to box him if he
refused. Joel and Bernardo laughed as Boyet was having
his turn with Leah. Joel and Bernardo then called Leah
Lou and Lionel into the room, letting them see their
sister naked.
Joel and Bernardo threatened to kill her and the

members of the family if she told anyone about what
happened to her. Petrified, Leah did not reveal to her
grandparents what happened to her. After that first
harrowing incident, Joel and Bernardo subjected her to
72
Pastor
sexual abuse daily. Joel and Bernardo were charged with
4 counts of rape.
ISSUE: WON the Joel and Bernardo, being minors, 12

and 13 years of age, respectively, should be exempt
from criminal liability.
HELD: NO. They are not exempt from criminal liability.
Article 12. (3) The following are exempt from criminal

liability: (3). A person over nine years of age and under
fifteen, unless he acted with discernment, in which case,
such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
A minor who is over nine years old and under fifteen

years old at the time of the commission of the crimes is
exempt from criminal liability only when the said minor
acted without discernment. It is the burden of the
prosecution to prove that a minor acted with
discernment when he committed the crime charged.
In determining if such a minor acted with discernment,

the Courts pronouncement in Valentin v. Duquea[34] is
instructive:
73
Pastor
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the
exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen
years of age but over nine, who commits an act
prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand
the difference between right and wrong, and such
capacity may be known and should be determined by
taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each case, the very
appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment
and behavior of said minor, not only before and during
the commission of the act, but also after and even
during the trial.
In this case, the evidence on record shows beyond cavil

that the appellants acted with discernment when they
raped the victim, thus: (a) they wetted the victims
vagina before they raped her; (b) one of them acted as a
lookout while the other was raping the victim; (c) they
threatened to kill the victim if she divulged to her
parents what they did to her; (d) they forced Boyet to
rape the victim; (e) they laughed as Boyet was raping
the victim; (f) they ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to look
at their sister naked after the appellants had raped her.
74
Pastor
REMIENDO V. PEOPLE
(GR 184874; October 9, 2009)
FACTS: Robert was charged with a crime of rape against

a minor allegedly committed on March and May 1997.
He waited for AAA’s parents to leave the house before
defiling the latter and threatening to kick her if she
should shout for help. He was a minor whose age is
above 15 but below 18 years old at the time of the
crime. He was then convicted of rape but on appeal
invoked a suspension of sentence pursuant to R.A. No.
9344. By the time he was convicted by the trial court
and before the case was elevated to the Court of
Appeals, he was already 22 years old.
ISSUE: WON RA 9344 may be given retroactive effect,

thus exempting the petitioner, who is convicted by RTC &
already 22 y/o before the case was elevated to CA.
HELD: NO. Pursuant to Sec. 38 and 40 of RA 9344,

the suspension of sentence can no longer be availed
since by the time his sentence was imposed by the trial
court, he was already 22 years old. Pursuant to Sec. 6 of
RA 9344, if a child is above 15 and below 18 years old,
the finding of discernment is necessary to determine if
he would be exempted from criminal liability. Culled from
75
Pastor
the records of this case, it is manifested
that Robert acted with discernment, being able to
distinguish between right and wrong and knowing fully
well the consequences of his acts.
His act of waiting for the AAA’s parents to leave the

house before defiling the latter and threatening to kick
her if she should shout prove that Robert can
differentiate what is right and wrong. He was born on
January 21, 1982. The Joint Judgment was promulgated
on October 27,2004. Thus, at the time of the imposition
of his sentence, he was already 22 years old and could
no longer be considered a child for the purposes of the
application of R.A. No. 9344.
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the

difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is
burdened to prove that the accused acted with
discernment by evidence of physical appearance,
attitude or deportment not only before and during the
commission of the act, but also after and during the trial.
The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that
the minor knew what he was doing and that it was
wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature
of the crime and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness.
ACCIDENT
76
Pastor
PEOPLE V. GENITA
[G.R. No. 126171. March 11, 2004]
FACTS: One night, while the victims Reynaldo Timbal

