CARLOS CASTAÑARES, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:

Castanares sought to reverse the charges against him of two counts of homicide to self-defense. Antecedent facts
are as follow; that sometime in February 1967 petitioner admitted the killing and turned himself over the
authorities for the deaths of the Pacheco brothers. Petitioner then filed a motion with the CA arguing that the
charges be dropped and that he only acted on self defense. The court on its review decided upon the following
circumstances and evidence presented; first is from the prosecution of which it had presented two witnesses with
presented testimonies that are doubtful to say the least due to the circumstance that they were in. The defense
however presented eye witness testimonies of their own which corroborated on each account, from two witnesses
and from the petitioner himself. Additionally, the medio-legal performed from each deceased provided evidence
also that the petitioner acted on self defense.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner should be acquitted of the charges and does his action constituted self-defense.

Held:
Whereas upon the review of the court and the evidence presented, under the RPC Art. 11 on justifying
circumstances, it is within merit that petitioner only acted upon self-defense. The court ruled that it is basic nature
of a person to protect his life or rights during such altercation which meted the use of necessary force to protect
one’s own life and limb. That the provocation and unlawful aggression initially started with the Pacheco brother,
with them bringing a gun and bladed weapon during the confrontation and with intent on harming the petitioner,
it is only with due recourse that Castanares was justified in wrestling the gun from the assailants and incapacitating
them in this manner. The court reversed the decision in this manner due to the sufficient evidence presented by
the defense.

ORIEL MAGNO, petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:
Petitioner-appellant Magno was charged in violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 on grounds of drawing a check
without sufficient credit. Antecedent facts are as follow; Magno was on process of putting up car maintenance
business, however he was strap of available monies to funds said venture. He sought the assistance of one
Corazaon Teng, VP for Mancor, the company of which provideds the equipment he needed. Also Magno sought
the assistance of LS Finance with Joey Gomez of which he had a lease agreement for the continuation of his
business. Unknown to Magno, Gomez had employed the assistance from Teng for the financial support needed to
purchase said materials, to which the latter had conflicting interest as the lessor and VP for Mancor. Magno
purportedly also had to draw 6 checks as payment for the lease he had for LS Finance. Two of which were
successful deposited to Ms Teng, the actual creditor, while the other four were put on hold due to the fact that the
bank had foreclosed under the account of Magno. Based on the stated facts, Magno was then subsequently
charged in violation of BP Blg. 22 which he sought to reverse arguing that he had no intention of committing such
an act that violates the law.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has violated BP Blg. 22 or the Anti-Bouncing Check law.

Held:
Whereas upon the review of the court on the case at bar, they found out the petitioner didn’t violate any laws
based on the following elements and that the decision is reversed acquitting him of all crimes. That when
petitioner issued the four checks, he was able to inform Gomez on the status of the bank that Magno had used for
the checks which was foreclosed. Also that the checks were already in the possession of Teng, the petitioner had
no intention of not paying his lease with the private complainant.

JOEY P. MARQUEZ, Petitioner,

vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN 5th DIVISION and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.

Facts:
Petitioner Joey Marquez filed a motion for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the Sandiganbayan for failure to take into
consideration his defense arguing that his signature were forgery. Foregoing facts are as follow; that the petitioner
was charged with graft and corruption upon procurement of grossly overprice ammunition for the city of
Paranaque. The case was then raffled to SB-4th Division for judicial decision, incidentally the court presented
evidence against Marquez for the violation. Petitoner in his defense seek review from the NBI of the disbursement
check which allegedly was forged. In this instance the COA insisted that the motion for review lacks merit and
petitioner was merely delaying the proceedings.

Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred by denying petitioner the right to be heard by court and to produce
evidence in his defense.

Held:
Whereas upon review of the court, it was decided that the action of the Sandiganbayan in denying the petitioner
his right to be heard by court and providing evidence for his defense, the court has gravely abused their discretion.
Although the court may independently decide upon such instances it should not be impugn the basic rights of the
petitioner. Such exercise of power must be done with discretion and judiciously. The fact that the NBI can provide
substantial evaluation of the forgery in this case should not be put in duress.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
REYNATO ASUNCION and LEONARDO AGUINALDO, defendants-appellants.