and Jesus Bascon were loading firewood in a truck,
appellant who was drunk and armed with an M-14 rifle,
asked Reynaldo for a Christmas gift. He was told to come
back, and so he did. He soon returned and fired his gun
at Jesus’ feet, hitting his left leg. Appellant then went
near the truck’s bumper and fired at the tire near the
chassis. Then he changed the magazine of his gun
and fired again at Jesus, this time, hitting his right
leg. Reynaldo ran away but appellant chased him and
fired at him, hitting his nape and right hand. The two
victims died.
Appellant contended that the incident was a mere

accident. According to him, he was a member of the
CAFGU and was on his way to the camp, when, suddenly
somebody grasped his neck. As a result, he accidentally
pulled the trigger of the M-14 rifle slung on his shoulder,
which automatically fired. Immediately he rushed to the
camp and reported the incident to Sgt. Montealto who
placed the camp on alert.
77
Pastor
ISSUE: WON the appellant should be exempted from
criminal liability given his contention that the incident
was an accident.
HELD: NO. Considering the number of gunshot wounds,

the shooting could not have been an accident.
Appellants version that he accidentally shot the two
victims is incredible. Accident is an exempting
circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal
Code. It must be stressed that in raising this defense,
appellant has the burden of the evidence and it was
incumbent upon him to establish that he was exempt
from criminal liability.[9] He must show with clear and
convincing proofs that: 1) he was performing a lawful act
with due care, 2) the injury caused was by a mere
accident, and 3) he had no fault or intention of causing
the injury.
Considering appellants evidence, it is clear that the

requisites of accident as an exempting circumstance
were not proven. First, appellants manner of carrying
his M-14 rifle negates his claim of due care in the
performance of an act. Knowing that his rifle was
automatic, he should have seen to it that its safety lock
was intact. Worse, he admitted that his finger was
constantly on the trigger. With the safety lock released
78
Pastor
and his finger on the trigger, how can we conclude that
he acted with due care? We cannot accept his version
that he was just following his trainers instruction to
release the safety lock while in a critical area. [10] For one,
he never presented his trainer to corroborate his
statement; and for another, he was not in a critical
area. Second, the number of wounds sustained by the
victims shows that the shooting was not merely
accidental. Both victims sustained more than one
wound. While it could have been possible that the first
wound sustained by both victims was by accident,
however, the subsequent wounds sustained by them in
different parts of their bodies could not have been
similarly inflicted. And third, appellant manifested an
unmistakable intent to kill the victims when he re
loaded his rifle after his first unsuccessful attempt to
kill them. Jesus had already sought refuge by jumping
into the truck when another bullet hit his right
leg. Reynaldo was already running away when he was
shot on his nape and right hand. That appellant chased
the victims and shot them several times clearly show
that he had the intent to kill them. [11] His defense must
necessarily fail.
Moreover, if it were true that someone attacked

appellant, thus causing him to accidentally pull the
79
Pastor
trigger of his rifle, then his natural reaction should have
been to defend himself. Instead, he rushed towards the
camp. Furthermore, he did not present any evidence to
support his allegation that the CAFGU was placed on
alert. And not a single witness corroborated his version
of accidental shooting, an indication that it is fabricated.
ARTICLE 13 - MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
A. PRAETER INTENTIONEM
PEOPLE V. NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA

JAURIGUE
(C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946)
FACTS: Amado Capina is Avelina’s admired. It all

started when he snatched Avelina’s handkerchief
bearing her nickname while it was washed by her cousin.
Later, Amado professed his love for her which was
refused, and thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed
her and touched her breasts. She then slapped
him, gave him fist blows and kicked him. She armed
herself with a long fan knife whenever she went out.
Few days after, Amado climbed up the house of Avelina
and entered the room where she was sleeping. She felt
her forehead and she immediately screamed for help
which awakened her parents and brought them to her
80
Pastor
side. Amado came out from where he had hidden and
kissed the hand of Avelina’s father, Nicolas. Later, they
learned that Amado had been falsely boasting in the
neighbourhood of having taken liberties with her person.
One night, Avelina Jaurigue and her father went to the

chapel of Seventh Day Adventists. Amado went and sat
by Avelina’s right side, and without saying a word,
placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh.
This prompted her to pull out the fan knife with the
intention of punishing Amado’s offending hand. Amado
seized her right hand but she quickly grabbed the knife
on her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of
the left side of the neck inflicting upon him a mortal
wound (4 ½ in deep). He died in a few minutes.
Avelina was found guilty of homicide. She appealed to