Facts:
Respondents, Asuncion and Aguinaldo, both persons in authority, one being a member of the PC and a policemen,
is charged with murder with aggravating circumstances of “abuse of public position” Antecedent facts are as
follow. That sometime November 1978, respondents were tasked to pacify an altercation that occurred with the
NIA premises of CISA guards, Vergara, the deceased from the murder case was one of the persons at the scene of
altercation. When respondents arrived, they were looking for one Tapat who was incidental to the altercation.
Upon questioning of Vergara, they suspected the latter to be hiding Tapat. Respondent then ordered Vergara to
drop their weapon to which he obeyed, subsequently respondent fired a shot on Vergara’s leg. Vergara asked one
of his colleague, Sarmiento, to call for an ambulance. Upon reaching the security detachment Sarmiento asked
helped from his colleague but not would assist fearing being shot by the respondents. When Sarmiento informed
Vergara’s wife of the incident they went to the scene of the crime, unable to find the body initially, a trail of blood
was found wherein Vergara’s lifeless body was found shot twice, once in the head (face) and the leg. Days after
respondents reported to their superior reporting that they indeed shot Vergara and were then subsequently
charged with murder. However, respondent argued that the court erred in their ruling stating that they failed
providing substantial evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the court failed in providing sufficient evidence in ruling the case and that they only based the
decision in circumstantial case

Held:
Whereas the court upon it reviews of the foregoing ruled upon the circumstances that developed in the incident.
The testimony of witnesses upon the shooting of the deceased is conclusive in the probability that the respondents
committed the crime. The defense of Asuncion that he came only upon hearing the gunshot is near impossible.
Additionally the dubious and questionable statement of the respondents of which is conflicting on its own is
conclusive of guilt. And that the remarks of the guards from CISA fearing that the respondents will also shoot them
is consequential to that of abuse of public power.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

v.
TRINIDAD A. CAHILIG, Appellant.

Facts:
Cahilig, respondent, sought to amend the penalties presented to her over the following cases of qualified theft,
antecedent facts are as follow. That Cahilig was a cashier with WPESLAI and she had committed qualified theft on
30 accounts against the company. She was then subsequently charged and penalized with reclusion perpetua with
regards to the act. However on her appeal, respondent sought to amend the decision and she argued that 6 of the
30 counts are to be reduced from qualified theft to simple theft because the amount did not exceed of what was
stipulated on the law.

Issue:
Whether or not the court erred on the penalty imposed upon the respondent on six of the thirty cases previously
decided upon and that the charged of qualified theft was definite.

Held:
Whereas upon review of the court, Cahilig was a person tasked with trust from WPESLAI and that her position
made it easy for her to disburse the funds of the company. Her act was a direct violation of qualified theft that the
following elements were present; grave abuse of confidence, intent to take from another and willful gain and no
use of force or intimidation amongst other. Additionally her argument that six of thirty accounts were only
punishable by prision mayor, the court ruled that the elements necessary for qualified theft were present on all,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua is with merit.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EPIFANIO DIOKNO and ROMAN DIOKNO, defendants-appellants.

Facts:
Respondents Roman and Epifanio Diokno were charged for the murder of one Yu Hiong, however an appeal was
put forward stating that the court erred in the decision. Antecedent facts are as follow; Yu Hiong had eloped with
the daughter of Epifanio Diokno, of which the respondent was against on January 4, 1935. Three days later,
respondents were able to catch up with Yu Hiong in the house of one Antonio Layco in Laguna. Hiong upon seeing
the one of Diokno, flee and ran up the stairs, he was then subsequently stabbed in the back by Epifanio and Roman
followed suit. They were then charged with the crime of Murder respectively. Foregoing the circumstances, the
respondents appealed the case citing three instances to mitigate the crime committed. First there was no
premeditation committed, that the respondents surrendered on their own, and that the reason for stabbing was
due to passion or obfuscation on impulse on defending the honor of the respondents daughter.
Issue:
Whether or not the mitigating circumstances holds merit in court.

Held:
Whereas the decision of the court in this case that the penalty is homicide instead of murder, the foregoing
circumstances gives credit to the defense on their appeal. First is that the immediate surrender of respondents
should be taken into consideration where they admitted to the crime. Second that it was customary for the people
of the province to carry a bladed weapon or “balisong” that there wasn’t a premeditated to enact the stabbing of
Hiong which was merely incidental when the party had met. And lastly, that during the confrontation, when Hiong
had tried to refuse in dealing with Diokno, it was gravely taken that Hiong would not want to deal with the latter
which was a family of old customs. Incidentally the same attributed to the act which was viewed by Diokno as a
disrespect to his family and honor when Hiong and his daughter eloped.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JIMMY LAURIO and DOMINADOR "Tulong" LAURIO, accused. DOMINADOR "Tulong" LAURIO, accused-appellant.

Facts:
Respondent seeks to amend the suit filed against him from that of Murder to Slight Physical Injuries. Antecedent
facts are as follow; that on July 1989 brothers Jimmy and Dominador Laurio, respondents, were drinking beer at a
dance organized by one Manlapaz. Sometime during the night, Dominador boxed Ely Banculo, deceased, over a
quarrel with a woman. Dominador’s brother during the scuffle had then stab Banculo three times. Manlapaz who
saw the incident then reported to the barangay, subsequently Dominador was caught while his brother remain at
large. Respondent was then charged with intent to kill and premeditated treachery against the deceased.
However, respondent argued that he has no knowledge of the action of his brother in stabbing the latter and had
no prior intention to do the same. It was stated that he had only boxed the deceased over a quarrel with a woman.

Issues:
Whether or not respondent the court has erred in its initial decision in penalizing Laurio with murder.

Held:
Whereas the revised penal code states that on the violation of murder, there should be sufficient and strong
evidence of premeditation and treachery. That upon the review of the court there is no sufficient evidence that the
killing was premeditated and Dominador had only boxed the deceased. Additionally they had no prior argument
which would be the cause of the intent to kill or treachery from his end, the act should be mitigated only to that of
slight physical injury.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
VICENTE MATBAGON, Defendant-Appellant.

Facts:
Matbagon, respondent, sought to amend the decision brought before him from murder to homicide. Antecedent
facts are as follow; that sometime in May 1934 respondent was involved in an altercation with Rebutado,
deceased, in Cebu at a cockpit arena. Incident initially started when Matbagon made a remark over a tuba of the
deceased niece. A fight ensued later on wherein they were eventually broke apart by Rebutado’s brother in law.
Sometime later during the night after the incident when Rebutado started home with his son, Matbagon had
waited for Rebutado near a colo tree, respondent then and there stabbed the later which resulted in his death.
Now for the foregoing, Matbagon argued that the court erred in their decision of murder aggravating with
nocturnity and treachery since the incident happened during the night time.
Issue:
Whether or not the crime committed by respondent constitute treachery

Held:
Whereas the court on its review agreed with the defendant and amended the decision. Under the RPC, the
aggravating circumstances of treachery with use of night time is sought take advantage whereby the accused use
the darkness in facilitating the crime. The fact that the incident occurred during the night is merely incidental,
aleviosa cannot be used as an aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
CATALINO RABAO, Defendant-Appellant.

Facts:
Rabao, respondent, was charged with parricide with evident premeditation and use of superior strength by the
Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. Antecedent facts are as follow; that sometime during January 1956,
Rabao and his wife, deceased, had an argument over their child of which the deceased wanted to bathe. Rabao got
angry inciting that the child has a cold. An altercation then followed wherein Rabao punched his wife in the
abdomen, subsequently the latter died. Upon autopsy it was found out that the cause of the death is a ruptured
spleen which was brought about the external blow caused by Rabao. The defendant then argued that the action
was not premeditated as much as to cause harm on the latter.

Issue:
Whether or not the crime of parricide with evident premeditation and use of superior strength holds merit.

Held:
Whereas upon the review of the court, it is without doubt that Rabao committed parricide in the killing of his wife
however it was argued that there is no premeditation on the part of the respondent. The act brought about the
aggression was of natural cause that the defendant only sought to prevent the mother from giving their child
which was ill. That his action in punching the latter is of ill intent, Rabao did not wished to commit so much of an
action to kill her. However the imposed penalties of reclusion perpetua remains the same as is stated in the RPC

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LUIS B. TORING DIOSDADO BERDON and CARMELO B. BERDIN, accused-appellants.

Facts
Respondents Luis Toring, Diosdado Berdon and Carmelo Berdin were charged with Murder for the death of one,
Samuel Augusto. Antecedent facts are as follow; that sometime before the murder of Samuel, the older brother of
Luis Toring was at the receiving end of unlawful aggression from Samuel Augusto’s brother. Due to this a long
standing feud between both parties started. Then on May 25, 1980, during a dance in their respective barangay
that Toring and his colleagues attended, Samuel was stabbed by the latter, witness testimonies also ascertained
that Berdon provided the knife that was used in stabbing Samuel. Incidentally after the stabbing Berdin knew
where the bladed weapon was hidden implicating him in the crime. Subsequently on May 26, Toring surrendered,
and on his affidavit had implicated the above mentioned in the crime committed. Upon judicial proceedings,
Toring appealed his case citing his defense that the actuation of the crime was due to defense of a stranger or in
this case, one his colleagues, of which Toring stated was harassed and unlawfully aggressed by Samuel.

Issue:
Whether or not the defense use by Toring as to mitigate or justify his act holds merit in court
Held;
Whereas it was decided by the court in the defense of a stranger as a mitigating or justifying circumstances, under
the RPC that there should be an unlawful aggression towards the other (stranger/relative) being defended and that
there is lack of provocation from the same. Circumstances and witness testimonies provided the opposite in this
case, that prior the incident there was already a long standing feud between Toring and Augusto, to an effect
spiteful desire and vengeance gave way for the commission of the act. Additional witnesses did not see any
provocation on the part of Augusto during the events that would merit defense of a stranger as to justify the act
committed.