completely absolve her of all criminal responsibility
for having acted in defense of her honor, to find in her
favour additional mitigating circumstances and omit
aggravating circumstance.
ISSUES: WON should find the additional

mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender,
presence of provocation and absence of intent in her
favour.
81
Pastor
HELD: YES. Mitigating circumstances are considered in
her favour. Circumstances include her voluntary and
unconditional surrender to the barrio lieutenant,
provocation from the deceased which produced
temporary loss of reason and self-control of the
defendant and lack of intent to kill the deceased
evidenced by infliction of only one single wound.
The defendant and appellant immediately and

voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to the barrio
lieutenant in said chapel, admitting having stabbed the
deceased, immediately after the incident, and agreed to
go to her house shortly thereafter and to remain there
subject to the order of the said barrio lieutenant, an
agent of the authorities; and the further fact that she
had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave
offense committed against her a few moments before,
and upon such provocation as to produce passion and
obfuscation, or temporary loss of reason and self-control,
should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her
favor.
Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not

intended to kill the deceased but merely wanted to
punish his offending hand with her knife, as shown by
the fact that she inflicted upon him only one single
82
Pastor
wound. And this is another mitigating circumstance
which should be considered in her favor.
83

Criminal Law Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law I – Case Digests

Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Elizaga |Masanguid |Pacquiao |

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG

FACTS: Appellee is accused of having illegally smoked

ISSUE: Whether the courts of the Philippines have

HELD: There are two fundamental rules on this

US vs. Look Chaw, December 16, 1911

Facts: Several persons (including the internal-revenue

The fiscal filed for “unlawful possession of opium”

The opium seized in the vessel had been bought by the

The defense moved for a dismissal of the case, on the

The lower court ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction,

The defendant appealed. The issue to be resolved in this

Issue: Whether or not the Philippine courts have

Held: Yes, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction.

GR: mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these

EX: when the article, whose use is prohibited within the

Modified by reducing the imprisonment and the fine

U.S. v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978 (1917)

Cf. French vs. English rule

FACTS: The defendant is a subject of China employed as

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of

RULING: Yes. It is the onus of the government to prove

Respondent Hon. Baltazar R. Dizonpresided the criminal

Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is

HELD: Yes. Respondent judge has shown gross

In invoking the provisions of CB No. 969 to justify the

Facts: Provincial Inspector received a telegram that

Oanis&Galanta were charged with murder. In their

The lower court held and so declared them guilty of the

Issue: w/n accused incur no criminal liability by reason

Citing the Ah Chong case: “IgnorantiaFactiExcusat”

They have exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty by

UNITED STATES vs AH CHONG

Ah Chong worked as a cook at the “Officers’ quarters No.

Ah Chong was placed under arrest and was charged w/

Ah Chong admitted that he killed Pascual but insisted

ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong should be exempt from

HELD: YES. The Supreme Court held that

“A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the

ARTICLE 4: PROXIMATE CAUSE

FACTS: At about noon, on November 29, 1919, while the

As it was full midday, and there was nothing to obstruct

ISSUE: WON Valdez was criminally responsible.

RULING: YES. Gargantel, believing himself to be in great

The accused must, therefore, be considered the

September 7, 1931 G.R. No. 35006

On the morning of October 1, 1930, the accused visited

From the testimony of Dr. Ortega, it may be inferred:

The defense contends, with which the Attorney-General

ISSUE: Whether the wound inflicted by the accused

The patient's nervous condition when the complication

However, the appellant is entitled to the mitigating

PP v. Toling(62 SCRA 17, Jan 17,1975)

Facts: Antonio Toling and Jose Toling, twins, from

Constabulary Sergeants Vicente Z. Rayel and Vicente

When they arrived at Calamba station, 4 CS escorted the

Some of the victims were found dead in the coach while

Toling brothers, in their statement, topd the investigators

Filed against Toling brothers in the MTC of Cabuyao,

(2) Whether the accused is criminally responsible

RULING: (1) witnesses confirmed the admissions of the